Lords Sitting of 6 July 1972

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.
The Marquess of Ely (L. Loftus)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.

RHODESIA: THE TEST OF ACCEPTABILITY
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: 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, in view of their commitment to the Five Principles, they can confirm or deny the statements being made in Salisbury that the November Settlement Proposals will be implemented by Her Majesty's Government if "responsible Africans" find them acceptable.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have made clear that any settlement must be in accordance with the Five Principles. But they have reserved judgment on the methods to be used in any future test of acceptability. Her Majesty's Government have not therefore indicated how the Fifth Principle could be satisfied.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness very much for that reply and for that recommitment to the Five Principles, may I ask whether she is aware, first, that the statement that there is a wish to re-examine the methods by which the test should be applied gives rise to great disquiet, not only on these Benches but throughout the Commonwealth? Secondly, is she aware that she has not answered my Question about the statements emanating from Salisbury?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, to speak on the last point first, if I may, I thought that I had answered the noble Baroness's Question because I said that "Her Majesty's Government have not therefore …" In other words, they are not our statements and there is no basis in fact for them. On the question of the methods, I think that it was generally agreed in the debate that we had in this House that we could not have another Pearce Commission. But it was also agreed, I think, that the Fifth Principle should be carried out; and that we affirm.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, while again thanking the noble Baroness for reaffirming the Fifth Principle, I should like to ask her whether she does not realise that the disquiet caused is because of their saying that they will alter the methods of applying the Principle. Not to answer an extremely authoritative report in the Sunday Mail in Salisbury, from a source which is extremely close to the régime there, saying that Her Majesty's Government would accept a decision by "responsible Africans", only adds to that disquiet. Could she not do something to dispel it?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, with all respect to the Press, in this country and elsewhere, I think that some reports always cause disquiet, although they may not in fact have substance. There have been no communications of the nature suggested in the article, which I did in fact see.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that according to the Press Mr. Smith and his Minister met tribal chiefs yesterday on the basis that they should represent the Africans, and that he is not prepared to tolerate an African Opposition Party within the Assembly?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BEHELVIE: My Lords, what Mr. Smith does within Rhodesia we have, unfortunately, no power, and have had no power since 1923, to prevent.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, do the Government still accept the test of acceptability?
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, does my noble friend Lady

1505
Tweedsmuir imagine that the noble Baroness opposite is unwilling to talk? If so, it would surprise me.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am sure that I can say to my noble friend that there was no question that the noble Baroness opposite would not be willing to talk. I am sure that she would on any occasion; and very well, too.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, to clarify a supplementary answer, could the noble Baroness direct the attention of the House to the Resolution in the Rhodesia debate where this House reached a conclusion on the form of consultation to be undertaken with the people of Rhodesia as a whole? I should not have thought, if I may put it in this way, that the House came to a view that the Pearce Commission provisions might not be repeated.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I do not think that that was the sense of the debate in any way. I think it was certainly the sense of the debate, with which Her Majesty's Government entirely agreed, that there should be a test of acceptability.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she will bear in mind that if there is any weakening of the criteria for the test of acceptability there will be grave disquiet in this country?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord need have those fears. What we have always said, and said during the debate, was that this was the time for all races within Rhodesia to try themselves to come to some conclusion.

GIBRALTAR: ANGLO-SPANISH TALKS
3.10 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, within the process of thinking together about Gibraltar by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and the
1506
Spanish Foreign Minister, whether detailed proposals will be under discussion this month or whether the talks will be of an exploratory nature.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the forthcoming talks will be a continuation of the process of "thinking together" which began when my right honourable friend visited Madrid earlier this year. They will be exploratory, confidential and without commitment.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend, especially for the latter part of her Answer—that is, that the talks will be without commitment—may I ask her whether, within this exploration that is to take place, it is Her Majesty's Government's intention, on the long-term basis, to seek to achieve an agreement with Spain similar to that reached with the Argentine Government over the Falkland Islands and presented last month to Parliament? This agreement does not in any way change the position regarding sovereignty, but does improve air and sea communications, and proposes machinery to facilitate trade and to permit a greater ease of commercial transactions between the mainland and that territory. On the long-term basis, would Her Majesty's Government consider such a proposal?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, as I said to my noble friend when he last raised this Question, we think that it would be of very great help to any exploratory talks if the restrictions on residents in Gibraltar could be lifted. In that sense, we certainly hope that that will come about. But, as I said, these are exploratory talks.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, while welcoming what the noble Baroness has said about lifting the appalling pressures which are being placed upon the people of Gibraltar, and in view of what she said about "no commitment", may I ask whether, under the preamble to the Constitution, Her Majesty's Government intend to consult the people of Gibraltar through a referendum, for which there is a precedent, about whatever proposals Her Majesty's Government may wish to make, and whether these would be open to consultation and approval by the

1507
people of Gibraltar? Also, will the noble Baroness undertake that there will be no economic or financial pressures placed upon the colony of Gibraltar in connection with this matter?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I would only say again that we have always made it clear that we stand by the Gibraltar Constitution Order 1969.

RAILWAYS BOARD AND SURPLUS LAND
3.14 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: 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 why there is so great a delay in authorising the sale of surplus land held by the British Railways Board.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, the Board are free to sell their surplus land without Government authority. They have sold more than 40,000 acres since 1964—over £36 million worth in the past three years. The Board are aware of the need to dispose of their surplus land with all due despatch, not only in their own interest but also in the interest of the nation's economy and the nation's environment.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's informative reply. May I ask him first, whether the land which is still due to be released in London is likely to make a fruitful contribution to solving London's housing problem? Secondly, so far as the countryside is concerned, may I ask whether there are any special schemes in relation to land due to be released?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, British Rail have released about 800 acres to the G.L.C. and to the London boroughs in the last eight years. They are currently engaged in a special survey under the auspices of the London Housing Action Group, established by my right honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, and in the last five months, in discussion with the London
1508
boroughs, have identified an additional 150 acres of potential land suitable for housing. Noble Lords will be aware that a new policy for the disposal of railway lines in the countryside has been in force since September, 1971, and I will send the noble Earl a copy of the circular.
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, will the noble Lord ask Her Majesty's Government to publish a list of properties not being used by British Rail, and state the Board's reasons for retaining them? It is only by an exposure of that kind that the point made by the noble Earl will be dealt with in the proper perspective of to-day's needs.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I will certainly consider that point, and get in touch with the noble Lord.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, will the Government keep in mind the necessity for retaining some of this land, which they seem to be under pressure to sell at this time? Quite clearly, they will eventually have to lay down fresh lines on this land to relieve congestion on our roads.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, in view of the great interest in this matter, may I ask the noble Lord whether, instead of supplying only his noble friend with the particulars referred to, he will circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT, so that more of us may have full knowledge of what is taking place? Also, will the noble Lord give an assurance that no pressure will be put upon British Rail to sell land other than to local authorities, until local authorities have been able to plan fully their future use of this land?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, if I may answer the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, first, I would say that although it is true that the Board are free to dispose of their surplus land, they are not themselves free to have it developed, nor is anybody else free to develop it outside the normal planning controls, and they are subject to the usual office development permits. I am conscious of what the two noble Lords opposite want from the Department, but at this stage I would rather say no more than that I will certainly consider the suggestion,

1509
and will see the scale of the operation required in order to furnish full particulars. In the light of what I am able to do, one or other of the noble Lords may consider putting down a further Question when I have indicated what information is available.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, on a some-what more modest scale, there are still within the ownership of the railways many miles of old forgotten tracks from which metal lines have been removed and which, in many cases, could not be used for normal road communications, but which could be used as an amenity for people who like to enjoy the countryside, and like to go through areas of the country that are difficult to get to by normal roads and pathways?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords. It was with that purpose very much in mind that the procedure set out in the circular to which I referred in answer to my noble friend was devised.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in view of the fact that this land is in public ownership, is it desirable for it to be transferred to private ownership and not kept in public ownership, even if in some other field of endeavour?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I think that question raises wider and different issues, which I shall certainly be ready to deal with if the noble Baroness will put down a Question.
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, I am sure it would help your Lordships' House if the particulars referred to earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, would state exactly what land was sold, what land was sold for agriculture, for private development and what land has been sold, or is arranged to be sold, to local authorities.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I have undertaken to consider the suggestion, but there is a very considerable amount of land and an enormous amount of work will be involved in obtaining full details. These details are not available in the Department at the moment, because what we are concerned with is land belonging to a nationalised industry. But I will certainly look into the matter and will get in touch with the noble Lord.

TELEVISION PROGRAMMES FOR BRITISH FORCES IN GERMANY
3.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can give any information on the possibility of providing English television programmes for British Forces in Germany.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the provision of English television programmes has been considered several times in the last ten years as one of the possible improvements in the amenities of our forces in Germany. It is likely to be costly and there are technical problems, but a further study is now in progress.
VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for his Answer may I ask whether he is aware that there are some formations in Germany, such as R.A.F. Station Gütersloh, which with private enterprise and self-help are prepared to provide a service themselves if Government help is forth-coming with the technical problems of frequencies, which is an inter-Governmental matter?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am aware that places like R.A.F. Station Gütersloh have made inquiries about various forms of television service within the station boundaries; but they have met cost and technical difficulties, and they appreciate that the best way of overcoming these difficulties is at Ministry of Defence level. This is being gone into.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, why does the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, suggest that there are many problems, when all that is required is to transfer—I hope that this will not be regarded as offensive to our forces in the European zone—some of the repeats which are inflicted upon the British public?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I do not want to go into too much detail on this matter. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, will accept from me that there

1511
are great technical problems in getting British television material over to Germany, and that it is in order to try to overcome these technical problems that the whole matter is being considered.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, aware that the German broadcasting people have undertaken several programmes in German in this country without any technical problems arising, and that they have also undertaken English programmes in which I have taken part, for a consideration?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, is my noble friend Lord Ferrers aware that there are serious complaints about the lack of recreational facilities for our troops in Germany, particularly in the evenings; and will he be good enough to look into the matter?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, this is one of the problems. If there is to be an expenditure of the nature suggested in the Question of my noble friend Lord Monckton of Brenchley, it has to vie for acceptance with the other priorities such as were mentioned by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, aware that an earlier generation of British troops stationed in Germany were able to find entertainment in the evenings without any Government intervention?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, is the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, aware neverless that there is a point about amenities for British troops in Germany, especially at night? Is he aware also that, although the morale of the troops in Germany is undoubtedly high, there is a constant demand from the soldiers for British television in their barracks? Will the Government also investigate the possibility of piped television as opposed to the normal kind of transmitted television? I believe that this innovation would dispose of most of the technical difficulties, and certainly the difficulties over frequencies.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is perfectly right when he says that there is a variety of possibilities. One is the question of buying time from a German television network. Another would be the instal
1512
lation of low-power transmitters in the various areas in which our forces are stationed. There are other forms of cable or wired systems. All these various alternatives are now being considered.
LORD KILMANY: My Lords, while I fully appreciate the technical difficulties to which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has referred, may I ask whether he will bear in mind that there is some degree of urgency in this matter? The answers which he has given us are not encouraging to our troops who are serving in Germany and who deserve better treatment than they are being given in this respect.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I agree that there is some degree of urgency. That is why my right honourable friend is looking into the matter.
LORD THORNEYCROFT: My Lords, while declaring a vast variety of interests in this matter may I ask my noble friend Lord Ferrers whether he would at least place all the technical difficulties in front of the British Radio and Electrical Manufacturers Association to see just what is involved, what the cost of providing a service would be and whether the industry could make some contribution towards solving the problem?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, that is certainly an idea; but I can assure my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft that there have been discussions with the B.B.C. and I.T.V. people with a view to finding out whether this would be a possibility.
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, I was going to ask the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, whether he has asked the I.T.A. and the I.B.A. if some of the technical resources they are using for sound broadcasting could be transferred with a view to solving this problem which is persisting in Germany?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, as I said in answer to the previous supplementary question, these people have been consulted.

FUTURE BUSINESS: THE SUMMER RECESS
3.26 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I ask the Deputy Chief Whip a Question

1513
regarding the business of the House? Will he comment on the accuracy of an item in The Times newspaper of Saturday, July 1, in which it was stated that your Lordships' House will be rising for the Summer Recess on August 17? Would he agree that it is customary, courteous and generally to the advantage of us all if announcements about sitting dates are in the first place made in your Lordships' House and not to the Press? Would he also agree that, despite what was said in The Times, the sitting dates for the rest of the Session should now be discussed through the usual channels to see whether we cannot get something that is agreeable to us all?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, perhaps if the Deputy Chief Whip would allow me, it would be appropriate for me to answer this Question. I should like to say right away that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for giving us notice that he was proposing to ask this Question. Let me agree with him straight away that it is customary, courteous and, indeed, to the general advantage of your Lordships' House that information affecting the general convenience of your Lordships and the ordering of business in your Lordships' House should be communicated first to your Lordships. Without donning too much sackcloth and piling too many ashes on my head, I want to apologise to your Lordships for any discourtesy which may have been felt; I can assure noble Lords that no discourtesy was intended.
At the same time I feel that I should emphasise that it is a matter of speculation as to when exactly your Lordships' House will be able to rise for the Summer Recess and whether it will be necessary to return during September and, if so, for how long. It may be, as the news item to which the noble Lord referred suggested, that we shall need to sit until August 17 and again during the weeks beginning September 11 and September 18, but at this moment I cannot tell how business will develop. I can only say that these very speculative dates are what the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, would term "the worst case". I hope that with August holiday fervour it will be possible for us to get through the important business ahead of us without as many extra sittings as were implied in the
1514
Press reports. But, even though we may succeed in getting through our business in August before the 17th, it looks as if we shall almost inevitably require to sit for a period—possibly of less than two weeks—in September.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, would have been perfectly justified if he had twitted us about the state of Government business, but he refrained from doing so. I do not entirely blame him for so refraining because I can remember that when his Party were in office we often twitted them. If I remember aright, my noble friend Lord Carrington was something of a dab hand at that exercise. But I think the business is more difficult now than certainly I can remember it: I agree with the noble Lord on that. The difficulty is that a number of important Bills—for example, the National Insurance Bill and the Industry Bill—have still to reach us from another place. There is another problem, and that is that Parliament is being further burdened by the necessity to legislate for Northern Ireland—a contingency which I think few of us could have foreseen at the start of the Session.
But, that said, our real problems of course revolve round two very major Bills, the European Communities Bill and the Local Government Bill. The first is a cornerstone of the Government's policy, and while I recognise and fully agree with those of your Lordships who feel that this great issue must receive the close attention of this House, your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that the Government wish to secure its earliest possible passage, but subject to that full consideration. As for the Local Government Bill, we have come to the conclusion that this must be enacted by the end of October, at the latest, so that the necessary arrangements to bring in the local government structure by April 1, 1974, in an orderly way can be made, and in order to arrange for the elections of these authorities.
My Lords, I am only too well aware of the great burden that is likely to be placed upon your Lordships this summer—and not only upon your Lordships, but also, indeed, upon the staff of the House. I realise that we are going to ask a great deal of noble Lords and a great deal of the staff who serve us so very faithfully. I also realise that the admittedly tentative nature of our programme at present does

