Lords Sitting of 17 June 1974

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ely.
The Lord Balfour of Burleigh—Took the Oath.

DETENTION OF BRIAN BORTHWICK
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action has been taken to secure the trial or release of Brian Borthwick, an Englishman, who is alleged to have been held in solitary confinement in Singapore for over 200 days.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS): My Lords, Mr. Borthwick has been detained in Singapore since November 6, 1973. This is legal by Singapore law, but the British High Commission continues to press the Singapore authorities to bring him to trial, if there are charges to be answered, or else to release him.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank my noble friend, and appreciate what the British High Commission is doing. May I ask him whether it is a fact that Mr. Borthwick has denied any participation in the plot to assassinate the President of the Philippines, and that he withdrew as soon as he knew about it? Will the Minister express to Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, the Head of State in Singapore, the regret of those of us who have great admiration for the constructive work he is doing that the Singapore Government should be treating a British citizen in this kind of way?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure that the Prime Minister of Singapore, who is currently on a visit to this country, will appreciate very much what my noble friend has said about his achievements on behalf of his people. In regard to the charges—if charges there are—relating to Mr. Borthwick, I cannot enter into details of the merits to-day, but I can inform your Lordships that Mr. Borthwick is regularly visited by officials of the High Commission in Singapore and by his lawyer, and that his wife visits him every week.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is it not a fact that his wife visits him for only 30 minutes, and has to speak through glass and by telephone rather than by direct speech? Will the Minister suggest to the Singapore Government that they should adopt the British precedent, that when a man is in this situation he should be deported to a country of his choice?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my noble friend, inimitably, has made publicly a suggestion with which I am in complete sympathy.

ELECTRICITY: NIGHT RATE CHARGES
2.39 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: 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 have drawn the attention of the Director General of Fair Trading to the advertisement of the National Electricity Council in January, 1972, which stated that "The White Meter records day time electricity at one price, and then switches itself automatically to overnight electricity—for everything that uses it—at half that price"; and, if not, and the guarantee of half price is no longer valid, they will now do so.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, it would not be appropriate to do so. The introduction of a fuel cost adjustment clause into domestic tariffs was considered by the

725
independent statutory Consultative Councils who have the responsibility of protecting the interests of electricity consumers. They raised no objection. The night rates have risen more proportionately than the day rates, but they are still substantially below the day rates. The industry could not have foreseen the sharp increases in fuel costs, and there was never any guarantee that the precise relationship between night and day rates would remain the same for all time regardless of circumstances. The advertisements referred to in the Question ceased in March, 1972.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, while congratulating and welcoming my noble friend on what I believe is her first occasion answering Questions at the Dispatch Box, I regret that I cannot congratulate her on the Answer. Is she aware that ever since this matter surfaced I have been wondering whether the consumer had any redress under the Trade Descriptions Act? Can I ask my noble friend whether I am correct in saying that when a service is advertised at a price and then is declared non-available, the consumer has redress under Section 14(1)(b) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968?
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, may I first thank my noble friend for half of her question. The reference to the Director General of Fair Trading in this Question is, I regret, based on a misconception. There is no provision under the Fair Trading Act for the Government to draw the Director General's attention to the matter. Under Section 14 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 the Minister may refer to the Consumer Protection Advisory Committee for a report on the question, but the Director General of Fair Trading could make such a reference in respect of electricity only with the consent of the appropriate Minister. I must reiterate that the Consultative Councils, which act as the consumer watchdogs, did not raise any objection to this practice, although they were all well aware of it.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am not concerned what any Council did or did not do? I wonder whether she would be kind enough to look again at the reference which I have made? I
726
should also like to ask her whether she is aware that on Thursday last, at column 616 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, we were told in this House that existing contracts of supply were honoured by the Electricity Council when conditions changed in 1969? Why are the contracts of the White Meter consumers not being honoured similarly?
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, there was never any undertaking, and there never can be, that anything, either in this or any other economic field, will remain the same for all time regardless of circumstances. The escalation in fuel prices was due to the quadrupling of oil prices which took place towards the end of 1973, and this was anticipated by nobody in the early part of the year. There is no doubt that prices had to go up, and, as I have said, although they have gone up across the board, night storage rates are still below the ordinary rates.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, apart from the legalities, is it not a fact that many people put in these storage heaters because they thought they would get their electricity at half the normal rate? Is it therefore not a sense of injustice which people feel and about which something should be done?
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I can only repeat that as circumstances change, those which were beyond our control, it is impossible to keep the same conditions for ever.
LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, that is all very well, but in joining the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, who is answering from the Dispatch Box, may I ask whether she is not resting too much on the Consultative Council in seeking to avoid the responsibility of the Government for these charges which many people regard as a breach of faith?
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, while thanking the noble and learned Lord for his kind opening remarks, I am certainly not just relying on the Consultative Council, nor, indeed, on the actions of this Government. It was clear that the previous Government were intending to introduce domestic fuel clauses and to raise prices generally. In another place