1515
not make it at all easy for people to plan their summer holidays. We must all recognise that the position for our House at this time of the year is always pretty unsatisfactory, but I would agree that at this time it is more unsatisfactory than usual, and no one appreciates more acutely than I do the fact that we are in for a very rough time this summer—although, if we are to be fair, we must admit that another place is also under acute pressure.
The conclusion I wish to draw from this unsatisfactory state of affairs is that this House deserves in future to have a fairer crack of the whip, a larger share of the legislative programme at the beginning of each new Session. I am convinced that this would help the House. It is really ludicrous that we should be under-employed, as we so often are, up till Christmas, or even until Easter, and then grossly over-employed at this time of the year. Likewise, I am perfectly certain that a better balance in the legislative programme between the two Houses would work to the advantage of Parliament as a whole. I know that Leaders of the House before me have expressed this view; and in fact this was a matter on which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and I myself laid a great deal of emphasis when we gave evidence to the Select Committee on Procedure of another place last July. Indeed, the note which we then struck with the Select Committee has produced a very sympathetic echo in their Report.
Fortunately, I am in a position to say that things look better for the future. In the first place (although I hope noble Lords will not press me unduly on the details of the Government's legislative programme for the coming Session), it is within my knowledge that some of the major Bills in contemplation could well be started in this House. Moreover—and this is equally important—I can assure your Lordships that it is the wish of the Government that in future (and this applies to the coming Session) there should be a more balanced loading between the two Houses of Parliament. I also know that my right honourable friend the Lord President feels that Parliament as a whole should not be asked to carry quite so large a programme as it has been asked to carry this year.
1516
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for giving me this opportunity to make this statement. I apologise to your Lordships for the fact that it is still of a tentative nature, but I would say that I think it is highly desirable that we should follow up and try to finalise the arrangements until the start of the next Session through the usual channels, to the greater convenience of your Lordships.
3.35 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am not sure whether my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition wishes to add anything but, for my part, may I thank the noble Earl for the generous way in which he has responded to the Question that I put? The details of the sitting dates are, I think, better discussed outside the House and not across the Floor, but may I say to him, as a general point, that I think it would be to the advantage of most people if we sat no more than two weeks in August and if any business not completed then was taken in September. I think that would be a better arrangement than going on further into the month of August. As to the balance between the two Houses, I follow precisely what the noble Earl has said. I listened with great interest. I have no wish to start prematurely a debate upon matters which we shall be considering in a fortnight's time, but I wonder whether he has also taken into account that part of our legislative programme which will be initiated not in the Commons but in Brussels.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I should like to acquit the noble Earl the Leader of the House of any discourtesy. Nevertheless, I think noble Lords feel that the present arrangements, which are worse than they were last year, are really an intolerable strain on the Parliamentary machine and, as the noble Earl has said, on the staff. Having said that, I would endorse warmly what the noble Earl has said about the balance of business in both Houses; and I know he has done a great deal to see that the point of view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, by myself and by others last year and before that has been accepted by the Government. But may I ask him whether he has considered the possibility of extending this Session a little, if necessary close to Christmas? That may be a

1517
better way than by straining the Parliamentary system. I believe that suggestion ought to be considered. Finally, may I ask the noble Earl what the purpose is of coming back in the second week and possibly the third week of September? Is it really necessary? Because if we sit until August 17, we are going to get only about three weeks' holiday for the staff and the administration of this House. Could we not look at this matter in more detail, as he suggests, through the usual channels?
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, when these matters are taken into consideration, especially where the staff are concerned, may I make a plea for family holiday arrangements to be honoured wherever possible? It is one thing for us who are Members of the House; we are more or less masters of our own time. But if Parliament mismanages its business I do not think we ought to ask sacrifices of the children of the staff. After all, school holidays now start a great deal earlier than was previously commonly the case, and if families are not able to go away during the last two weeks in August and the first part of September they will not be able to have family holidays at all. I hope that this matter will be taken very much to heart.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House whether, if it should happen that through the usual channels there is an amicable and friendly arrangement in order to facilitate Government business and the Opposition assist in this fashion, he will take an early opportunity to repudiate the extraordinary allegation which came from the lips of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in the course of the debate last night, that the Opposition conduct themselves like a public nuisance?
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether representations were made to the Government at the beginning of this Session to start the Criminal Justice Bill in this House, in view of the fact that the wisdom and knowledge of that part of the law which is available in your Lordships' House is outstanding? Would it not have been a great advantage to start that Bill here,
1518
rather than in the House of Commons? If representations were made that it should start here and they were refused by the Government, what hope is there of other Bills, perhaps less appropriate to be started in this House, being introduced here in future Sessions? Shall we not go on, as we have to my knowledge done for the last ten years, listening to the Leader of the House apologising to your Lordships at this time of the year for the inconvenience caused by the congestion of business due to the continuing lack of balance between the legislative programmes in this House and in the House of Commons?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, can the noble Earl the Leader of the House say whether the Dining Room is going to be closed for alterations from July 27? If so, will there be an catering facilities at all?
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I wonder whether I could assist my noble friend Lord Selkirk by saying now what will be said to the Refreshment Committee this afternoon: that the Dining Room will be closed from the end of that week but the Cholmondley Room will be available to provide noble Lords with their meals. It will not, however, be possible for noble Lords to have guests. I hope very much that my noble friend the Leader of the House will find it possible to rise by the end of the second week in August, as I have already told him that if we have to go into the third week, although I do not doubt that the refreshment staff will do their best, it will not be possible to provide more than lunches and teas.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lords, Lord Beswick and Lord Byers, for their generous reception of what I said. I have taken careful note of the point that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, put to me. But I think that the difficulty about the suggestion that we should not come back in September (and I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, was rather pressing that we should come back in September, instead of sitting later into August, which was slightly contrary to the view of the noble Lord, Lord Byers) is the Local Government Bill. I can go into details and I will do so, both on the Floor of

1519
the House and through the usual channels about the timing here, but I can assure noble Lords that it is highly desirable that this very important Bill—and there is no Party political point here—should be enacted not later than the end of October. If we are to have a number of days in Committee on that Bill, I find it difficult to see how we can possibly secure this timetable without coming back in September. I shall be glad to go into details through the usual channels. As I have said, I do not think there are any Party politics in this particular Bill, and I am sure it will be to the interest of local government in the country as a whole.
I am sympathetic to the point put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady White. I did not expand on the hardship which is caused by these arrangements to the staff of the House. I am only too conscious of that myself. The point she made about family holiday arrangements is not lost on the Leader of the House and is very much in my mind. As for my comment about the extreme desirability of getting a better balance between the two Houses so far as the legislative programme is concerned, I would only say to my noble friend Lord Alport that I think, with the wisdom of hindsight, that I should tend to agree that there was a very strong case for having the Criminal Justice Bill introduced in this House. I think there is an even more powerful case for starting future legislation of this kind in this House, given the fact that the legal eminence and expertise which we find on the Woolsack at the present time has received some reinforcement in this House from the fact that we have in the Minister of State for the Home Office another eminent lawyer. To my noble friend Lord Alport I would say that although I may fail to "deliver the goods"—and we can all fail in our time—if he will read the remarks I made in reply to Lord Beswick he will see that they cantained a very explicit assurance. The assurance I was giving about a better balance was more than personal and more than platonic: it was a considered Government decision.

CULAG (LOCHINVAR) PIER CONFIRMATION ORDER BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

LEGAL ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE BILL
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 45(2), that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

B.B.C. AND "BRITISH EMPIRE" SERIES
3.46 p.m.
LORD FERRIER LORD FERRIER rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are still satisfied that the B.B.C.-Time/Life contract concerning "The British Empire" series of programmes complies with Clause 12 of the Corporation's "Licence and Agreement" and recognise the widespread public disquiet about the content of a series to entitled. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Unstarred Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. The Question, as your Lordships can see, is in two parts; and for the convenience of those noble Lords who may not have seen the programmes at all or of some who saw them and switched off—and there are many of those—or of others who saw only the repeat programmes, I believe it may be best to take the second part of my, Question first and outline briefly how the disquiet to which I refer came about.
The "British Empire" series of 13 television programmes was launched by the B.B.C. in collaboration with the U.S. International Time-Life organisation in

1521
January last. It was heralded by substantial and elaborate advertising in the Press and on broadcasting and a large audience looked forward to it with keen anticipation, as I did myself. In the event, the series turned out to be so shallow, so trivial and in some respects so sadistic that to those with a real knowledge and respect for the Empire it appeared to be definitely misleading—and more specially so in its omissions, which seemed more striking to me than its errors.
Besides this, and certainly in the original series, there was a slant in presentation which, marked though it was, is very difficult to define. I refer to the effect of a turn of phrase or a tone of voice, perhaps only in respect of one word, and the bearing that that may have in colouring a broadcast without being traceable from the script. I have various words in mind, words such as "adventurer", "profit", even "polo", which can be said in various ways which can lead to different interpretations. Having served and worked for many years in India, as did my father before me, I became chiefly concerned with the three Indian programmes, having been quite disgusted by the one on the West Indies which was shown earlier. I felt that I owed it to my forebears, to my old colleagues and my old comrades, both British and Indian, to monitor these Indian programmes.
The first, entitled "Remember Cawnpore", caused me to address a letter to the Editor of The Times which was published in a prominent position on January 28. A brief paragraph of two sentences in that letter read as follows:
"It was so unbalanced"—
I was referring to the programme "Remember Cawnpore"—
"as to be a misleading travesty of a great partnership story. As a result I am greatly disturbed, as many others who knew and loved India must be, to think that by some commercial tie-up it is likely to be shown in the U.S.A. as a quasi-documentary film."
One could elaborate at length but it is not necessary to do so; nor do I propose to proceed with such a task more than to protest at such macabre scenes as the blowing to pieces of a mutineer from a gun-barrel, the blood bespattering the colonel's lady and her horse; the flogging of slaves in the West Indies or convicts in Australia. "The Red-coats at it again" was the implication of the piece.
1522
Admittedly, the B.B.C. were in some difficulty over their Indian material because they had been warned off by the Indian Government for some previous misdemeanour, the details of which I am not aware. But why in the programmes on the West Indies did they include material from Dutch Guiana? As for India, I cannot recall any emphasis on the fact that long before the mutiny Britain had declared her intention to enable the Indians to govern themselves. There was no mention of great names such as Macauley, John Lawrence, John Nicholson, Dalhousie, Cornwallis and a host of great and generous administrators. As for the East India Company, in one copy of the Radio Times that great chartered company, dating back to Cromwell and indeed beyond, was described as "a city firm"—quite misleading.
Much of what I have just said is taken from the considerable correspondence in the columns of The Times, most of it bitterly critical—and expressions of opinion in other newspapers were not dissimilar. On February 14, in a Press statement, the B.B.C. rejected the massive criticism, saying that the series was attracting 9 million viewers a week and had cost half a million pounds to prepare. On February 23 my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing introduced a short debate in your Lordships' House suggesting a Broadcasting Council. He has written to me to say how sorry he is that he is unable to take part in this debate. I have also a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Annan, whose name is on the list of speakers but who may be unable to be present. In any case he will arrive late, which is disappointing to me as I was looking forward to hearing what he had to say in this matter. In Lord Orr-Ewing's debate, the series was mentioned and anxiety expressed that it was to be repeated on 13 Sunday afternoons, "so that the children could see it." In the event, the B.B.C. yielded to pressure—much of which may well have been internal—to cut the violence. I speak of the India programmes. Their whole tenor was substantially and sen sibly modified; indeed the repeats on India were not unacceptable. But what has happened to the original film?
Other noble Lords have put down their names to speak to-day and I should like to thank them now as I shall have no

1523
opportunity to do so later, having no right of reply. They will express certain views and I would only mention the plea of a headmaster published in the Radio Times in the middle of February. He said that he was perplexed and worried at the effects of the programmes on his pupils. Among the published letters in The Times is one from Sir Bernard Fergusson about references to New Zealand. This was on March 30. Sir Bernard concluded his letter with the following words:
"I cannot conceive what the purpose behind this series can be, unless it is to make us ashamed, and our children, of what is not an inglorious past. It is the perquisite of the propagandist, not of the historian, to select and perpetuate only the shadiest pages of the record."
I am looking forward to Sir Bernard's presence among us.
In the numerous letters which I have received—not published ones—one writer said, "This is 'Lord Haw-Haw' over again." In a "Talkback" programme on the B.B.C. on March 29, the audience illustrated the disquiet to which I refer. Perhaps an article by Louis Heren in The Times is a fair and restrained comment; and also about that time Peregrine Worsthorne had some trenchant things to say in the Sunday Telegraph. My question is: Do Government recognise the widespread nature of the disquiet which existed then, even if it has been allayed not only by the passage of time but by the modified nature of the Sunday showings? Are the original programmes being shown abroad? A noble Lord I met in an aeroplane yesterday told me that he had heard from his daughter in the U.S.A. that excerpts from these programmes are already on show on American television.
This brings me to the first part of my question about Clause 12 of the Licence and Agreement. My Lords, the clause, which is very short, reads as follows:
"The Corporation shall not without the consent in writing of the Postmaster Generai receive money or any valuable consideration from any person in respect of the sending or emitting, or the refraining from sending or emitting of any matter whatsoever by means of the stations or any of them, and shall not send or emit by means thereof any sponsored programme."
On March 9, in reply to a Question for Written Answer the noble Lord, Lord Denham, wrote:
1524
"The Government are satisfied that the B.B.C. is right to say that it did not … receive any money or valuable consideration in respect of the sending of the programme …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9/3/72; col. 302.]
Since then, however, it has become evident that certain financial transactions must have taken place. The Daily Telegraph said in a report in which they were referring to one of many exchanges which have taken place in the other House:
"But it is admitted that the B.B.C. will receive 1 per cent. of the profits from the part work and Mr. Chataway added: 'I think there is a feeling on the part of a number of M.Ps. that there are aspects of the Time-Life arrangement about which the B.B.C. ought to think further.' From a Minister who is considerably more understanding about B.B.C. problems than most politicians this amounts almost to a public rebuke. The implication of the remark was that although the B.B.C. had not offended against the letter of its Charter it had infringed its spirit."
Now, later, I see that Mr. Marsland Gander, one of the television correspondents of the Daily Telegraph reported:
"Though disappointing, certain sales have taken place."
My Lords, what exactly is the position? Has the B.B.C. received the relevant consent in writing? In this strain I add my voice to those who have in the past regretted that the Addison Rules preclude the chairmen of corporations from contributing to Parliamentary debates. Why should Parliament be denied the other side of the coin?—and there may well be one. The Minister who is to reply is, I feel, in a very difficult position. My Lords, the B.B.C. are always ready to tell the general public that it, the general public, knows nothing about broadcasting. But do we not, indeed? We know a good deal about it from the listener's end of the stick. Also they pontificate about censorship, and everybody holds up their hands in horror at the thought. In fact I think, with respect, that some of your Lordships were somewhat hard on my noble friend Lord Gridley the other day during Lord Orr-Ewing's debate. Censorship exists to-day; we must admit that: internal censorship within the Corporation. Does the Corporation deserve the monopoly so to censor?
I often feel that the Corporation are not sufficiently eclectic in the sources they tap for some of their current affairs material. By all means let there be no

1525
official censor; but why decry or silence people with experience who may have been up against the powers of darkness in the raw and sincerely feel that some things have got to be said? My Lords, the remedy lies in the hands of the General Advisory Council and, above all, with the Board of Governors. Is the advice of the former sufficiently sought? Do the Governors govern as strictly as they might? It is curious that one of the letters in The Times came from a member of the Advisory Council, Mr. Philip Mason, historian of the Indian Civil Service, who wrote on February 7, and at the end of his letter said:
"I understand that the B.B.C. are hoping to sell this series all round the world. Neither in the interest of historical understanding nor of our good name does this seem desirable."
This brings me to refer to the last two words of my Question—"so entitled". After all, the British Broadcasting Corporation carrying a "British Empire" series bears the imprimatur of the British Empire. Should they not regard themselves as the custodians of the nation's heritage? This Question is not intended to be an exercise in "B.B.C.-bashing", because I am far too jealous of the importance of the place held by the Corporation in our body politic for that. There is nothing like it in the world. It is incomparable. Indeed, it is that very jealousy which has made me impose upon your Lordships' time this afternoon. I am haunted by the fear that my idol may be undermined and found to have feet of clay.
Let us recognise that there is widespread talk of the infiltration through the ranks of the B.B.C. of elements dedicated—and here I quote from one of my private letters—to
"knock the police, the Army, the Church, the Common Market, to encourage the permissive society, pop music and drugs and the spread of Marxism in education".
The public are beginning to stir in their anxieties about the future of the B.B.C. and the form which the new licence is to take in 1976. Happy as most of us are with almost all the operations of the Corporation, if a series like this, with its international connotations, can so disturb so many sensible people, and the Chairman himself has said in an address in May:
1526
"Things move so speedily in this swiftly-developing medium that since I became Chairman even less than five years ago the whole face of radio and television broadcasting has altered radically"—
if that is the case, and it is, are we not justified in crying out "Beware! What is the shape of the B.B.C. to be in 1976?".
4.3 p.m.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for introducing this Motion to-day. It is a subject very close to my heart. Before I deal with aspects affecting me personally, I should like to say that I do understand some of the difficulties of the B.B.C. in an ever-changing world. It is against that background that I want to be as considerate as possible in my remarks. This debate gives me an opportunity to refer to my experience as a regular listener to the B.B.C. while overseas for over 27 years. I suppose that during the time I was overseas there was probably not one evening (except for the time of my incarceration during the war when I was not allowed to listen to broadcasts) that I did not listen to the Overseas Broadcasts of the B.B.C. I should like to give my great praise for everything which the B.B.C. did for us during that period in the circumstances in which I found myself in the Service. The quality of the broadcasts was certainly of the highest calibre. Indeed, there was absolute fairness and objectivity in all the programmes to which I listened.
I wanted to say something about that period because I now want to compare it with the change which has happened in this country during the period from post-1955 up to this year, 1972. I feel that a most unfortunate impression of the Commonwealth and Empire has been created in the televised pictures put out in the "British Empire" series which has just been produced by the B.B.C. A particularly unfortunate and erroneous impression of the Empire would be given if these pictures were shown overseas, especially in America. During what might be called the great period of the B.B.C. in the 1930s, there was the "Birth of the Empire" programme, followed by the Overseas Service, when the B.B.C. exercised so much power which was to the benefit—and I would emphasise this—of all races. In those programmes the B.B.C. objectively mirrored all that was good in this country and in its public

1527
and Parliamentary life. That did not mean that it did not criticise—it did; but everything was done in the most objective fashion. Above all else, it would be true to say that during that period the B.B.C. was an inspiration. It inspired men of all races, as I know.
I remember a particular occasion when I was 12,000 miles away from England. This was during the time when the late King George V drove to Parliament to receive the congratulations of Parliament at the end of a very long and tiring reign. I happened to be with a young Malay and Chinese in the jungle and the broadcast was coming through. These people turned to me and said that they had the feeling that this man had done something good with his life and that it was an inspiration for them to try to do something better with theirs. That was the inspiration and that was the effect of those broadcasts. It was not an isolated instance. I could give the House many other examples of the good which was done by the B.B.C.
There was something mystical and perhaps even something spiritual about the Empire, the Commonwealth and the conception of an independent nationhood. Nothing of that came through in the recent televised "British Empire" series. There was no great theme, or any sense of the sweep of history. It was, taken as a whole, an offensive and unflattering picture of the Empire; and The Times said as much in a leader published on April 29. When I remember those who died because they believed there was some great idea beyond themselves, this "British Empire" series, on that score alone, is doubly offensive to me. In Changi gaol in Singapore I saw men die happily and at peace because they believed that all would come right in the end. They believed they had not served false gods. Could it not be said, my Lords, that in the "British Empire" series we in the Colonial Service were depicted as following false gods?
It is to-day that I particularly miss the participation in this debate of a great man, a man of noble character, who could have made a valuable contribution to your Lordships' debate—a man who was in the next cell to mine in Changi gaol. Regrettably, he is no longer with us. He was unspeakably tortured. I speak, of course, of the late right reverend Prelate
1528
Dr. Wilson, a former Bishop of Singapore and a former Member of your Lordships' House. I am sure that Bishop Wilson would have presented a better picture to your Lordships than I, in all humility, have been able to do this afternoon. But he would have spoken about something else, and would have confirmed, I think—because he was involved in this aspect though he hardly ever spoke about it—that the so-called "oppressed races", who are so often depicted as such by writers of our Colonial history, risked their lives and indeed gave their lives to get food and medicines through to us in that gaol. Where was any of this in the "British Empire" series?
I hardly know how to end my speech. I hope that the noble Earl who replies to the debate will give us an assurance that "The British Empire" programme will not be shown on any wide scale overseas. I am sorry that it has been shown in Britain. If it is shown overseas, I cannot believe that it will do us any good. In any case, apart from the rather emotional way in which I feel about it, the programme is full of shortcomings and paints a wholly misleading picture of our Commonwealth and former Empire. I am quite sure that every noble Lord in your Lordships' House hopes that our relationships with our overseas friends will not deteriorate, but will grow in the years that lie ahead of us.
4.11 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Ferrier has done a sterling service to your Lordships' House in raising this matter to-day. In all the 13 years that I have been in this House I have seldom found it more difficult to speak constructively. The only reason why I speak is that I was one of those invited, in the early part of January this year, to the opening reception, along with those noble Lords and others whose ancestors helped to found the Commonwealth. It has always been a golden rule when one is invited to dinner, to lunch or any other function to be courteous to and about one's hosts, and I wish to be so to-day. But I am bound to say to your Lordships that when I first entered the reception room I had forebodings, because there was nobody to receive us, and the whole thing seemed to me to be ominously reminiscent of a scene where those who were our hosts

1529
did not quite know what they were supposed to do. There was, however, an interesting speech from the noble Earl, Lord Mountbatten, who has done a great deal for the Commonwealth, and we were all presented with a complimentary copy of the booklet on the television series.
Obviously, I watched not only the first but a number of the following programmes. I would not go so far as to say that all the programmes were bad; and I think that particularly the one on Canada was constructively presented. The programme to which I looked forward most was the one on New Zealand, because it is the only Commonwealth country that I have visited, and one of my ancestors who was Governor General of India later went to New Zealand where a city, which my wife and I visited last year, was named after him. But I was rather appalled at the few moments given to New Zealand. There were presented some rather indifferent pictures of the city of Rotorua, but very little about the achievements of either the New Zealanders themselves or of that great race the Maoris. My noble friend (as he will soon be) Lord Ferguson wrote a critical letter to The Times on this score. When I was in New Zealand I visited the war museum in Auckland and saw the names of at least 5,000 New Zealanders who fell in the Second World War. So far as I am aware, no mention was made of that in this series.
I think the problem here arises from what Time/Life and the B.B.C. set out to do. I am sure that it was done with the best of motives. I like to think that there was no ulterior motive in presenting this series. But to try to present the British Empire in whatever way in 13 programmes is a gargantuan task. I believe that, to put the whole thing with proper impartiality, India alone would probably have needed 13 programmes. I think this is the nub of the problem: the whole programme was too condensed. I do not know—and perhaps my noble friend will give the House some information on this—the details leading up to the arrangement for this series. It is questionable whether the partnership of Time/Life with the B.B.C.—and I have the greatest admiration for both organisations—was the right one to present a series on the British Empire.
1530
Then there arises the question: to whom was the programme primarily directed? There is a tendency these days, not only for the young, but for others, to "knock" the British Empire as being something which is defunct, moribund and as something which does not matter. I think this is dangerous. I am reminded of the words of Mr. Harold Macmillan when he was talking about the emerging countries of the Commonwealth. He said (I paraphrase his words very roughly) that it took this country several centuries to solve its problems before the emerging countries of the Commonwealth had had an opportunity of solving theirs. There are bound to be problems here.
Of course there have been examples in the old Commonwealth countries of where British rule and other forms of colonial rule have not been all that they might have been. But I think it is regrettable that in this series there is all too little, if any, mention made of some of the great leaders of the Commonwealth. My noble friend Lord Ferrier mentioned some of them.
I did not see the programme on Australia; but some Australian friends of mine, who are certainly not old, hide-bound colonials, were, to say the least, very disappointed with what they saw. Indeed, the countries of the Antipodes are not barren outlands as this programme, from what I understand, and having read the pamphlet on it, tended to suggest: they are countries where there has been a great deal of investment and rebuilding, not only by our own forebears, but by the current population.
As to the more legalistic parts of the Question, it may well be impossible at the present time to stop this programme from going out overseas. Decisions have no doubt been made. I think it is only fair to say that people all over the world these days are sophisticated: they are getting more and more so, and they will make up their own minds. I hope that, whatever mistakes may have been made in this series—and my noble friend Lord Ferrier very fairly made this point—this will not be made out to be B.B.C. bashing. We have heard that the B.B.C. favours the Left. The B.B.C. may favour the I.R.A. or may favour the Protestant movement in Northern Ireland. It is difficult for a corporation of this

1531
kind to be completely impartial. I think the criticism levelled against the B.B.C. in this series has been largely fair. From some of the letters that have appeared in the newspapers I believe there has been a tendency to put the whole blame on the B.B.C. for every badly presented programme. I hope that in due course the B.B.C. will present another programme on the Commonwealth. I hope that they will do it off their own bat—they are quite capable of doing this.
One of the problems of this past series is that there was all too little research carried out. From the programmes that I saw it appeared that the series was made up from rather curious still shots in some cases and, at times, badly fabricated action shots, interspersed with a good deal of sound common sense. The common sense was sadly lacking in many respects. I am worried in some respects about the effect that these programmes will have on the young. I speak, as many noble Lords do, as the parent of a family. Young families have a great deal of intelligence and their views on the Empire and the Commonwealth—and, indeed, on the Common Market and international affairs—are a good deal more sophisticated and a good deal better thought out than many of our own views. This is chiefly because many of them have visited these countries. While I agree with much of the criticism that has been levelled against this series, and while I share the concern at the fact that the series has gone out world-wide—if this is the case—I hope that the B.B.C. or, indeed, some other television channel, will broadcast a future series on the British Empire, because I believe that in the years to come the British Empire as a whole, both old and new, will be found to be something to which we owe a very great deal.
4.22 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend Lord Auckland emphasised the importance of taking into consideration the effects of television on children. I came to this House today looking forward to hearing my noble friend Lord Ferrier and his presentation of his case. I decided that I would wait until I had heard his speech before making up my mind whether or not I should participate in this debate. But,
1532
having heard his remarks, I feel with greater emphasis that I want to take this opportunity of contributing one or two thoughts on the subject.
My noble friend has dealt with the technical angles which justify his raising this debate. I am no authority on media, particularly television, but I know that in a subject like this my noble friend Lord Ferrier, with his military and civilian record, a long life in India and then a new life taking up civilian activities, speaks on this subject with particular effect. Because of what he has said I feel that there is little more to emphasise on technical matters. But I have heard, and I am sure that most other Members of this House will have heard, a severe indictment of many of the programmes on the B.B.C. and, in particular, this incorrect presentation of what the British Empire is and has been. And may I, for the purposes of this debate, have the indulgence of the House and use the word, "Empire" and not the more modern term "Commonwealth", because the series dealt with the Empire?
One of the main complaints about the series was with regard to the association of the B.B.C. with Time/Life, and it is natural that any production put out under that aegis would be slanted against imperialism. The advantages of imperialism are one of the things which the United States has consistently, and I would say questionably, opposed. The series seems to have invoked a good deal of criticism for presenting the Empire in an improper form. I feel particularly motivated to speak because I was brought up in the Victorian era, when discipline, patriotism and the Establishment were all respected. To-day, apparently, they are dirty words which shows that there is insufficient recognition of the pride in our past.
I am going to make no apologies, as some would do, for the way in which the Empire was built up. It seems now that this tradition of the past is receiving less respect than it should. I well remember watching Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee procession, at the zenith of British power, and the pride with which one saw her procession. There was the power, the force and evidence of good, of education, of civilisation, and science which benefited the peoples who lived throughout the Empire. I also remember subsequently,