727
on March 13 the last Minister of Fuel put this into words which I am sure the noble and learned Lord will find in the relevant Hansard.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask whether my noble friend is aware that although I do not use off-peak electricity now I did so for many years? I was strongly advised to purchase storage heaters and to use off-peak electricity on the grounds that I would save considerable expense. I assume that thousands of other consumers did the same. Is it fair to come along now and use the alibi of increased fuel charges, which of course apply all round, and make an excessive charge to those who were told they would have the benefit of lower prices provided they purchased storage heaters?
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I sympathise very much with my noble friend's question because I happen to be in the same position. However, I can only say again that the alternative would have been to put up the price of ordinary electricity and as everybody, including the very poor, use electricity such an action would have caused even greater hardship.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether the Consumer Committee has made any statement on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Byers? If not, what powers have the Government to sack the members of the Committee?
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I regret that that is not part of the original Question. I must ask the noble Lord either to let me write to him about it or to table it as a separate Question.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that many people in the country regard what is being done, not only as a breach of faith, but in the long run as bad business for the Electricity Council?
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. In reply to it and to the many other points which have been raised by noble Lords in all parts of the House, your Lordships may be assured that I shall certainly take it upon myself to ensure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is aware of the comments and the
728
anxiety which has been expressed. I will undertake to do that.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness how she justifies her statement that generating electricity at this time costs four times more than the hydro-electric power, which most of Scotland is enjoying? Thihs is water running wild which we were told at one time would be amortised when the cost of the dams were paid off in fifty years.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, that is an absolutely different question which I cannot possibly answer now.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, in light of the fact that my noble friend Lady Birk has undertaken to convey to her right honourable friend the strong views of your Lordships' House can we agree that it is unnecessary to pursue this matter today and that perhaps we may move to the next Question?
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: I am sorry, my Lords, but I rose with the Lord Privy Seal who has a somewhat louder voice, although I sit behind him. May I ask whether the Minister is aware that I am not on the question of prices rising? Of course they rise. Is she aware that what is so unjust is the proportion of the rises and the fact that people have spent money on these appliances? Would she please look at what has been said with some urgency?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I agree with the Leader of the House that we should leave this matter, particularly in light of the Answer that the noble Baroness gave a moment or two ago. But in view of the interest that has been expressed from all parts of the House, when she has reported this matter and has conveyed the strength of feeling in the House to her right honourable friend the Secretary of State, will she come back on a later occasion to inform us of his reaction?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may we be told also what has happened to the clock?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I also noticed that because the House will remember on previous occasions I have always relied on the clock for support to move on to other Business. I think

729
that my noble friend will take into account what the Leader of the Opposition has said. Of course further courses are always open to the House, but I am sure she will try to convey to those who have been interested the consequences of her discussion with the Secretary of State.

POSTAL DELAYS IN LONDON WEST ONE
2.50 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action is being taken in the matter of serious postal delays at Central Post Office West One.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, the postal delays in the West One postal district of London, which both Her Majesty's Government and the Post Office regret, are due to a local dispute at the Western District office which serves the area. This is essentially a matter for the Post Office and its unions. I understand that the Post Office is actively seeking to resolve the dispute in negotiations with the unions concerned. A further meeting is taking place this afternoon.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that this matter is now very serious, that it is affecting not only business but numerous organisations, and that many people are resorting to post-boys in order to deliver mail by hand, thus taking us back several hundred years?
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords; I do not think anyone underestimates the seriousness of the situation in that area.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Post Office Users' National Council, of which I am proud to be chairman, has received a tremendous volume of complaints concerning postal deliveries in West One; and that, at the same time, the Council is conscious of the very special difficulties in that particular district, and seeks to give every support to both the Post Office
730
and the trade union in their endeavour to find a satisfactory solution to this very delicate problem? At the same time, I would draw theattention of the—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is also aware that the Post Office Users' National Council has made the suggestion that there should be an independent inquiry into the very special circumstances operating in West One because, although they may be special, it is more than likely that the circumstances of that particular district which have caused this very difficult problem could be found in other areas?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am aware of the part which my noble friend has played in this matter, and I am sure that we are all grateful for the constructive proposals that have been put forward. They are being considered, and, as I say, there is in fact a meeting taking place this afternoon.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, in view of the importance of this matter to such a great number of people, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware of instances such as those of which I have been confidently informed, where transfers of not insignificant sums of money from the City to the West End have not arrived after a week or ten days? The interest lost on these failed remittances is high. Would it not be possible to mitigate this heavy loss by notifying the public that the Post Office is unable to give that service which, by the postage on the letters, it is paid to give, and that people who have sums of money to remit had better send it by telegraphic transfer, even though it be at a slightly higher price, rather than rely upon the ordinary postal service?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure that the publicity that has already been given to this particular problem, and the additional publicity as the result of these questions, will inform people, so that if they want to avoid the risk of putting things into this particular delivery service they will do so.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that I have an office in West One, and that for the last week or two I have always posted my letters in the

731
House of Commons, the only safe place, and will the noble Lord recommend this to the world at large?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I should have thought that that advice would have been more soundly based yesterday than to-day. But generally about this matter may I put it to the House that while, as my noble friend has said, there are special difficulties in the West One area, there are also general difficulties. We have inherited a position from the previous Government in which all the useful people—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD BESWICK: Certainly; and we have to face it—inwhich all the useful people are under-paid. Among them are the postmen, the nurses, the London Transport workers and the teachers. We have to recognise these problems and therefore exercise a certain amount of patience. I am grateful to think that up to the present time, at any rate, the fact that, as I have said, there is to be a meeting has been acknowledged by the House, and I think we should be well advised to see what comes out of this meeting.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, while I recognise that my noble friend is doing all that he can, would he bear in mind (and perhaps he would tell the postmen to remember) that the West One area covers the consulting rooms of a large number of doctors? I am informed on the best authority that, owing to the delay in delivering these letters, many patients are suffering considerable hardship.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure that is the case; but the real solution here, I think, would be not in informing the people who are now there but those who could fill the 400 vacancies which exist in this one district alone.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that one of the major reasons for the difficulties in the West One office, in particular, is that none of the workers there can afford to live anywhere in the neighbourhood of that office; and that when I suggested to Mr. Tom Jackson the other day that, in view of these circumstances, it might be worth considering decentralising the sort-
732
ing office to a part of outer London, such as Southall, where many of the workers live, he said that might well be a possibility worth consideration? Will the Government look at this?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as I have said, there is a meeting taking place this afternoon. I am quite certain that all the constructive proposals are being considered at this meeting.
LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, while endorsing the noble Lord's appeal for patience in this matter, which is obviously the best advice that can be given, will the noble Lord recognise that the difficulty concerning the payment of various persons who work for the public is very much caused by the problem of inflation, which was not simply an inheritance from the previous Government; and will he perhaps, on reflection, consider that the question of inflation is rather too serious to make Party politics about?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think that the question of inflation is too serious to make Party politics about. I suggest, therefore, that the noble and learned Lord should heed his own words.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that thereis no group of people more conscious of their responsibility than those people who are engaged in the administration of the postal services in this country? Is he also aware that the previous Government—that is, the Government prior to those on this side taking over in 1964, and the Conservative Government of which the noble and learned Lord was a member—were responsible for imposing upon the Post Office at that particular time the requirement that the positive return on postal charges and postal administration should not go above between 7 per cent. and 8 per cent.? That was the action taken by that previous Administration.
LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Rathbone Place Post Office, to which this particular problem applies, was opened after the event to which the noble Lord has just referred; and that, whatever else may be laid at the door of Mr. Macmillan's Government, this has nothing whatever to do with it?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I do not myself rest my case on the Rathbone Place depot. What I call attention to is the statutory Pay Code enforced upon the country by the previous Administration; and there is absolutely no doubt that, but for the rigidity of that Pay Code, some settlement could already have been reached in this case.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend why women are not allowed to sort these thousands of letters? Does he not think that a woman can sort letters?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, strange to say, I think they can, and I believe 58 of them are in fact doing so.
LORD GREENWAY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I had a letter from a famous gynaecologist in Harley Street which took two weeks to arrive?

I.R.A.: PROPOSED BELFAST CONFERENCE
2.59 p.m.
VISCOUNT BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the proposal by the I.R.A. to hold a conference of" terrorist internationals"in Belfast next month; and what action they propose to take.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE): My Lords, I assume that the noble Viscount is referring to the conference which is being held in Dublin, and subsequently in Belfast, and organised by the official Sinn Fein. I understand that the theme of the conference is anti-imperialism, and that it will be held under the slogan "The Struggle of the Irish People is the Struggle of the World". The organisers of the conference plan to open it in Dublin on July 22, and continue in Belfast from July 29 to August 3.
I understand that the Official Sinn Fein have invited a number of political groups from other countries, and that there will
734
be lectures, discussions and films. The matter is being kept closelyunder review, but I must make it clear at this stage that British tolerance of political views does not extend to criminal terrorists. Her Majesty's Government will continue to take all steps in their power to ensure that people who have committed terrorist crimes do not enter the United Kingdom for any purpose, and to prevent public disorder arising from meetings, marches or demonstrations.
VISOUNT BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, which I find very unsatisfactory because it does not appear to me to ban a most undesirable meeting, may I ask him whether he is aware that the organisers have equally made it public that the people taking part are Marxist revolutionaries? From the use of the word "revolutionary" and because last weekend we saw something of "peaceful" revolutionaries, and that it is therefore undesirable, can he tell the House what is the advice from the Security Forces and whether he has consulted the Dublin Government on the advisability of this matter? Is he aware that within five miles of the particular area in which this "peaceful" revolutionary conference is to be held, 500 people have died as a result of the original efforts of those "peaceful" revolutionaries?
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, first of all co-operation with the Dublin Government of course exists, and we have every reason to suppose that the Dublin Government are as hostile to the import of criminals as we are. There is an international police arrangement for dealing with this matter and it is not my Department's business to operate it, but only to to know that it is alert. It is alert. The second part of the noble Lord's supplementary question is difficult to reply to because it assumes a certain number of things of which we are not aware. It is certainly true that if convicted terrorists get in, for one reason or another, they will be subject to the law in so far as we can identify them. What we cannot do, and do not propose to do, is to alter the law of the United Kingdom to prevent people holding views we do not agree with, provided they do that within the law as it stands. If they exceed or

735
cross those barriers we are ready and prepared to deal with them.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that this business of bringing in the words "Marxist" and "Communist" and various other words, simply seeks to take away some of the blame from the I.R.A.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's question. I always prefer to speak of dialectical materialism rather than Marxism. I do not think it makes a great deal of difference what you call it. What we are against in this country, and on both sides of the House, is not people holding revolutionary views, but people who indulge in revolutionary action.
LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, has the attention of my noble twin been drawn to the reports in the weekend Press to the effect that both branches of the I.R.A. are currently being trained and armed by the K.G.B.? Would the noble Lord care to comment on that, or let the House at some later stage know the view of the Government about this matter?
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I should prefer to take the latter course because although I have seen the Press reports, I have not seen confirmation of them from more reliable sources.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree, setting aside all references to revolutionaries, Marxism and the rest, that the vital issue is whether the Security Forces in Ulster have been consulted about this matter because it may impinge on our security and that is the vital issue? What are the Government doing about that?
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, of course an event of this kind is discussed with the Security Forces. There is no question about that. I have heard it discussed myself.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, can we understand from the Minister's reply that the authorities will scrutinise those taking part in this meeting in order to see whether any wanted
736
men are in that meeting and, if so, that appropriate action will be taken to arrest the same?
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, the answer is basically "Yes" to that question. The delegates—if that is the right name for them—are expected to come in from the South. There are certain difficulties about scrutinising entry from the South as your Lordships will realise, but subject to that the answer is "Yes".
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, in view of the Minister's first reply and the emphasis he put on the limitations of the character of the conference, will there he any intention of the authorities intervening at any point if it is clear that that discussion goes beyond the limited terms which the Minister just gave? Secondly, since the noble Lord clearly stated that they would take great care to prevent the entry into Northern Ireland of any who are known to have been associated with disruption, will those carrying British passports who have been in that category in different parts of the world, be screened as carefully as, it is to be assumed, will foreigners who come into the country? Does the Minister realise, lastly, what unfortunate publicity has been given to the whole world by permitting this conference of subversive jamborees?
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, in answer to the first part of the question, I repeat the answer that I have already given: if the people attending the conference break the law they will be dealt with, and we are quite ready and able to deal with them. There is no fear here. On the second question, may I say that the holding of a British passport is no defence against a criminal record.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question of which I have given Her Majesty's Government Private Notice—namely,
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on the events in Red Lion Square on Saturday.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, with the leave of the House my noble friend

737
Lord Harris of Greenwich will answer this Question at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. This will be followed by a Statement to be made by my noble friend the Leader of the House on the bomb incident at Westminster Hall.