1533
while in the 2nd Bucks. Militia, lining the route to Windsor Castle as the coffin of Queen Victoria passed to her funeral. One saw then reigning monarchs of the world walking in sections, such was the pride and admiration which they had for Queen Victoria. There was a void when her death was announced; one felt that the bottom had dropped out of the world. It was hard to understand a world without Victoria as the Queen. I hope that presents a picture of what the Empire really is and what it has been.
The series showed that in the 1914 war contingents from all the territories of the Empire sprang to the defence of the Allied cause. In the, series there was much talk of bloodshed and disorder, but very little relating to praise about what Britain had done. There seemed to be too much deploring of our former role and apology for what we had done. Surely the bequest, which Britain made on her withdrawal from India, with which my noble friend Lord Ferrier is well acquainted, has shown by its carry-on what was left behind and what contribution had been made. On the subjects of impartial justice, uncorrupt officialdom, selfless dedication by many whose lives had been spent in the services of the Empire the series was strangely muted. Let us hope that some future producer will produce another series that will show what Britain did in the development of her Empire for the benefit of humanity through the centuries, and what happened on her withdrawal from many places.
4.32 p.m.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, as I have already done by letter, for not being in my place when he opened the debate, but I had a statutory meeting which I could not get out of. I came here as fast as I could and I am sorry to have missed his speech. Indeed, I question the propriety of my speaking since I did not hear how he introduced the debate. We owe a great debt to him, because I am sure that when there is a controversy about the B.B.C., or of any performance on television, it is in fact of great public value that the matter should be aired. If it is not debated, if we do not allow noble Lords to express their views freely on this matter, we should be doing the B.B.C. itself a disservice. It is only because we feel com-
1534
pletely free to say what we will in praise or in blame of that Corporation that in fact it preserves its freedom; so we are in Lord Ferrier's debt this afternoon.
I take it that there are two points which he has raised, the first of which is the propriety of an association between the B.B.C. and Time/Life. On that point, I would simply say this. It was perhaps a little unwise of the B.B.C. actually to be linked with the publication side of Time/Life on a series of this kind But, as I understand it, the B.B.C., recognising that this perhaps was not the most sensible way of handling an arrangement of this kind, has altered its procedures and is now in a different contractual relationship with Time/Life, one which could not possibly be open to this kind of criticism. It is an association, so I am told, which is a great profit to this country in terms of dollar-earning. I would hope that the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, when he comes to reply, can give us some details on this point, because I think it is one on which the House needs reassurance. The charter of the B.B.C. is very strict on the matter that it must not be engaged in commercial enterprise of any kind, and if the noble Earl could oblige us in this way I for one should be very grateful.
May I now turn to the ideological issue? This is of extreme interest, not merely because of whether the programme was slanted in this way or in that, but to me as an historian to ask myself, "Can one ever put history on television and can one do it in the form of a soap opera?" With seventeen programmes spaced out over a long time, how is it possible for an audience to remember what was in the last one and to make adjustments between programme No. 4 and programme No. 7; still more, between programme No. 4 and programme No. 16? These are problems of presentation which again as a result of this series I am sure the B.B.C. would be wise to reflect upon. Yet when I ask myself the question whether such a programme is worth while putting on, when I weigh the issue, my answer is "Yes, it is worth putting on". As an historian, far less well-equipped than the noble Lord, Lord Blake, to speak on this topic, I have to ask myself, "Was this good history?" and I get the answer, "No, it was not very good history". I get that answer partly because I do not believe

1535
it is possible to put across the complexities of history and the compassion that one must have for men in a previous age, compassion which comes from the understanding of the difficulties which they faced, of the situation in which they found themselves, a situation which is always different from our own and yet one with which they had to cope. That did not come across in the programme except in certain notable exceptions.
I was very interested when the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, talked about Canada. I thought that was an excellent number in the series. The difficulty which one faces when one puts history on the screen is that one cannot get its complexity across and one then has to ask oneself if one can give a balanced account. We should be careful about this. The greatest historians in the world have never given balanced accounts. Within the framework of their own individuality they have tried to present the truth as they see it, but inevitably the history that Macaulay writes—and how well he wrote, incidentally, about India—is always going to be different from the history von Ranke writes on approximately the same generation. It is going to be different because they are going to see the problem from different angles and they are going to start with different assumptions. It is not because they argue about the facts. Even if they were established they will interpret them in a different way. Again, this is difficult to get across on television.
It is inevitable that a series is bound to have the imprint of its maker, the producer. Here again the B.B.C. is open to criticism, although I think it is the kind of criticism that we ought to remember can come from bad luck. Anyone who has ever tried to produce a film, let alone a television programme, knows that luck plays a tremendous part in the production of this particular form of art. I do not know whether noble Lords will remember a highly amusing book written by that brilliant Irish actor Michéal MacLiammóir called; Nobody Ordered Wolves. It was an account of a production by a great American producer of Othello and it started in various ways and ended by a pack of wolves appearing on the set. Nobody knew why they were there but once having been there they formed an essential part of
1536
the balance-sheet and therefore could never be got rid of.
This is the kind of ludicrous situation in which film makers find themselves. I am not suggesting that there were wolves on the set at the B.B.C. But what happens when a production team starts working and one of the producers does not see eye to eye with the other and retires? What happens when the producer who is left feels he must parcel out the work to a number of hands? These are problems of editorial control. It might be said that at some point the B.B.C. should have got the rushes of the films and the whole series should have been stopped. Yet would that have been justified, even if they had thought that the series was not coming out quite as they had hoped it would? This is one of the difficulties in production: that one is always being faced with the fact that one cannot suddenly change the whole thing; one is dealing with a mobile situation.
I myself think that a number of the films as they came out were shallow in their interpretation. Yet I would still defend the decision, which must have been taken by someone in the B.B.C., to continue with the series even though there may have been disquiet about how it was coming out. Because in the end the interest it engendered was worth the criticisms which have been levelled against the series. It is a great mistake to believe that people accept passively what is put over to them. My experience of students is that the one way to guarantee that the views which you express will not be accepted by them is to express them clearly, forcibly and passionately and so that it is clear that you believe in them. This will immediately incite them to suspect that you are "putting something across". I very much wonder whether the millions who saw this programme really formed at the end of it some depressed view of the British Empire. I ask for that question to be taken into consideration by those who believe that it has done damage to our traditions and our past.
Then I would, if I may, raise this point. The series obviously disappointed many of those who had memories, like the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, of our Imperial past at the height of its glory. But to those who think that that should

1537
have been the sole theme of the series, I would add that of course there is another view of Empire which can be held with perfect sincerity; that is that, in bringing law and order and the many benefits which British rule brought, there were also exploitation, greed and misunderstanding of the peoples whom the British at that time were governing. We should remember how difficult it is for anyone to be an Imperial Power. The American people, who only thirty or so years ago criticised the British Empire, must to-day recognise how difficult it is to sustain those obligations. And there is another country which no doubt feels that: the U.S.S.R., whose imperial manifestations can be criticised in exactly the same way as people to-day criticise the American manifestations of imperial power.
So when I try to sum up in my mind: Was it worth while? Should it have been done? Should it have been stopped?—I come to the conclusion that it should not have been stopped and that, on the whole, this series, though to my mind lacking in many ways, was not really damaging; nor should it be regarded in any way as completely contravening the B.B.C.'s deserved reputation for presenting programmes, which may not be impartial, but are nevertheless not outrageous in their distortion of the past. I wish we could have had a more balanced series; but if we recognise that we should criticise vigorously whenever we feel the need to do so, but while uttering that criticism we should also be absolutely determined to stress in public the need for the B.B.C. to feel free to put across views, however contentious and in some ways however disquieting, we shall be doing justice to the whole problem of public broadcasting. Let us remember, my Lords, that this debate is the true answer to those who argue that we should have greater restraint of broadcasting. Life would be very much—not merely less entertaining, but less intelligent, unless we had the cut and thrust of debate on intellectual matters, on ideological matters, and on political matters of this kind.
4.46 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, in rising to take part in this debate I intend to take a different outlook and a dif-
1538
ferent point of view from that of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, who has just addressed your Lordships. I am not going to enter into a controversy about my point of view and his, but I think that in the course of what I say it will be fairly clear. Something I should like to stress at the beginning is that one must not forget that the British Empire is at an end, and the question arises: would one, from this series, get any conception of what the Empire meant, and still means, in the world—in other words, the good which it has done and which still remains? I am in complete agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, says.
I do not want to take up too much of your Lordships' time, but I speak, if I may be allowed to mention it, with forty years' experience. I served the British Government in the capacity of representing them in these matters in every part of the world. I served in those days in the Colonial Service, and we were the trusted agents and servants of the British Government. If anyone really could claim to understand the policy of the British Government and what they were trying to do, surely we were in that position. The aims and intentions of that Government must surely be known, or must have been known, to their trusted agents. Our major aim was to bring order and justice into the affairs of backward races and countries all over the world. We worked with them, and for them, to help them in progress of every kind: political, social, industrial, and in every sort of way. We tried, too—it was one of our major obligations—to teach them the value of probity in high places, and, in short, to help them to accelerate the time when they would have trained men and women of their own race to accept the responsibility of good government which rested temporarily with us. We were proud to do this service and to serve such a policy, whose aim was to qualify citizens all over the world to manage their own affairs and to be free, in the end, when the suitable time came, of our temporary tutelage. We emphasised at every turn the temporary nature of that tutelage as being fully a part of our aim and policy.
My Lords, we have been speaking to-day of probably the noblest. Empire the world has ever seen, and the denigra-

1539
tion of its aims and objects is more than regrettable. It is for this reason that I deplore the publication that we are discussing to-day. I can only express surprise that the B.B.C. should have seen fit to support, with its powerful partnership, so ignoble an attempt to smear the record of the British Empire with implied charges of being inspired solely by a desire to exploit and to profit by the weakness of backward races. There is not a word of truth in that. I am not accusing the American author of deliberate malice; I am merely regretting that his complete ignorance of the subject, and of the facts of the subject, led him so far astray. No doubt there was no malicious thought in it; I am not making any accusation of that kind. I am only stating what is obvious, and that is that his ignorance was profound. That only makes the partnership of the B.B.C. in such a venture so inexplicable and so difficult to understand or forgive.
Some time ago, when the first two volumes had been printed, the B.B.C. communicated with me and asked me whether I would take part in a television talk. I told them at once what my views were and that having read the first two volumes of this publication I had destroyed them and counter-ordered any further copies as I had no wish to see anything more like that. They then asked me whether I would take part in a discussion on television with somebody who held views that were not quite the same as mine. My answer to that was that I would have no part in any attempt to give any more publicity to what I regarded as a regrettable publication. I said that I was dealing with facts; not things which could be argued but the facts of a situation, and they were not to be altered by anybody; they were merely to be ascertained and accepted.
My Lords, we should never forget what the British Empire did. Will anybody deny that this world to-day is a better place than it would have been if there had been no British Empire? That, my Lords, is the way I should like to conclude my contribution to this debate.
4.54 p.m.
LORD GARNER: My Lords, as an avowed Commonwealth man, may I be allowed to interject two sentences from
1540
the Cross Benches at this stage? We are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for introducing this debate, and all I want to say—and I say it with all the moderation at my command—is that I accept the validity of most of the criticisms which have been made. Many of the programmes were trivial. There was an excess of violence—I thought it was a piece of extraordinary ingenuity to show for such a long time fighting in the middle of Australia. There were historical inaccuracies, frequently by omission rather than commission; there were wrong slants, again often by innuendo rather than by direct statements. Then there is the association with Time/Life, about which I personally do not wish to say more.
But I have no real desire to cast more stones at the B.B.C. than they deserve on this occasion. What really happened here, it seems to me, is that the B.B.C. made an extremely interesting experiment. Quite frankly, in many respects it turned out to have some unfortunate results, and, as I understand it, the B.B.C. have fully accepted that themselves. But—and this is the only point on which I would differ at all from some noble Lords who have spoken from the Government Benches—if, as I believe it to be, the Commonwealth is still the reality that we accept, then I think it should be strong enough to survive even the slurs in an ephemeral programme of this kind, just as indeed it has survived other and stronger attacks down the ages.
My Lords, we all make mistakes. As I have said, I think that in many respects the B.B.C. have recognised that some mistakes were made here. I trust that by the comments that have been made, not least in your Lordships' House to-day, they will learn from those mistakes and take them very much to heart in the future. But I still think that, above all, we should accept that the B.B.C. have, throughout the years, performed an enormous service to the Commonwealth and Empire, which was the subject of this very programme, and that in the end what is really important is that the B.B.C., maintaining their own standards, should have freedom of expression and should be able to carry on that sort of work.
5.57 p.m.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, as an Australian-born Member