MORPETH COMMON BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE JEWS' (GOLDERS GREEN) BURIAL GROUND BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

STANDING ORDERS OF THE HOUSE
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to Public Business be amended as follows:—
Standing Order 61
After paragraph 2, insert the following new paragraph—
("(2A) The Committee of Selection shall select and propose to the House the names of the panel of Lords to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for each Session."). In paragraph 3, line 3, after ("on") insert ("the panel of Deputy Chairmen of Committee and on").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

JURIES BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD ELWYN-JONES): My Lords, I understand that no Amendment has been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak to a clause or Schedule. Before the House decides to discharge the Order of recommitment, if it so pleases, I should inform the House that this Bill was referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills under the provisions of the Consolidation of Enactments Procedure Act 1949. No representation was received by the Committee with respect to the memorandum setting forth the corrections and
738
minor improvements of the law proposed in the Bill and the proposals in the memorandum were approved by the Committee without alteration. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 45(2), that the Order of Recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STATUTE LAW (REPEALS)BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

WELFARE OF LIVESTOCK (CATTLE AND POULTRY) REGULATIONS 1974
3.10 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI rose to move, That the Draft Welfare of Livestock (Cattle and Poultry) Regulations 1974 laid before the House on May 14 be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient to noble Lords to discuss these draft Regulations together with the draft of the Welfare of Livestock (Docking of Pigs) Regulations 1974, which was also laid before the House on May 14, and for which a Motion for approval appears on the Order Paper. The House will have noted that the drafts of both these Regulations were approved in another place last week.
My Lords, the powers to make these two draft Regulations are contained in Part I of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, under which it is an offence to cause or allow livestock on agricultural land to suffer unnecessary pain or unnecessary distress. Noble Lords will be aware that this measure was enacted following a recommendation of the Brambell Committee in 1965. Under the powers taken in the Act, Parliament has already approved four codes of recommendations for the welfare of cattle, pigs, domestic fowls and turkeys. Producers are for the most part very much concerned to secure the well-being of the animals and birds in their care and the codes give them authoritative guidance in this. These codes were first

739
brought before the House by my noble friend Lord Beswick when we were last in office, and revisions to some of the recommendations were approved in 1971 on a Motion by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. We envisaged that in addition to the codes there would be regulations concerning certain aspects of livestock welfare. The two Regulations which your Lordships are invited to approve are the first of these. Their approval will represent a further stage in the development of a comprehensive welfare policy.
My Lords, noble Lords will know that the advice of the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee is available to the Government in drawing up proposals for welfare provisions. The Committee has advised on the content of the present draft Regulations. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the members of this Committee for advising us so conscientiously over the years. As we are required to by the Act, we have consulted the interests affected by these proposals, and the comments received were considered by the Advisory Committee. As a result of this consultative process, the original published proposals have undergone some modification. We consider that those now presented for your Lordships' approval represent a useful step forward in our continuing efforts to make soundly-based provisions for the welfare of farm livestock. We largely depend on them for our food supplies, and it is our duty to ensure that their well being is safeguarded.
These draft Regulations are concerned with practices which involve mutilations of animals. Before I deal directly with them perhaps the House would wish to know our general views on this question. Let me say first that, in principle, we do not like mutilations. But it has to be acknowledged that some mutilations are necessary for sound husbandry reasons and that others may be justified because greater suffering may be caused if they are not done. As a general rule, we consider that welfare provisions should be firmly based on scientific findings. Our aim is to prevent unnecessary mutilations, and we regard them as unnecessary if there are other reasonable means of achieving the desired effect. So much, my Lords, for the principle. I will now
740
turn to the two draft Regulations. These deal with five practices involving mutilations, and your Lordships will no doubt note how our proposals reflect the criteria I have outlined.
I should like, first, to deal with the tail docking of cattle. We do not consider that rigorous scientific proof is required to show that cattle without tails suffer unnecessarily. But, none the less, there is scientific evidence that without tails cattle would endure increased irritation and possible infection carried by insects. It may be asserted that if dairy cows are docked, udder cleanliness is improved and the incidence of cracked teats is reduced. It can equally be maintained that it is unnecessary to go to the lengths of removing the tail to achieve these desirable objectives. Nor could one justify docking as the means to protect the milker whose job may place him in a vulnerable position. Again, other means are available for avoiding this. The welfare code for cattle, as your Lordships will be aware, recommends docking only when a veterinary surgeon advises that it is necessary because of injury or disease. Under the draft Regulations, docking for health reasons would be allowed when carried out by a veterinary surgeon, and the Regulations would have the effect of making the code provision mandatory.
Next, my Lords, I come to the surgical castration of poultry. This is an operation that can involve mortality. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association and welfare organisations are strongly in favour of our proposal to ban it. Of course, if surgical castration is ruled out it means that the scope for producing capons is limited. But, in fact, very few people practise it nowadays, so we do not expect the ban to give rise to difficulty. In any case, birds similar to capons can be produced by way of special diets. It therefore seems right to do away with surgical castration, and I hope your Lordships will agree. It is, as I have said, an operation which can result in death. The welfare code for poultry recommends against the practice, and the proposed Regulations will have the effect of making the code recommendation mandatory.
I turn now to operations on poultry to impede flight. These are normally restricted to the more nervous strains of bird. The object is to prevent losses

741
among the flock should they panic on being disturbed. De-winging, or pinioning, is carried out at day-old by removing the terminal wing joint, usually of one wing only. Alternatively the main wing tendon may be severed. However it is done, the result is a permanent mutilation of the bird. The case for prohibiting these practices is based on the ready availability of an alternative; that is, clipping the flight feathers of one wing. This does not involve interference with sensitive tissue. Although it cannot be done at day-old and it is not permanent in its effect, it is a method which is practicable. Furthermore, the need to carry out these operations has been much reduced in recent years through strains of bird being developed which are less likely to panic. We believe the practices that we propose to ban are no longer necessary. The welfare code for poultry recommends against de-winging, and instead advises feather clipping as a means of reducing the effects of flightiness.
Finally, in this the first of the two Draft Regulations, we come to blinkers. These are used to limit the forward vision of poultry in order to control aggressive behaviour. Nowadays, of course, they are used only in a small number of flocks of broiler breeder birds. The welfare code recommends against the use of blinkers which may cause injury. It advises against their use except as a last resort and when it is clear that without them there would be more suffering in the flock. Your Lordships will recall that in 1970 the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee re-examined some of the original welfare code recommendations about which concern had been expressed. This re-examination included the use of blinkers. The Committee found that blinkers had no advantage over other methods of controlling aggressive behaviour. On the contrary, there are notable disadvantages. Also, there are dangers of serious injury if these blinkers become entangled in the wire of the cage and the bird attempts to free itself. We think the proposed prohibition of such blinkers is fully justified.
These, then, are the mutilations we propose to prohibit under the Cattle and Poultry Regulations. None of these mutilations is very much practised in this country. I suggest though, my Lords,
742
that this is no reason in favour of inactivity. They are practised to some extent, and we believe that our farm livestock will be better off without them. The proposed Regulations will prevent them being used in future, and on that score alone I submit that the Regulations are worth while.
Perhaps now, with the leave of the House, I may turn to the second Draft, which is concerned with the docking of pigs. In this connection I would remind noble Lords that my right honourable friends have made the Docking of Pigs (Use of Anaesthetics) Order of 1974, which has also been laid before Parliament and is subject to annulment on a Resolution of either House. The Order and the Regulations are complementary. Noble Lords will note that we are not proposing to prohibit pig docking as in the case of cattle docking. What we are doing is to introduce a control where none has hitherto existed, and we consider that our proposals match the circumstances.
Perhaps noble Lords will allow me to explain why we propose to treat pig docking differently from cattle docking. Tail-biting is widespread in pigs, and causes considerable suffering. Docking is one of the principal practices adopted to control this behaviour. But unless docking is carried out at the right time and in the right manner it too can cause unnecessary suffering. Numerous cures and palliatives for tail-biting have been proposed. Some are in use, with varying degrees of success. However, none of them has been shown to be generally effective. The causes of tail-biting are not as yet of course fully understood. Many possible causes have been suggested, including genetic, environmental, nutritional and so on. But as I said in my opening remarks, we dislike mutilations in general, and we are reluctant to endorse them unless it is absolutely necessary. But we have concluded that in the present state of scientific knowledge there is no general alternative to docking as a preventive to tail-biting where this habit can be expected to develop.
The tail of a young pig up to about seven days of age has little or no sensitivity, and its removal by means of quick clean cut is no more than a minor opera-

743
tion. In old pigs the tissue of the tail becomes more sensitive, and to prevent unnecessary suffering we consider it essential that docking should be performed by a veterinary surgeon with the use of an anaesthetic. We believe that it is right to continue to permit preventive tail-docking of pigs not more than seven days old, and to allow a layman to do it without the use of an anaesthetic. But for the reasons I have just given we consider that only a veterinary surgeon should be permitted to dock older pigs, and that he should use an anaesthetic for the operation. And we think it right to require that the method to be used in either case should be the quick and complete severance of the part of the tail to be removed.
It would perhaps be useful at this point to sum up our proposals on pig docking. The Draft Regulations now before the House for approval would prohibit the docking of pigs more than seven days old except by a veterinary surgeon, and would also specify the method of docking to be used in all cases. The Order which my right honourable friends have made prohibits docking without anaesthetic when the pig is more than seven days old. The effect will be that the docking of pigs up to seven days old will continue to be permitted subject to the requirements as regards the method to be used which the Draft Regulations impose. Noble Lords will however wish to note that the recommendation in the Welfare Code for Pigs that docking should not be carried out unless prescribed by a veterinary surgeon remains in force.
My Lords, I beg to move the approval of the first of the two Draft Regulations.
Moved, that the Draft Welfare of Livestock (Cattle and Poultry) Regulations 1974, laid before the House on May 14, be approved.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
3.27 p.m.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, I should like to thank Her Majesty's Government for giving us such a very clear description of these Regulations, and for enunciating them in a manner which is very easily understood, because the way in which they are set out is not at first sight altogether comprehensible. May I at the outset thank the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for taking us through the first
744
set of draft Regulations and explaining the four different sets of provisions which affect cattle and poultry.
My Lords, may I say straightaway from this side of the House that we welcome these Draft Regulations. We welcome them in the first place because they follow a series of attempts over the last five years to promote the welfare of animals in this country. We welcome them, secondly, because such very great care has been taken by the Chief Veterinary Officer and his advisers in the Ministry to ensure that the greatest amount of information has been gathered before laying these proposals in draft before your Lordships.
This may mean that progress has been slow. My Lords, it has been slow. The Brambell Committee reported in 1965. As your Lordships will remember, the Committee was set up in 1964, a full ten years ago. I should like to refer to the Brambell Committee from the outset, and to quote the remarks made by Sir Julian Huxley in a letter to The Times of June 25, 1969, in this context, when he was writing in support of the Brambell Committee. He wrote these words:
"It is obvious to us that behavioural stress to animals has been completely ignored, yet it is the frustration of activities natural to the animal which may well be the worst form of cruelty, and this behavioural aspect has been pointed out clearly in the Brambell Report."
I think we can be grateful to all those concerned with the drafting of these Regulations, in that they have followed to some extent the spirit of the Report, while bearing very clearly in mind the problems of the industry itself. With that in mind, I feel that the first proposal prohibiting the docking of the tails of cattle is very much in line with the Report and, again, represents a small step forward. The second proposal with which the noble Lord dealt in detail, concerning the castration of male poultry birds, needs little further explanation from me. However, I should like to expand a little on the third proposal concerning the operation on birds with the object or effect of impeding flight.
The difficulties of the industry in regard to feeding at the present moment are certainly very clear indeed, and the restriction of poultry from flight by severing the main wing tendon is an inhibition to what are termed galliform birds; that is, those birds used to nesting