1541
of your Lordships' House I should like to make just one point, and it is of course about that particular programme. Those of your Lordships who know Australia and Australians know very well what they are proud of, and to my mind the lack of emphasis on that, and the emphasis on outback Philistinic beer-swilling morons which was given in the programme is nothing more than going out of the way to insult a people who are friendly. It was that feeling, repeated to me by Australians I had staying with me at the time when the programme was first shown, that made me, when next I came to your Lordships' House, seek out the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, who has spent all his working life in Australia and in the ranks of the R.A.A.F. in the last war, and I found him feeling extremely distressed by it.
He wrote to the chairman of the B.B.C., and the reply he received was to the effect that that part of the programme had an Australian sub-producer—or words to that effect. All I can say is that if the B.B.C. take on one or two of the Australian long-haired layabouts from King's Cross I do not think the result of their work should be allowed to go out to the rest of the world as being the truth about Australia. My only point in saying a few words to your Lordships this evening is to protest against what I call the insult to the Australian people by portraying them as what only a small minority of them are. What they are proud of is their voluntary service to this much run-down Empire in the three main wars that we have fought together—the Boer War, the Great War and the Hitler War. They are no more proud than I presume anyone else is of the beer-swilling business that was portrayed in the programme. The same circumstances apply here, and one wonders why it is necessary to portray in such a series people of this nature. It is just a gratuitous insult to do so. It is on this one point that I presume to interrupt your Lordships' proceedings this afternoon.
5.0 p.m.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for raising this Question to-day. Like the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, I was not at all sure what course the debate would take, and so I did not
1542
prepare a reply, as one might normally do when speaking from the Front Bench, which was perhaps a good thing because the debate has ranged over many different subjects, including from the noble Lord, Lord Annan, a dissertation on the proper presentation of history and what a producer should do if he finds a pack of wolves on his hands. With the wolves, it looks as if noble Lords opposite would do the traditional thing—first, throw the body of the producer of the series to them; secondly, throw the Director-General of the B.B.C. to them; and, thirdly, throw them the noble Lord, Lord Hill.
Leaving aside the wolves, this has been a very serious debate in two ways. First, there is on all sides of the House very real feeling about the content of the programme. I happened to see the series. Rarely is it possible for those of us who work hard in this House to see much television, but I am sure that we all agree that it was a major disappointment. To those who have spent their lives in the service of the Empire and Commonwealth and to those of us who have taken a special interest in these matters, it was shallow, sadistic and disappointing in every sense. If I may say so, I do not think in all the years I have been here I have heard so moving a speech as that made by the noble Lord, Lord Gridley.
Of course, our Commonwealth and national history arouses the deepest emotions in all of us, and I am sure that the B.B.C. themselves—indeed, they have said this—felt that it was far from a perfect programme. I am equally sure that in their contract with Time/Life over this they must have regretted the trailers which advertised the series and which bore a strong resemblance to those which appeared on Independent Television advertising the publication. Knowing the responsible attitude of the B.B.C., I am sure that they will themselves have taken note and have learned a lesson from this.
What, in a sense, are we discussing? It is both unfair and yet is the highest compliment we can pay, to say that this country expects the B.B.C. always to be above reproach. We believe in the B.B.C., in their responsibility, their fairness and their accuracy. That is why this programme outraged the feelings of so many inside and outside this House and in

1543
the Commonwealth, and particularly of those who really know about the subject. That is really a compliment to the B.B.C. I hope that what noble Lords have said this afternoon will be taken by the B.B.C. as a compliment but that they will also reflect very carefully indeed before they enter into anything like this sort of contract again. I was glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that he believes that the next contract—I was distressed to hear that the B.B.C. had entered into another one—was of a different kind, and we look forward to that being confirmed by the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, when he replies; the noble Lord, Lord Annan, sought that confirmation.
I am quite sure that the Time/Life contract did not exercise an influence on the content of the series. I am also quite sure that the B.B.C. were genuinely free from any taint of that kind. Nevertheless, it was particularly unfortunate that it should have been an American publication combine. Those of us who have been interested for many years in the Commonwealth can recall over the years being lectured by Americans about our wicked imperialist past—indeed, about our wicked imperialist present—and then find them trying to involve us politically in things which we consider to be immoral. On top of that, to have this series going out to America, emphasising the sadistic and exploitation sides of the Empire is, to say the least, unfortunate.
All this raises questions which are really far more important than the series itself. There are questions which are basic to the whole role of government, sponsorship, censorship and freedom in broadcasting as a whole. I think that everybody knows that American money has gone into other series as well as this one—some of them very good, too. Programmes like "The Search for the Nine" and "The Six Wives of Henry VIII" could not have been made in the way they were without American money, so that American money in itself is not an evil. Nevertheless, we must look at this whole question of sponsorship. I appreciate that to many it is an ugly word, but we must consider it very carefully. For example, a recent report by the Sports Council said:
"The Working Party have the impression … that the T.V. authorities are compelled to
1544
bend the rules for sports with strong T.V. appeal—or run the risk of losing the event."
In other words, we must consider whether the B.B.C. are providing cheap advertising for tobacco, brewing interests and the rest, inadvertently, as it were. We all watch these events and see the huge advertisements. For example, as we view motor racing we see advertisements for the big commercial firms. This whole issue must be thought about very seriously indeed, especially as Members of the Government Party in another place have actually raised the question whether the B.B.C. should not have spaces for which these commercial firms can pay to display their advertisements.
Then there is the whole question of censorship. The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, has spoken many times most movingly of his involvement with Ulster, through his family and through his contacts with the Army. We have heard about the thorny question of how to deal with news in Ulster. The question of censorship also arises in connection with the Industrial Relations Bill. For example, there was the interview with Sir Sydney Greene in which the interviewer had to cut out all his questions and give only the answers, because to do otherwise would have infringed certain laws. That is the fault of the Government and not the B.B.C., but it raises various questions which are absolutely basic. The one thing that I particularly regretted about the spirit behind the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, if I may put it in this way, was the fact that in his second letter to The Times he wrote that the B.B.C. appeared to be
"unable to realise that the series has a bearing upon the continuance after 1976 of the B.B.C.'s Charter in its present form."
We must be very careful about this matter. We in this country have one of the very best forms of broadcasting in the world. There is no question but that all the new technical advances and so on that have arisen—for example, the fact that within a decade there will be cassette television by which people can choose for themselves any programme they want to see—lead to the inescapable conclusion that the Government must have a proper commission of inquiry, and that a short nine-month, one-year period is not enough; that it is not good enough to

1545
commence the inquiry in 1975 when the B.B.C. and I.T.V. Charters come up for review. We all know that this was our view when we were in Government. I beg the Government to realise now, that precisely because this series has raised such basic issues is proof that we must have a real review of the whole broadcasting situation, technically, morally and politically. May I just add this: somebody once said that the most adventurous and the least afraid television organisation in the world was the B.B.C. My Lords, let us never do anything to make them otherwise.
5.11 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, in congratulating my noble friend on puting this Question to your Lordships' House I must first say that it seems to me to be one of the occasions in which the House comes into its own. Amid the pressures and controversy of this summer, my noble friend has reminded me that the House of Lords has a job to do debating cultural matters as well as political ones; and as I think your Lordships can by now tell, cultural matters are no less important, no less contentious, than the latter; and no easier, perhaps, for the apprentice Government spokesman to negotiate. But an Unstarred Question is an Unstarred Question, and where its direct answer is concerned my noble friend knows what I have to say. The Government do not have views on the content of individual programmes put out by the B.B.C., or by other television companies. Their collective eye remains glassy and unmoved.
If I may be personal for a moment, I would say that this is a position which I find unfamiliar and a little uncomfortable, as one of my own dearest pleasures is to indulge in discussion—vocal sometimes to the point of roofraising—about the merits and demerits of things one sees on television. It is slightly easier for me to restrain myself on this occasion, because I did not myself follow the series on "The British Empire", which is perhaps just as well. I have, however, heard it discussed outside your Lordships' House as well as here to-day. I particularly relished for its phraseology, if not for its accuracy, the comment of one of my friends who said that the
1546
series should have been re-christened. "Monty Python's Flying Empire".
I have also noted that the Director General himself has made it clear that the B.B.C. are not uncritical of some aspects of the series. Other noble Lords have pointed this out in their speeches this afternoon. The B.B.C. may find some comfort in the fact that, like them, the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, found it something of a curate's egg—good in parts, or, as he put it, bad in parts. But I feel that I need hardly remind your Lordships that by a long-established custom, so consistently followed as by now to be accepted as a constitutional convention, the Government recognise that the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. are responsible, as trustees for the public, for the day-to-day management of broadcasting, including all matters of programme content. This recognition has been put with sincerity and with grace by my noble friend Lord Denham. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, on June 27, my noble friend said:
"For Her Majesty's Government to express a view"—
whether or not in defence of the B.B.C.—
"would not be so much improper as incompatible with maintaining the B.B.C.'s independence".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27/6/72, col. 794].
My Lords, having said this, I should like to repeat that the Government acknowledge that it is not only in the mind of my noble friend that these programmes have aroused misgivings. My noble friend has of course played a special part in the controversy, and I must say that he has every reason to feel qualified to let his views be publicly known. His knowledge of the workings of the Empire—of India in particular—and indeed his services to commerce and banking in that country, both before and after Independence, are well known, as are the services of the noble Lord, Lord Milverton. My noble friend speaks from deep personal experience and from deep feeling. With such a background, it is very natural that he should feel particularly sensitive to any aspects of a television programme that might seem to him to denigrate or belittle our Imperial history. We have seen the same sensitivity voiced very movingly, if I may say so, echoing the noble Baroness, by the noble Lords, Lord Gridley and Lord Auckland.

1547
My noble friend Lord Ferrier has spoken before on this topic, during the interesting debate on February 23 introduced by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, who could not be with us to-day. My noble friend is aware that there have been long exchanges of correspondence in the Press—in the Daily Telegraph and The Times, for instance. In some of these my noble friend has played the same pithy and informed part to which he has treated us to-day. I believe that in response to my noble friend, and in response to public and private voices up and down the land, the B.B.C. have themselves gone a long way to accept some considerable measure of criticism on this series. The same sentiment was taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Garner, another extremely experienced and distinguished Commonwealth servant. The criticisms the B.B.C. accept are, as I understand their view, not so much that there was distortion as such, as that in the interests of making a programme attractive to about 7¼ million people, there were trivialisations and superficialities of treatment of a subject that deserved far better.
My Lords, the question may be asked: if the B.B.C. put on an elaborate and expensive programme and if one allows, for the sake of argument, that there are important deficiencies in it, can it really be said that the Governors are doing their job of governing if such things were allowed to happen? This seems to me to be the pith of the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier. The answer is two-fold: first, the B.B.C. broadcast over 6,000 hours of television every year. Were the Governors to exert such discipline that no mistakes were ever made, it would be a safe bet also that little worthwhile would ever be broadcast. This would be entertainment-instruction by committee, and I do not think that we would want it.
Secondly, it is widely accepted that the primary function of the Board of Governors is to act as trustees for the public, with responsibility for the broadcasting services. It is arguable from this that they should not be too closely linked with the functions of executive control if they are truly to be able to stand aside and make objective judgments unimpaired by special loyalty to the Corporation themselves. But I can give
1548
my noble friend, and all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, the following assurance. It is one of the functions of the governing body to observe carefully public reactions to individual programmes and to relay their observations to the Director General. There is evidence that they have fulfilled their function in this case. I can also assure your Lordships that they will attend carefully to this debate.
My Lords, many have complained that the Empire series contained distortions and superficialities. My noble friend and other noble Lords have seen in that fact, as they felt it to be, a connection with the B.B.C.'s contractual tie-up with the Time/Life organisation. My right honourable friend Mr. Chataway, then the Minister concerned, acknowledged in another place that there was a feeling on the part of a number of Members there that there were aspects of the Time/Life arrangement about which the B.B.C. ought to think further. Certainly it is true that much of the criticism of the series has been related to the collaboration of the B.B.C. with Time Life. The argument runs that this collaboration might induce the B.B.C. to tailor the programmes to the needs of the export market. I can only pass on the B.B.C.'s assurances that they have not done so. There is no special reason, it seems to me, to doubt the B.B.C.'s recognition that they exist to broadcast programmes for this country nor for us to think that programmes which look American would be more readily saleable abroad. And I must emphasise that the B.B.C. have total editorial control over the programmes. In answer to my noble friend Lord Ferrier (as he will, of course, be aware) my noble friend Lord Denham again pointed out on March 9 that the Government were satisfied that the B.B.C. were operating within Clause 12 of the Licence and Agreement and that they did not, in the words of Clause 12, receive any money or valuable consideration in respect of the sending of the programme.
My noble friend also pointed out that any decision to publish the terms of the contract between the B.B.C. and Time/Life would be one for the parties themselves, and he acknowledged that the B.B.C. had given assurances to the Government as to their retention of full editorial control. I of course accept the

1549
assurance, and I hope that noble Lords will also, that the B.B.C. in fact did have full editorial control. I do not think that the noble Lord who referred to the question of an American author was quite right. But the concomitant of this control is, of course, that they must also assume full editorial responsibility. I think that the B.B.C. will be very interested to learn of your Lordships' views of their exercise of responsibility in this case. But I must ask the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, once more to be indulgent towards me, and to accept that this editorial responsibility is of course a B.B.C. responsibility and not in any way a responsibility of the Government.
I come now to the point which was raised by the noble Baroness about the question of a Committee of Inquiry. As your Lordships will probably know, the Royal Charter and the Licence and Agreement will each cease to have effect, as will also the independent broadcasting legislation, on July 31, 1976. By the time that that happens there will have to be new instruments, presumably of the same or a similar kind, in order to enable broadcasting to continue. As the noble Baroness has told us, in the past it has generally been the practice to precede the formulation of such instruments by establishing an independent inquiry to recommend to the Government the pattern of broadcasting for the future. I do not think that anyone would deny that the Committee of Inquiry procedure has many useful facets, but it also has some disadvantages. Among other things it tends to lead attention away from the business in hand of broadcasting and to concentrate on inquisition and examination. Therefore, in the Government's view it is not a foregone conclusion that an independent inquiry is an essential precursor of the renewal of the broadcasting franchises. However, I would say to the noble Baroness that the Government have not yet decided on the mechanics or methods of organising the preparation for 1976. My right honourable friend recognises the pressure for a decision and he has told me that he will look very carefully at what has been said in the debate this afternoon.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, may I interrupt
1550
the noble Earl? I am very grateful for that semi-assurance from the noble Earl. Could I urge upon him the fact that time passes and that whatever decisions are taken, the B.B.C. and I.T.V. have to make their plans, and they cannot do that at the last minute. They need at least two years to make their plans consequent upon whatever kind of Committee of Inquiry the Government set up.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I have said that my right honourable friend recognises the pressure for a decision. I think it was the noble Baroness herself who pointed out the complex world of the mixed media and the new types of broadcasting that we are about to move into, and I hope that she will want considered decisions rather than more casual ones. I could also say that my right honourable friend hopes—and he has told me this personally; it is not simply a matter of the brief, because I asked him—that it will be possible to make a statement fairly soon.
Were I, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, told us in a moving speech, speaking in Queen Victoria's time in your Lordships' House I could, I believe, after five o'clock, say that the hour was late. But we have got used to other practices recently, so I should like to take up one or two more minutes and deal with individual questions which have been asked of me and individual points which have come out of the debate. My noble friend Lord Ferrier was upset, I think, that the Chairman of the General Advisory Council of the B.B.C. could not, in his view, appear in this debate, or could not let his views be heard. This is not in fact the case. It is possible for any noble Lord to speak under the Addison Rules, and the position is that noble Lords themselves decide not to speak, and no doubt they have their own good reasons for doing so.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, the noble Earl must have misunderstood me. In fact the Chairman of the General Advisory Council took part in Lord Orr-Ewing's debate.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I am grateful for that correction but, as I understood it, the noble Lord was upset that he was not here this afternoon, or taking part this afternoon.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I think that the noble Earl misheard he.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I am glad that that has been cleared up. The noble Lord also—and others have echoed this—asked what the position was vis-à-vis any further contracts, or vis-à-vis written contracts. I must point out that in terms of Clause 12 the Government would only be involved if the B.B.C. were to receive payment in respect of the sending—that is to say, the transmission—of material. In view of the excellent record of the B.B.C. as a major exporter, I think it would be quite improper for the Government to interfere with its day-to-day business.
This leads naturally to something raised by my noble friend Lord Gridley, who said very firmly that in his view the programme ought not to be shown abroad. Whatever interest the Government have in broadcasting by the B.B.C., the export business, I repeat, is a piece of enterprise which we have no right to control, any more than we would have a right to control the export of what noble Lords might feel was an undesirable book, an ugly piece of music on a gramophone record, or some such article as that. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, has given me the heady delight of being able gently to correct an ex-employer. He said that the Charter is very strict that the B.B.C. shall not engage in commerce of any kind. In fact, this is not correct. Indeed, on the contrary, the B.B.C. does sell publications, copyrights, television reels, and does international matters of business, and it has an excellent record in this respect. I do not believe that it would be proper for me to undertake to get assurances, as I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and also by the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, about the content of any future contract. In this context we have mentioned the Board of Governors. One must either trust the Governors or get rid of them. It would seem to be wrong to supervise them in the day-to-day exercise of their affairs.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, if the noble Earl will forgive me for interrupting, I think that the House is in great difficulty here. By the Addison Rules it it forbidden to hear from anyone who is connected with the B.B.C. what the situation is, and yet the Government seem to
1552
be prevented from asking the Governors of the B.B.C. what those contracts are. I was only asking the noble Earl whether he could pass on information from the Government. It may be that he is precluded from doing so, but it leaves the House in a great difficulty if this is the case.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, as I understand it—and I am very open to correction here—it is not for me to pronounce on contractual matters between the B.B.C. and their clients. If the noble Lord feels that this is not in fact the case, I will look into it and try to find out what the position is. But that is what my information is.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, I would not for a moment have the noble Earl pronounce on it; I only hoped that he would be able to announce it.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I will see what I can do and that is the best I can say. In concluding, I am sensible that my Answer does not deliver to my noble friend the pound of flesh which he would like. Like Portia, I must ask for the quality of mercy. I hope that he may find it easier to grant it if I say that the Government take note of the very real controversies and the very deep feelings which this series of television programmes has occasioned. I believe that my noble friend has done service to the memory if not the cause of the British Empire.
My noble friend mentioned forebears, so perhaps I may be allowed to do so. I am myself conscious that had it not been for Empire I should not now have the pleasure of taking part in this debate—since my grandfather, who brought me up and whose centenary is tomorrow, received his Earldom for service in Australia. I personally believe that the Empire was the result of one of the most extraordinary explosions of human energy that the world has known. I believe that our presence around the world set standards and ambitions which, however hard they may be to live up to, however hard we ourselves find them to live up to, nevertheless still remain as standards for more than half of humanity.
We must be vigilant on behalf of these standards. It is because we must be vigilant that I congratulate my noble friend

1553
on putting this Question to your Lord-ships' House. Like the noble Lord, Lord Annan, I also congratulate him upon the timeliness of relating the subject of Empire to the subject of broadcasting. Almost always a debate on broadcasting is rewarding—and I believe that this one has been very rewarding—because it is only by such debate and controversy that an interplay between public and broadcasters takes place. It is essential that this interplay takes place if the broadcasting authorities are to fulfil the great trust reposed in them.

BRUCELLOSIS: PREVENTION OF REINFECTION
5.30 p.m.
LORD ROWALLAN LORD ROWALLAN rose to ask Her Majesty's Government: What steps are being taken to prevent reinfection of accredited herds by the elimination of known centres of brucellosis infection; to develop more reliable and more rapid methods of diagnosis, and to establish more acceptable communications between the herd owners and the Ministry. The noble Lord said: My Lords, time marches on, and it is getting late, so I shall be as brief as I can. I wish to say at once that we had a very kind reception at the Ministry this morning, when we went to talk to them about the present situation in in the eradication of this disease. We were able to hear from them sufficient of their problems to enable us to have a fellow feeling with them, and I hope that we managed to impress upon them the fact that we were trying not to be destructive but to help them in every way in the eradication of this disease.
It is difficult to describe briefly the problems we face, but brucellosis is the most difficult of all the diseases connected with cattle that I have ever come across—and I have come across a good many of them. There are certain stages of calving when the disease is masked. There are certain stages when one must be very careful in carrying out vaccinations, as otherwise they are not likely to be effective. There are certain ways by which the infection may be carried from one animal to another and from one farm to another. It is also true to say that it is the only disease in which a farmer is
1554
quite unable to take any steps to reduce the probability of cross-infection to his own herd, however much he tries.
We were very fortunate in being able to get some figures from the Milk Marketing Boards of England and Wales, which enabled us to make a pretty good guess at the situation about a year ago. By analysing the figures we came to the conclusion that there were some 23,000 herds which were known to be free, or very nearly free, of all infection but which were not attracted in any way to entering the scheme. Also, there were only about 2,500 herds in the whole of England and Wales where the infection had reached the point of no return, and where it was quite useless for the farmer to try to keep his herd clear. We were very delighted indeed to hear that the slaughter compensation paid under the scheme was very significantly increased, so that it became an attraction to those who were free to enter the scheme. As a result, 30,000 herds have since joined the scheme, which will produce a very useful reservoir for replacements of animals which have to be slaughtered. That gave us something to work on.
The fact that only about 2,500 herds had reached the point of no return led us to hope that the Government and the Ministry would be tempted to follow the eradication scheme which has proved fruitful in Northern Ireland, by getting rid of the heavily infected herds and thus diminishing the chance of infection from another farm where no effort had been made to clear the herd. In Ayrshire during the past year there have been 80 reinfections. Farmers who at great expense had cleared their herds found them to be reinfected for various reasons, most of them fairly well known to those of us who are interested in this subject. We shall not be able to sleep in our beds at night without knowing we may find that our herds have become reinfected, with all the problems that that creates.
The noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, told me the other day that it had taken him five years to get to the point where he had amortised his own very heavy expenditure on double fencing, on clearing up all contacts with herds outside and on getting rid of infected animals. Five years is a long time, my Lords, and if, at the end of that time, a farmer

1555
goes back to square one it is one of the most disheartening and devastating experiences that he can have. Many people imagine that it will be all right and that he will get over it in a very short time. But, on average, it takes 15 months to get rid of the disease, if you are lucky. To all intents and purposes, your farm has to be closed to contact with the outside world. You cannot sell your cattle off the farm except in the non-accredited market, which means a fall of at least 30 per cent. in the true value of accredited animals. You cannot bring animals on to your farm to make up for those that have to be taken off. I heard of one case where a man had 150 Jersey cattle who were free from disease. They then became reinfected, and the result was what I call "the death of a thousand cuts": after about 18 months, his herd had been reduced to 10 cows. His whole marketing organisation and the market for his retail milk had been destroyed. No possible blame could be laid at his door.
The other day a friend of mine was calculating how much he had lost through reinfection; it amounted to £22,000 and he was not yet out of the wood. It is a devastating experience, and yet the only means of clearing the way for future success is to get rid of heavily infected herds and so give people who have gone to the expense of clearing their herds a chance to remain free from the disease. I am afraid that we could not convince the owners of these infected herds, but I am quite certain that something could be done by giving them an incentive in the way of better opportunities of keeping their farms clear for perhaps 12 months, feeding bullocks on them in the hope that at the end of the time the trouble may have cleared up.
We had a very pleasant talk this morning with Ministry officials, and I hope that pressure may yet be brought to bear on these owners by bodies other than our committee in order to give them—I do not like to say this—the courage to take what most of us consider to be a right and proper course. This policy succeeded in Northern Ireland, and I am sure that it is the only one that can succeed with us. There are many problems which members of the committee would wish to put forward, but I do not want to take up any more time. I hope that we may come
1556
to some agreement and arrangement whereby the cause of infection, which is so serious among herds in the most heavily stocked areas, will be eradicated and hope of freedom from reinfection will be given.
5.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, first of all, I wish to thank my noble friend Lord Rowallan for bringing this Question before us to-day and, secondly, I wish to declare an interest. I manage a suckler herd of 300 cows which are heavily infected. One cannot consider the question of reinfection without considering the whole problem of brucellosis. Milk can transmit this disease to human beings as it can transmit any disease that lives in it. Nevertheless, all processed milk—pasteurised milk and so on—is absolutely safe. I do not produce any milk; I produce store cattle for beef, so the problem does not apply to any extent to me. Beef is quite safe; it is cooked and there is no danger to public health.
But the farmer is affected in this way. If one sells in the market and gets the market price for an infected cow one will probably get something of the order of £100. Against that, one has to set the loss of the calf because it dies; this is of the order of £50. There is also the cost of an accredited replacement heifer and this is liable to be in the region of £200; there are some which can be got more cheaply but not many. There is the loss of one's calf subsidy and one's hill cow subsidy, so in very rough figures, in replacing one cow one is down something like £180. Farmers farm for a living and they cannot stand these losses.
It is quite unrealistic to say, "Sell the whole lot". The North of Scotland College of Agriculture at Aberdeen, which has been infected three times, has had to do that and it is still being infected. When one considers that in Scotland alone there are something like 30,000 beef suckler herds, one wonders how many are infected. I do not know, and neither does the Ministry. But this gives us some kind of idea of the problem about which we are talking. In any case, if one replaces one's infected cows with accredited heifers, the accredited animals have no protection against reinfection. On the other hand, if one replaces them with

1557
heifer calves that have been inoculated with S.19 inoculation, which leaves no trace in the subsequent test if it is done in accordance with the Ministry's directions, there is protection for five or six pregnancies. What is inflating the cost of replacements is the scarcity of accredited heifers or S.19 inoculated heifers. There are just not enough within reach of where the people require them. I should have said that I am talking about Scotland; I know nothing about England.
Another point which is not generally realised is that a dairy heifer, of which there are many, is totally unsuitable as a replacement in a hill cow suckler herd. These animals are out-wintered frequently, roam around the hillside and are not pandered to in the milk parlours. So they are the wrong type of animal and there is no point in replacing with dairy stock. It seems to me that there is only one reasonably economic and sensible method of tackling the problem. Tackle it we must, and we are trying. We must inoculate our whole herd with 45.20, which is a 75 to 80 per cent. effective vaccine. But it gives a reaction and before one starts going accredited one has to stop inoculating for about 18 months. That is where losses are liable to hit us. On the other hand, if you have three or four consecutive years of inoculation you will build up a good resistance in the herd which may stand you in very good stead in this difficult period. Then you must try to isolate, as we do now, all cows that have aborted, and treat them, because a cow very seldom aborts twice—occasionally it does, but very seldom. This is a thing which, economically, we have at this moment to live with. Otherwise, we are going to put every farmer out of business. Inoculation is the only thing to do.
There are three suggestions that I would make to Her Majesty's Government. The first is that since S.19 vaccination does not result in a positive reaction to the tests and also gives protection against infection, all heifer calves should be inoculated at the appropriate time (three months to nine months, I think it is) with S.19, which would provide a big pool of replacements and help to defeat inflation. As to encouraging farmers to do this, you would have thought that a Scotsman, if he could get something free, would jump at it. But,
1558
my Lords, Scotsmen are not jumping at it. So to encourage them to jump at it I would suggest the following procedure. When the vet inoculates with S.19 and puts the distinctive ear-tag in the heifer calf, he should then write the numbers—not the actual individual number of the calf—down in a duplicate book; something like, "Farmer So-and-so: I have this day inoculated with S.19 20 heifer calves", or whatever the number is. Then, three months later, when the Government puncher comes along—that is the official who punches the hole and enables you to get a subsidy—he gets the chit from the farmer and punches for subsidy only those heifer calves with tags in their ears. So, if the farmer does not bother to get his heifer calf inoculated with S.19, then he does not get the heifer subsidy—nor should he. I can see no difficulty whatever about that. I think Her Majesty's Government should have done it years ago; if they had, we should not be in the pickle we are in now.
There is one other way in which I think hardship could be alleviated. When you replace a cow which has gone down with an accredited heifer or an S.19 heifer, a bulling heifer, you should be allowed to include that bulling heifer for hill cattle subsidy that winter, and not have to drop a year, waiting until she has had a calf. If there were that encouragement on the one side, not making it compulsory but not paying a subsidy for a calf which has not been inoculated, though it would take a little time I think that it would be quicker in the end and would receive pretty good support. I know that the Scottish N.F.U. would not oppose this.
5.54 p.m.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I have no first-hand knowledge at all of brucellosis in animals which is what this debate is really about, but I have some experience of human brucellosis and I really put my name down on the list of speakers just in case any questions were raised on the human disease which perhaps I might be better able to answer than other noble Lords speaking in this debate. No such question has been raised, and therefore my remarks are perhaps irrelevant; but as I am on my feet I should like to take three minutes or so of your Lordships' time to support the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, in bringing this matter