745
on the ground—the partridge, the domestic hen and so on. However, it is must less of a restriction to them than it is to passerine birds, which are used to flight and to nesting in trees. How can we differentiate between the two? We are assured that if it is carried out at a tender age the severing of the wing tendon may not cause very great suffering to the bird, but the question of multilation is involved here and I think that the minimum has been recommended. I particularly welcome the fourth proposal to ban the fitting of blinkers to a bird. Rarely can one think of a more unfortunate situation for a bird than to be rendered unable to see the light of day, and for a bird to suffer the penetration of its nasal septum by a steel pin. That ban will be universally welcomed, as the practice was an offence to civilised people in this country.
I should now like to turn to the wider aspects of the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee's remarks, and to quote once again what they reported in 1970. For those of your Lordships who have a copy available, I am quoting from page 2 which reads as follows:
"The present Codes set bare minimum standards, and it would have been far better to have allowed ethical considerations to have filled the gap left by the doubts stemming from inadequate scientific knowledge. If this had been done, the Codes would have set high standards and left no doubts about their ability to ensure welfare."
That may be. The codes at present enacted did set bare minimum standards, and what is attempted in these Regulations backs up the codes to a considerable extent.
Reading further in the same Report, we see on page 3—and I think it is germane to both the first and second proposals—
"It is tempting to think that if an animal is thriving its welfare is completely covered. But this argument has many flaws. We are dealing mainly with young animals in which the longer-term effects of permanent discomfort may not become manifest. The animals' tolerance may be masked by the routine use of antibiotics and by the reliance some systems place on near-darkness or multilation. It is a method of approach aimed solely at finding out the lowest common factors on which an animal can exist."
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to one fact. Those who imagine that these codes will have considerable application on farms in this
746
country may be surprised to know that of over 4,000 farms visited by the inspectorate of the Ministry of Agriculture, only 36 fell below standard. These figures relate to visits carried out during 1970 and 1971, and they show how remarkably small is the number of farms where practices repugnant to most of us are carried on. In closing, I should like to say that we welcome these Draft Regulations and we hope that the Government will lay further Regulations before us in due course.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I wonder whether I might beg leave of your Lordships to say just one or two words—
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend is now ready to make a Statement, and this is probably the most convenient moment for it to be made.

RED LION SQUARE DEMONSTRATION
3.36 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH):My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has just made the following Statement in another place:
"The violence which took place in and around Red Lion Square on June 15 followed police action to prevent a clash between a demonstration organised by the National Front and a counter-demonstration by a movement now called Liberation. I understand that the National Front arranged some time ago to hold a meeting in the larger of two rooms at Conway Hall on the subject of 'Stop immigration—start repatriation'. Subsequently a smaller room at Conway Hall was made available for the Liberation meeting, and both meetings were to be preceded by marches.
"I would prefer not to go into detail at this stage about the precise sequence of events on June 15. With around fifty charges pending as well as a Coroner's inquest it is obvious that there are substantial sub judice aspects. It is evident that there are some differences of opinion about the actions of those involved, clearly pertinent to the court proceedings. I would also like

747
more time to consider a report which was given to me this morning by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.
"However, I take this opportunity of expressing regret—on behalf, I am sure, of the whole House—that in the course of Saturday afternoon a young man died. There were also a number of injuries, not least among the police. The exact cause of the death is not yet clear and we should be careful not to comment on that. I cannot be too emphatic in my condemnation of the actions of all those who contribute to acts of violence. The burden imposed on the police by disorder of this kind is very heavy. It is more than time that those who organise demonstrations which may develop into violent confrontations realise and accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions."
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am sure that we are all very grateful to the noble Lord for repeating that Statement and I quite understand the reservations referred to in view of the coroner's proceedings and also because of the charges that have still to be heard. It is hard for me to say with which of the two organisations concerned I differ more greatly in their general views. Therefore, at least I have the chance of being impartial.
Whatever may be the wisdom of those who accepted these two rival bookings in the Conway Hall, do not the Government agree that both factions concerned were taking advantage of our much-cherished traditions of freedom of speech and freedom of association? Also, were not the police there probably sacrificing some of their well-earned off-duty time in order to guarantee those traditions and to keep the peace? I ask whether it is not some indication of what happened that 39 policemen were injured, as opposed to six of the demonstrators. Has the noble Lord any comment on what is on the tape about the death having been caused by cerebral haemorrhage? Perhaps I might reinforce the Statement's conclusion—I may well not get another chance to comment on this matter. If it should turn out that, by suddenly seeking to charge and break the police cordon,
748
some demonstrators used or provoked violence, would it not be the conclusion that they were blatantly abusing the traditions which were protecting them?
Perhaps we may all now realise that violence at demonstrations, however induced—by carelessness, folly or, indeed, by calculation—can lead to injury and death. Then, afterwards, we all say—as I do now—how sorry we are. Organisers of these demonstrations should take this lesson to heart and, if they do not, they should take the blame. Should we not all consider, if there is not a general lesson to be learned, that it is most questionable whether rival factions who are so much in disagreement as these two, should have demonstration meetings at the same time and at the same place in the way that occurred on this occasion?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, we from these Benches certainly deplore the violence and the death of the young man and the casualties to the police. Presumably there will be an Inquiry into this incident. It seems to have stemmed from a series of appalling misjudgments by practically everybody involved. I should like to know what form the Inquiry will take when it is an appropriate moment to undertake it. I should like to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, in condemning all those who provoked the violent reaction and all those who reacted to the provocation. Those who took part in both the marches were totally irresponsible in every sense of the word.
3.42 p.m.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, I am sure all Members of the House will wish to be associated with the general approach of the noble Lords who have spoken. On the precise question of the post-mortem examination, if the noble Viscount will forgive me, I prefer not to comment on this matter at this stage because it has to be gone into rather more carefully. Certainly my right honourable friend the Home Secretary wishes to study some of the wider implications of this whole episode, not least the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, en the question of some form of Inquiry. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary was told during the course of his meeting with the Metro-

749
politan Police Commissioner this morning that the police would welcome an independent Inquiry into this episode. My right honourable friend is now considering this matter.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I ask the Minister a question? Who authorised the letting of the small room? However much one abhors, as I do, the National Front, they have a right to hold a meeting, but was it not very silly and unwise for the smaller room to be let to the Liberation Movement?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, the point which my noble friend has raised is a matter entirely for the hall authorities. No doubt this is one of the questions which will come within the general discussion.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that on the B.B.C. television news last night the incident was presented as a clash between the police and the Liberation Movement? Is he aware that this presentation of the news completely omitted to show that basically this was a clash between the Liberation Movement and the National Front Movement which the police were trying to hold apart? Is he aware that, as the liberty and safety of everyone depends on the action of the police, the presentation by the B.B.C. was far below their normal high standards? Will he ask them to take more care in the presentation of a very important incident?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, I will draw the attention of the Chairman of the Corporation to what the noble Lord has just said.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I first express what I have already done by telephone this morning—my sympathy with the relatives of the boy who died? The relatives accepted the statement which I am now about to make to this House.
My Lords, I am the Honorary President of Liberation, but that is more because of my activities in the past than so I can become involved in its activities to-day. I heard of this proposal of a counter-march in Red Lion Square six days before it took place. I heard of the proposal that there should be two meetings in Conway Hall only four days before
750
they took place. I expressed my strong disapproval and dissent, and I declined absolutely to take any part in either event. I was assured that the arrangements were being made with the police, and that the Liberation movement was co-operating entirely in those arrangements. I was also assured that the two meetings in Conway Hall would be sealed off so that there would be no opportunity of one audience getting to another. Nevertheless, I continued to express my disapproval of both those proposals.
It is fair to Liberation to say that I was not so much concerned that those associated with Liberation would engage in violence as with those who always attach themselves—and this is the danger—to such demonstrations; and that is in effect what took place. There w as no conflict between those associated with Liberation and the police. The conflict was when those who sought confrontation with the police broke away from the procession and advanced towards the police. I should add that these occasions were organised not by the central organisation of Liberation, but by its London Area Council. Although I have explained my own position, I deplore that these events ever took place. Obviously within Liberation we have to consider the consequences as soon as our central council meets.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government please recognise that this is the first confrontation between Fascism and Communism in this country, and that it is likely to be repeated?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, on the second point, I prefer not to follow the noble Earl on that. I trust that we shall not see demonstrations of this kind again on the streets of London, and it is certainly the objective of my right honourable friend to see that we do not have a recurrence of this regrettable and deplorable episode. The whole House will take note of what my noble friend Lord Brockway has said, and deeply regret that the advice he gave was not followed.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, when my noble friend comes to consider the relative responsibility of these two organisations, and when he comes to consider the statement of my noble friend Lord Brockway that there was no con-

751
frontation between Liberation and the National Front, will he bear in mind what many of us saw on the television last night—that a member of Liberation, with a baton in his hand, advanced towards a horse upon which was a mounted policeman, and he struck at that horse?
LORD MONSON: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that a great deal of the trouble with this demonstration, as at others, was caused by demonstrators' placards being mounted on heavy poles which are subsequently often used to attack the police Would the Government seriously consider making the brandishing of such poles or sticks a punishable offence?
LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, would i1 not be better if we left these matters until the coroner's inquest and any inquiry which the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary may think fit to order?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, I am much obliged.