1559
very forcefully to the notice of Her Majesty's Government (although I know Her Majesty's Government are very well aware of the problem) and to support his pleas that further action should be taken as soon as possible and as efficiently as possible, because human brucellosis presents a public health problem of considerable seriousness and magnitude.
Although the disease is often self-limiting and rarely fatal, it can cause prolonged illness, going on for months and even for years, often intermittently with bouts of fever. Not only can that be very uncomfortable to the sufferer, but it is possible that it may cause quite serious complications; for instance, in the joints, including the spinal joints. The economic effects (which seem to be influencing noble Lords this afternoon) of prolonged illness of this kind can also be very serious to the sufferer. Perhaps I should just add that diagnosis of this disease is often very difficult, especially if it is unsuspected and a patient suffering from a mysterious, feverish disease, forgets to tell his doctor that last August he spent his holiday on a farm and was drinking raw milk. Furthermore, treatment is very unsatisfactory, although in most cases some of the antibiotics appear to shorten the disease. That, I am sure, is all I need say in this debate. I strongly support the noble Lord who opened it.
5.57 p.m.
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, I join with my noble friend Lord Stonehaven in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, for having put this Question down this afternoon. I should also like to thank him for the tremendous amount of work he has done and trouble which he has taken in his capacity as chairman of the Brucellosis Committee. I cannot attempt to follow the highly technical and informative speech of the noble Lord, Lord Platt, but it was of great interest to me and, I am sure, to every other noble Lord taking part in this debate.
It is the custom in your Lordships' House for those who have an interest to declare it at the beginning of their speech. Therefore, I must say that I am a farmer farming 600 acres of mainly arable land. I am not in the milk business, so my practical knowledge of this dreadful
1560
disease, happily, is non-existent. Noble Lords who have spoken earlier are so much more knowledgeable on this subject than I am myself; and I was particularly interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, and especially in his remarks on the difficulty of keeping a herd clean even after it has been free from disease for a period of time.
My noble friend Lord Stonehaven gave some alarming figures with regard to the difficulties facing those whose herds are infected. His most interesting speech outlined the difficulties facing not only the Minister but also the unfortunate herd owner. At one time—not to-day, but earlier on—I had the feeling that some noble Lords were very impatient at the delays which the eradication of this disease entails. For my part, I am not critical of the steps taken so far. The Ministry must be practical and this must be a phased programme; they cannot overlook the many other problems with which they are faced. For instance, while dealing with this problem, too stringent a slaughter policy could not be undertaken owing to the acute shortage of replacement animals. They have to work within the limits of the problems imposed upon them.
I understand that one in three of all herds in Great Britain are participating in voluntary accreditation, of which more than half are not fully accredited. The scheme now covers some 3 million testable animals and there are 6 million testable animals out of a national herd of 10 million head. The Government are paying large sums in order to clear up this disease. In 1971–72 £5 million was paid in milk incentives and over half a million pounds in beef and hill cow supplements. Whether this is enough is arguable; but what is certain is that the money available to the Ministry is not unlimited, and if more is spent in this direction it has to be diverted from somewhere else. Apart from the difficulties facing the Ministry, there are only a limited number of vets; and in my experience they are generally grossly overworked. They are taking between 4 million and 5 million blood samples a year, and I doubt whether this rate could be stepped up very much. Could my noble friend, when he comes to reply, say whether the time taken for the analysis for these samples could be reduced? It is obvious that it must be

1561
advantageous for reactors to be removed from the herd as soon as they are known.
I am informed that the breakdown rate in clean herds is running at 4 per cent. of the accredited herds. This is clearly too high a figure, and I hope we may be told that there are schemes for improving on this. I realise that it took 20 years, up to 1960, to eradicate tuberculosis, and that it cost £100 million. Owing to to-day's increased costs and the high values of cattle, it may well cost £150 million to eradicate brucellosis; but as veterinary science has advanced a very long way since 1960, it would not be unreasonable to suppose that a much shorter period of time than 20 years should be required effectively to deal with the disease.
6.5 p.m.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, I should like first of all to say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, for having given us this opportunity for an interesting debate in your Lordships' House. I, too, must declare an interest as a farmer. Malta, or Mediterranean, fever has been known for many years, but it was not until 1887 that this disease was first isolated by Bruce and given the name of brucellosis. The effects and different types of the disease were not known until 1918. Goats had much the most virulent form of the disease but, luckily, not in this country. The disease seems to have an incubation period of from two months to seven months, due partly to its ability to lie fairly dormant inside the cells of the liver, kidney and stomach, slowly spreading from cell to cell inside its host. Once the disease has broken out in humans it can be very serious, with a high fever which can often last, off and on, for several months; hence its other name, undulant fever. Humans suffer from severe depression with periods of violent backache, headache and fever. Brucelli can live for many months in warm, damp, shaded places and have survived in water at 25° C. or 77° F. for well over one year. They can thrive in many cheeses but not in butter, because they cannot survive in sour or pasteurised milk.
The spread of the disease from man to man living in reasonable hygienic conditions rarely if ever occurs. But man's role is still an important one for, by
1562
domesticating the animals and herding them together, he provides conditions which, though age-old, are quite unnatural and greatly increase the ease by which brucelli survive both inside and outside their hosts. Infected farm animals readily infect one another; their illness tends to be chronic and they shed the disease into their environment. Although the disease is mostly transmitted by the afterbirth, it very commonly spreads to cattle by urine and can be spread by blood-sucking flies such as the horse-fly. A fox or any carnivorous animal carrying away the afterbirth could easily spread brucellosis from one farm to another. Although it is not common, bulls can infect any cow they serve as the disease can be transmitted by way of the semen.
Some 15 per cent. of British herds were infected by brucellosis in 1961 but, thanks to the great efforts made by the Ministry of Agriculture, this percentage is not increasing. Its spread is now so common among people who work with cows that it has just been recommended that brucellosis should be added to the list of recognised diseases under the Industrial injuries Act. More than 60 per cent. of British vets are sufferers. Although it appears that middle-aged men are more likely to contract brucellosis than women or children, it is expected to infect in the next fifteen years more than 2,000 children and young people through their drinking unpasteurised milk alone, as 14 per cent. of Britain's cows are infected. Vaccination is certainly an answer in cattle and I believe it is effective for six or seven years. In that connection I was most interested in the remarks of my noble friend Lord Stonehaven. But, so far as I know, the problem with vaccination is that it has no effect on an animal already infected, and therefore testing becomes a problem. Certainly 45/20 clinically-tested animals which have been vaccinated produce the same result as an animal with the disease.
A veterinary surgeon must take three blood tests from each animal at four-month intervals, and this, with the limited Ministry veterinary staff and a national herd of 9·5 million, is a mammoth task. Government compensation costs are, I believe, estimated to be £150 million, apart from the serious loss to any farmer where the disease returns to a herd which has been accredited as free. Subsidies

1563
for beef cattle are paid at six-month intervals on the lowest number of cattle that a farmer has at the beginning and the end of the period. One way in which the Government can help would be to allow any farmer to claim that subsidy if he immediately sold any animal which failed the test. As it is, many farmers keep infected animals longer than they should, so as to gain the subsidy. The fact that under these conditions beef subsidy can be paid on "ghost" animals is not widely known and may possibly assist some of the work which my noble friend Lord Stonehaven is doing in this connection.
In a country such as Great Britain with reasonable standards of farming management, eradication of brucellosis in cattle requires only determination, co-operation and money. This has been achieved in Germany, Denmark, Holland and several other countries. Therefore it must be achieved here, but it cannot be done immediately and I am satisfied that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is doing all it can and will spare no effort to achieve the eradication of this disease. People visiting France, Italy or other Mediterranean countries should be very careful about the milk or cream that they drink, particularly goats' milk. I should like finally to thank the noble Lord, Lord Platt, Mr. Peter Mills, Mr. Steel and all the staff at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for their help in my researches.
6.14 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, following the Government's announcement of the higher beef and milk incentives I feel that we should congratulate them on the most encouraging progress of the voluntary Scheme. I think great credit is due, also, to the livestock industry where obviously there has been splendid co-operation within the Scheme. Notwithstanding the benefits which they may eventually derive when they become accredited, producers are facing quite considerable financial problems at the present time. They are in an extraordinarily difficult position because it is difficult to evaluate whether or not to go into the Scheme, especially if they have a fair number of reactors at the first test. I wonder whether it would be possible for the Government to offer
1564
some practical advice to insurance companies whereby some insurance scheme might be forthcoming so that producers could insure even before becoming fully accredited. Perhaps the Government could help with the high premiums which would be payable before producers became accredited, and maybe the money which they pay then could be deducted from any incentive payments after accreditation.
In the interesting, highly informative and pleasant meeting which we had this morning with the Minister and Ministry officials I was glad to learn of the continuing research into the speeding up of the testing and diagnosis of reactors, and especially the subsequent reporting to owners of these animals. Certainly it is obviously essential in these diagnoses; but I feel that speed is equally essential, for difficulties arise, both financial and also administrative, for the farmers if reporting is delayed, and there is considerable danger of other animals being reinfected. If the current process can be continued I think that it would be of great help to the industry as a whole.
6.17 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am sorry that I did not put my name down to speak; I did not think that I should be able to be present. I should like to declare the usual interest: I am a cow keeper. The noble Lord, Lord Allerton, is an arable farmer; Lord Stonehaven keeps beef; I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, keeps beef. I do not know what other noble Lords do, but I am a cow-man and I have about 500 cows. This is an appalling disease. We are not a veterinary committee here and we cannot go into all the details of S.19 and the rest of the problem. The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, said that this disease can be cured and that we can eradicate it with determination, co-operation and money. Are we spending on this operation the sort of money we spend on Concorde? All the arguments used by the noble Lord, Lord Allerton, were used about tuberculosis in the old days—that there were not enough vets; that we should be short of cows—and it took 25, 30, 40 years before we did anything about tuberculosis. Then the Irish did something quickly and we had to do something.

1565
My Lords, we must get rid of this terrible disease which, for the information of those who do not know, is contagious abortion. It is a beastly disease for cattle to have. All veterinary surgeons have it and most of the cows have it. It is true that if you drink pasteurised milk you will not get it through drinking the milk, but you may get it through eating cheese. In an advanced country like ours we have no business to have—I do not know the figure, but a large number of our herds still infected with brucellosis or contagious abortion, because, we say, there are not enough vets; or that we should not have enough heifers to replace the animals, or that it would cost rather a lot of money, and would the farmers like to do it.
All praise to the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, who keeps on keeping on. He writes letters to us; he runs his Committee and lobbies the Ministry, and keeps on saying that we must stop this disease. We can stop it, my Lords. Other countries have stopped it. I am impatient and, if he does not mind my saying so, I do not believe a word of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Allerton. I am impatient about this delay. I used to work at the Ministry, and I am sure that the Ministry people are all charming, and were extremely diplomatic, kind, sensible and everything else at the meeting this morning. But the fact is that the disease has not been stopped, and will not be stopped.
I suppose that I am too old to go in for "demos". But would women have got the vote if they had not chained themselves to the railings? One has to push on a little sometimes. We have now come to the time when all these stock arguments of lack of vets, the difficulty of replacement and what it would cost have got to come to an end. We are shortly going to join the Common Market and we want to have our cattle industry free of one of the well-known diseases. We also want to remove from our medical practice, as the noble Lord, Lord Platt, was saying, a very debilitating, insidious, tiresome disease of the human being which is much more widespread than is generally known—undulant fever and the sort of diseases which are often, and I believe rightly, attributed to brucellosis.
Let us praise the noble Lord, Lord
1566
Rowallan, for having his "ginger" group. I want just to warn the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that I for one am not going to listen with any patience at all to the usual platitudes about how difficult it is to eradicate this disease; how well we are getting on, and how friendly we all were at this morning's committee. I was not at the committee.
6.22 p.m.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I hope you will permit a short intervention for there are two points which I feel require ventilation. I, too, must declare an interest. I have both beef and dairy cattle and I am also very impatient. I was very pleased to hear the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, say that he was impatient. Current schemes lay too much emphasis on keeping a herd clean rather than on preventing infected or dirty cattle from infecting clean herds. I am not going into this as the Ministry is well aware of the problem. Too much weight is given to the problems and insufficient attention paid to possible solutions. If an industrialist causes pollution there is an outcry; indeed, a farmer is in trouble if he permits silage effluent to run into a stream. But farmers are being freely permitted to spread this disease, causing not only financial loss to their neighbours but substantial loss to the country. There seems to be no reason why the law should not be altered to prevent the movement of dangerous, or potentially dangerous, animals except to the slaughterhouse. I hope my noble friend will look closely at this side of the matter.
The next question is whether the Ministry really have all the answers on this disease. I am not happy that we as farmers can get a firm answer as to how soon we can safely restock with clean cattle a piece of ground from which infected cattle have been removed. I would ask my noble friend to look into this point to see whether sufficient research has been instituted to permit reasonably sound advice to be given to the farmer.
The noble Lord, Lord Platt, who has left the House, mentioned the difficulty of curing this horrible disease in humans. It does seem, however, that the homeopaths have a comparatively simple cure. I am not one, but I am open to look at any possible solution. It is hoped that current promising experiments of homeo-

1567
pathic treatment of cattle will prove effective, as this would certainly save the country millions of pounds.
6.25 p.m.
LORD RATHCREEDAN: My Lords, I did not intend to speak in this debate but I should like to make two points before the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, replies. I am a dairy cow breeder and I have a herd which has been accredited for over two years. I believe it is possible for a farmer who has a herd which he wishes to become accredited, or if he lives in an area which he has reason to believe is in a very short time going to be a compulsory area, to have a private blood test taken of his cattle. He can then sell reactors in the open market and thereby spread the disease.
LORD BURTON: May I interrupt the noble Lord? I moved an Amendment on this point on the Agriculture Bill. A person would be breaking the law if he did so knowingly.
LORD RATHCREEDAN: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Burton. I quite agree that a person may be breaking the law; but I am assured that it is done very freely and I do not know whether there have been any prosecutions in such cases. There is another point. I have a herd near me of some 400 to 500 dairy cows, and I have reason to believe that these cows had a test which showed that 40 per cent. were reactors. When asked what they were going to do about this the owners said that they were going to ride the position out until the area became compulsory, when of course they would get compensation for any reactors that there might be in the herd. As the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, said, if there are herds which are known to be a danger to other accredited herds in the area, I hope the Ministry will take steps to do something about them.
6.26 p.m.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I should just like to emphasise one thing which has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Burton. The Ministry do not know how long it is going to take to clean up land that has been occupied by a brucellosis affected herd. I would suggest that, where there has been a bad outbreak and cattle have been cleaned
1568
out, farmers should temporarily go in for sheep.
6.27 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I should like at the outset to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, for putting down this Question and for having this discussion this afternoon. Like a number of other noble Lords, I should also declare an interest, in so far as I am a farmer or, as my noble friend would more directly put it, a cow-keeper and therefore also interested in the problem. Anyone who has known the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, knows the deep concern and interest which he has already had in this problem and the pungent way in which he always puts his point over, not only in debate but on every other occasion on which the problem of this particular disease has been raised. I was concerned at the blast which came from behind, from my noble friend Lord Waldegrave, who said that he was impatient, that he was not going to stick any kind of nonsense, that we did not spend enough money on this disease compared with the amount that was spent on Concorde, and that if we had spent a lot more on it instead of on Concorde we could have got rid of the disease earlier. I could not help being reminded, when he said that, of one occasion when he himself was speaking from this Dispatch Box and somebody complained to him that not enough money had been spent compared with what was wasted on Blue Streak. I can remember this so well because I frequently recounted it myself. My noble friend turned round in horror and said, "You can reduce any argument to how much you have spent on Blue Streak". I would only say to my noble friend that he will have to eat his own words, if he would do so most graciously.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, of course I would most graciously eat my own words. Blue Streak is out of date; Concorde is the modern thing.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the strange thing is that my noble friend wanted this done years ago and I wonder why he did not set about it when he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture. No doubt his time was fully occupied and I certainly take his rebuke that he does want action.

1569
I hope to be able to show your Lordships that the Government are fully committed to the policy of eradicating a disease which is horrible to animals and to humans and which presents a considerable problem of disease eradication.
It is a disease which is widespread and very infectious. Despite the exhortations from my noble friend, it is bound to be a slow business to eradicate it. Quite apart from the nature of the disease, there are two important factors which control the speed at which we can achieve this eradication. The first is the good supply and availability of clean animals to replace the reactors which are slaughtered. The second is the availability of trained manpower, particularly veterinary surgeons, of carry out and interpret the necessary blood tests and to offer advice to herd owners. In their programme for the eradication of this disease, obviously the Government have to take account of these factors. This is why we have placed such emphasis on the brucellosis incentive scheme under which herd owners are paid incentives on milk and on beef as soon as their herds become accredited. In this way we are not only identifying the clean herds, but, what is more important, we are building up a reservoir of clean and healthy stock to replace the reactors which are going to be slaughtered. Therefore this is a point of some importance.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend? I believe it does not require a veterinary surgeon or even a fully skilled person to take a blood sample. Therefore it should be quite easy to have comparatively untrained staff doing this work.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, my noble friend surprises me slightly, because he knows that if you are going to have an efficient scheme that is acceptable to the Government and to the public in general it obviously has to be controlled. We believe that the right way to control this scheme is for the veterinary profession to he in charge of taking these blood samples and doing tests. There are now over 64,000 herds taking part in the scheme, of which nearly 34,000 are already accredited. These 64,000 herds comprise some 3 million cattle which are eligible for blood testing; that is, cows, heifers and bulls. This represents about half of what one might describe as the
1570
testable cattle in Britain. We have half the testable cattle in Britain, but that does not mean to say that we are half way through the scheme, because obviously we have those herds most likely to be free of the disease in the first half; it is those in the latter half that will provide the greatest difficulty. Applications to join the scheme are still being received from herd owners at the rate of about 2,000 a month. This, I suggest, shows not only that the incentives that we are offering are about right to give encouragement to voluntary action, but that herd owners in general are anxious to get on with the eradication of the disease.
In this way we are building up a reservoir of clean stock. At the same time, we are going ahead with the compulsory eradication of the disease on a planned area by area basis. As noble Lords will know, we made a start last November in the initial areas in Western Scotland, North-West England, South Wales and the Isle of Wight. Since then we have announced our plans to extend our operations into other areas in the next two or three years. We have also recently announced the revised financial terms for herd owners who are affected by compulsory eradication. These terms have been welcomed by the National Farmers' Union as being fair and reasonable.
These two things, therefore—the encouragement of clean and healthy herds and the systematic compulsory eradication on an area basis—comprise, we believe, the most effective way of using our limited veterinary resources. About 50 per cent. of the time of the Ministry's veterinary staff is employed on brucellosis, most of them dealing with the voluntary scheme herds, with smaller concentrations in the eradication areas, where of course every cow, heifer and bull must be subjected to compulsory testing. While eradication is under way, we have to exercise control over the movement of all susceptible cattle into the areas and between farms in the areas. I would hope that no one would doubt that this is a very large-scale operation indeed in the animal disease field.
In addition to the Ministry's veterinary resources, to which I referred earlier, we have the assistance of nearly 3,500 private veterinary practitioners, and they are at present taking between 4 and 5 million

1571
blood samples a year. Each sample of course has to be properly identified as to the animal to which it belongs, and has to be sent off to a laboratory for testing; and those which react to the first test, the Rose Bengal plate test, have to be subjected to two further tests before deciding whether the animal should be slaughtered. In addition, every abortion or premature calving in the herds which are taking part in the scheme in the eradication areas must be investigated. This again involves the private practitioners and Government laboratories. I say this, my Lords, because I think it is important that the noble Lord's Question, and indeed the other questions which have been put forward, should be seen against the background of what in fact is being done; and not only that, but the size of the problem itself.
The noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, asked what steps are being taken to prevent reinfection of accredited herds by eliminating known areas of infection. The noble Lord, Lord Rathcreedan, also referred to this. The results of the Milk Marketing Board's survey of dairy herds in England and Wales show that there are about 25,000 herds which have reacted positively to the milk ring test. Any or all of these might be regarded as an infection risk to neighbouring accredited herds. Unfortunately, and for rather obvious reasons, there has been no similar survey of beef breeding herds, but no doubt there are several thousand of these herds which are also affected.
If we accepted Lord Rowallan's suggestion that we should try to eliminate infection from all these herds we should be faced with two problems. First, because our manpower resources are limited, we should have to divert staff from other work on to brucellosis, which would slow down or even halt the progress that we are making in the voluntary scheme. Secondly, the slaughter of all reactors in all these infected herds would create an immediate problem of an immediate demand for the replacement animals which the industry would be unable to meet. What the noble Lord's suggestion would amount to is that, instead of moving forward systematically as we are on a planned area by area basis, we should base our eradication programme on what might be called spot
1572
eradication, dealing with individual farms where infection already exists, and at the same time having what one might describe as a fire brigade force to go along to deal with new centres of infection as they flare up.
I have the greatest sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, when he gives examples of farmers who have become part of an accredited scheme and put their money and effort into it, and thereafter have become reinfected; they have tried to clear themselves, and maybe have done so, and then have become re-infected. If this continues, and if those people are not in an eradication area, I suggest that they must take the best possible advice that they can. It may be that they will have to admit that it would be wiser for them, rather than to bankrupt themselves, to wait until such time as an eradication area is made in their area, so as to ensure that all their neighbouring farms are clear of infection. However much one may sympathise with the noble Lord in the predicament which he emphasised,. I personally believe that it would be politically (and I use that word in the widest sense) totally unacceptable for the Ministry or anyone else to go on to a certain person's farm and say: "We believe that you are a source of infection. Therefore we have come to test your cows and, if necessary, to eradicate them". We require the co-operation of the farming community, and I believe there could be no better way of alienating the local farming community than for the Ministry or other informed people to point the finger of suspicion at various farms as opposed to others, and to try to eliminate the disease in that way. It is only by moving across the country in a planned way that you will in the end achieve the very desirable result which the noble Lord wishes.
My noble friend Lord Burton asked a very forthright question: he asked whether the Ministry knew all the answers. I should be a stupid fool if I said that they did; but I can tell him that in fact a great deal of research has been done by the Ministry and by the veterinary staff. The noble Lord referred to the period in which a farmer should be able to restock after an outbreak of this disease. I am bound to say that the right thing is for him to take the best advice he can from the local veterinary

1573
officers, because we are dealing with a disease which is not simple and regular, a thing which lasts for, say, 14 days and then conveniently comes to an end. The disease varies according to the circumstances, and each case has to be considered individually. Normally restocking is allowed after two months, provided all the buildings have been thoroughly disinfected. We would strongly advise that any pastures on which infected animals have recently grazed should be kept free of cattle for as long as possible.
LORD BURTON: May I interrupt my noble friend? If the Ministry are allowing restocking after only two months, they do not know all the answers.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, it seems that my noble friend has answered the question which he asked me, in which case I cannot think why he asked it in the first place. But in all seriousness, I would suggest to noble Lords that each case must be considered on its own merits. I believe that it would be wrong to lay down a hard and fast rule over this.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, may I intervene for a moment, if I am in order? I am not suggesting that we should deal entirely with individual herds, but I am suggesting that in a case where you have several herds which are free, except for one which is not, I know from my own case that the others are almost certain to become infected before long.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. But when you are trying to organise a scheme it is very difficult to organise one which would be fair in the very instance which the noble Lord produced without being unfair in many other instances. I believe that to achieve the final result, which is to get the country as a whole free from this disease, it must be done on the lines almost of a military operation right across the country.
My noble friend Lord Balfour referred to the payment of beef or hill cow subsidies on reactors which are slaughtered. I can tell my noble friend that animals slaughtered as reactors will attract subsidy provided they are replaced as soon as possible, having regard to veterinary advice. The House may like to know
1574
that these animals are known, as I believe he mentioned, as "ghost cows". My noble friend Lord Stonehaven suggested that all calves should be vaccinated with a strain 19 vaccine. In fact a million calves are vaccinated each year under the free calf vaccination sheme. These are vaccinated at between three and six months, and are ear-tagged at the same time. Not all calves are taken into breeding herds, of course; some are fattened in calf-rearing units or fattening units, and we do not feel that one could justify the withholding of a beef-calf subsidy, which is a production subsidy on these particular animals. But for all that, I think the noble Lord's suggestion is an interesting one.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, may I say that there is no guarantee that any heifer calf will not get into a breeding herd.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, that is perfectly true, but the point of the production subsidy is that it is given as a production subsidy and not necessarily as a means of controlling disease. The only point I was trying to make was that there may be occasions when it could be wrong to withhold a subsidy for certain animals which would not be infected by the disease at a later stage. For all that, I take note of my noble friend's point which I think is an interesting one.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, in an emergency it is perhaps slightly abusing the subsidy; nevertheless, I think it would do good, in an emergency, towards clearing up the disease.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think there is much in what my noble friend says. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, asked whether the Government would encourage insurance companies to grant insurance policies for those people who have not yet become accredited. I could not help feeling, as he said that, that one could detect the farmer in him. If he had spoken to some of his noble friends in this House who are involved in insurance and asked whether they were prepared to recommend to insurance companies that they should give carte-blanche insurance policies to cover the very types of people who, as the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, said, have herds which are infected with this disease, I

1575
think he would very quickly have been shown the door.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I wondered whether something could be done for people who were becoming accredited and who had perhaps had one clear test—and not a carte-blanche insurance, but merely in cases where they had one clear test. Obviously, if they had several reactors in the first test it could not be done, but I wondered whether, if they had a clear test, there could be a way of insuring against possible reactors. It might assist in speeding up the voluntary scheme.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, all I can say to the noble Lord is that that is a commercial decision. I believe that if one takes a problem to Lloyds they will underwrite almost anything; but what the premium for this would be I do not know. I think it would be imprudent for the Government to try to bring any form of pressure whatsoever on insurance companies for that purpose.
The Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, raised the question of the methods of testing. I do not wish to go into this aspect in any great detail. The noble Lord, Lord Allerton, expressed the hope that perhaps the tests could be speeded up. We are satisfied that the combination of tests which are being used at the moment in this country—the Rose Bengal plate test, which does rapid screening, followed by the serum-agglutination and the complement fixation tests which confirm the positive results—is the most reliable and effective method of diagnosing the presence of brucellosis in cattle. Our research staff at the Central Veterinary Laboratory are experimenting with various machines which might be able to carry out the test more rapidly, but if they are successful I cannot hold out much hope of a great reduction of the time it takes to transport the samples to the laboratory, to carry out the tests, interpret them and convey the results to the herd-owner. The average time—and I stress that this is the average time—at the moment is about eight days. Given
1576
the scale of operation which is involved, I am sure, and I think my noble friend will agree, that this is an acceptable period for the interpretation of the results to come through.
This is not to say, of course, that there are not some parts of the country—or indeed some individual circumstances—where the standard of performance is not as good, but these are very much the exceptions and can usually be explained by temporary staff shortages, the involvement of a weekend or problems of that kind. The noble Lord's Question criticised the inadequacy of communication between the Ministry and the herd owners, although the noble Lord did not refer to this matter. On the whole, when one considers that there are 64,000 herds involved, and between 4 million and 5 million samples a year, our experience has shown that the communication between the industry and the farmers has been good. From time to time there are bound to be slip-ups, but on the whole, they are fairly rare.
I will conclude by telling your Lordships that it is the intention of the Government to continue—and continue vigorously, my noble friend Lord Waldegrave will be glad to hear—the campaign for the eradication of this disease which, as the noble Lord, Lord Platt, said, is bad for humans, bad for cattle and bad for farmers. We wish to continue this campaign vigorously and I believe that we shall be successful. It is bound to involve some frustration, and it is bound to involve time. But we shall succeed in the end and the achievements to date are a very considerable measure of progress.

DERBY CORPORATION BILL
Reported with Amendments.

ESSEX RIVER AUTHORITY BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at ten minutes before seven o'clock.