WESTMINSTER HALL BOMB INCIDENT
3.49 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Lord President of the Council. The Statement is as follows:
"Just before 8.30 this morning a bomb, which is estimated as weighing 15 to 20 lb., exploded near the North end of Westminster Hall. Six minutes' warning was given by a telephone call to the Press Association and officers from New Scotland Yard were already in the precincts when the explosion took place. But the warning related to the House of Commons and was quite unspecific.
"It is too early to say how much damage was done but most of it results not directly from the bomb, but from a fractured gas main. Some damage was done to the Grand Committee Room in Westminster Hall and to the staff canteen. More serious damage was
752
done to two Members' desk rooms and two Secretaries' typing rooms in the Westminster Hall Annexe.
"Unfortunately five members of the staff of the House and one fireman were injured. One of the members of the staff is being treated in hospital for a broken leg. I know that the whole House would wish me to offer her our best wishes for a speedy recovery and to express our very great sympathy to all those who were injured.
"Police investigations are being continued but it is not yet clear how the explosive device was placed in position.
"I am sure the House would wish me to conclude by paying a warm tribute to all those involved, and especially to the firemen, for the splendid work they have done."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am sure the House is grateful to the noble Lord for repeating that Statement. We are all relieved to know that the casualties are so light and would like to join the noble Lord in what he has just said about expressing sympathy to those who were injured. I understand that several Department of the Environment personnel, especially those on the staff of the Director of Works, were quick in their responses to this incident and in handling the risks attached to the fractured gas main. Our thanks are due to them. I should also like to endorse what the noble Lord said in his closing sentence about the London Fire Brigade and the speed, efficiency and courage with which they acted. It is reported that there were over 20 appliances and 100 men at Westminster Hall and some of them are still there, seven hours later. If the noble Lord could find an opportunity to pass on these tributes to the Chief Fire Officer for what his men have done in conditions which are dangerous and always very unpleasant, the House would welcome it.
My Lords, we are relieved that the damage to the historic building of Westminster Hall does not seem to have been too severe or too permanent, and I believe all noble Lords will want to join in condemning the futility and wantonness of this attack.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I should like to associate my colleagues and myself with the expressions of sympathy with the injured and of thanks to those who acted so promptly in the defence of their colleagues and the building. I have no questions. I only wanted to endorse what the noble Lord has said.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Lords for what they have said and we will certainly pass on to the Fire Officer the tributes to the firemen, and not only at this incident but at others in which they have participated.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord satisfied with the security arrangements? When one comes to your Lordships' House through the other place one finds all sorts of people coming in without any difficulty whatsoever, nobody stopping them. Are we satisfied that the security arrangements are as they should be?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I suppose no one could ever be satisfied with the security arrangements of this building. It is a difficult matter to keep the balance between a House of Parliament, where people have the right of access to Members, and the provision of security. I understand that the Committee responsible in another place is meeting this afternoon to consider the security aspects so far as the House of Commons is concerned and I hope that the Chairman of Committees will see that this matter is raised urgently with the Administration Committee, which is the responsible authority here. I think we need to take particular care at this moment and I have no doubt at all that the officials directly responsible are now doing so.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the important B.B.C. film on "Secrecy in Environmental Health Services" which was to have been shown in the Grand Committee Room, at 5.30 to-day will now be shown in your Lordships' Committee Room No. 3A?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, that is one way of getting a plug.
LORD VERNON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that those of us who have had any experience in dealing with
754
security matters would regard the security in the Palace of Westminster as little better than a joke, and will he give an assurance that the advice of the security service on this important matter will be sought and that some action will be taken? Any action inevitably means a great deal of inconvenience, but we in this country are virtually in a state of war with certain elements and I am sure some inconvenience would be put up with by a great many people. It means that everybody, including the most eminent Members of your Lordships' House, would have automatically to show passes and that type of thing but I am sure many of us would be prepared to put up with that.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I accept the point that the noble Lord has made, but I do not think I could accept that our security arrangements are a joke. We have now been in a state of danger for some five years and the security arrangements have at least protected us up to this moment from attack on the building or the persons within it. Having said that, we are not in any sense taking it easy but we will look at this matter. But I should not like it to be thought, particularly bearing in mind the many hours in which many of our staff undertake security duties, that their service has been regarded as a joke.
LORD HAILSHAM or SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, is it not to some extent, without seeming in any way complacent, reassuring that when this attack took place it took place on the periphery of the building, apparently underneath or near the Grand Committee Room, and not in any of the substantial work places in the Palace? One hopes, of course, that any lessons to be learned will be learned, but I think it would be unjust to our security services not to make that point.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am very grateful for what the noble and learned Lord has said.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, does not the noble Lord think that once again the B.B.C. gave an altogether too alarmist report on this in the 10 o'clock news—that St. Stephen's Chapel had been practically destroyed and that Westminster Great Hall was thoroughly on fire? I heard it all and I felt terribly upset about

755
it, and I am quite sure that hundreds of thousands of people had exactly the same feelings about what is possibly the finest building in the country being in effect destroyed. The B.B.C. ought to be much more careful before they put out alarmist reports of this kind.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it is not for me to spring to the defence of the B.B.C., but I think the same news will be found on the tape in the corridor outside. That is one of the dangers of what is called, "instant news".

WELFARE OF LIVESTOCK (CATTLE AND POULTRY) REGULATIONS 1974
3.58 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I assume we are now passing from this Guy Fawkes incident to the Welfare of Livestock Regulations once again? May I beg leave of your Lordships to say one or two brief words about these Regulations. which I do as a lover of animals—except of foxes. The ban on docking of the tails of cattle is obviously acceptable to us all. The ban on trimming of birds' wings, also is obviously acceptable to us all. Similarly, I think that the ban on fitting of blinkers to birds will be acceptable to most of us, but I have some doubts about sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 2, which says that in future.
"the castration of a male bird by a method involving surgery"
will be prohibited. If that is to be prohibited, and it is recognised that more and more people are feeding on caponised cockerels, and that the sales of poultry are increasing day-by-day throughout the country—probably because of the high cost of meat—may I ask how cockerels are to be caponised in the future?
We have heard during recent years that caponising has been brought about by the implanting of a chemical pellet—I think that is the official term—under the skin of the cockerel. This pellet appears to be comprised of female hormones, and there have been warnings by many mem
756
bers of the medical profession that the caponising of cockerels by this method, and the consumption of these feminine hormones by human beings, might ultimately have the effect of caponising human beings. As one who does not want to be confronted with that fate, I ask my noble friend whether it is wise that we should in future prohibit the caponising of these birds by surgical operation, and thus compel the breeders of poultry to resort to this other and somewhat doubtful expedient.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, one welcomes these Welfare of Livestock Regulations. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, to whom I wrote on the subject of pheasants and ducks, which I understand are not involved in these Regulations. I cannot comprehend, if it is essential to stop the nicking of the end joint of poultry, why it should equally not be stopped on pheasants, partridges, ducks, et cetera. There is a considerable amount of this nicking of the ends of the wings of ducks, particularly of rare breed ducks. I would only ask whether at some future time it might be possible to include the mutilation of all forms of birds within the scope of these Regulations.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I do not want to ask any questions, but may I just say a word of thanks to the Government for having introduced these Regulations which are a good step in the right direction. As your Lordships know, I have campaigned on this subject for some little time and I am most grateful that some result has appeared, since these Regulations are mandatory and will have a great deal more effect than the codes have had in the past.
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, I am sorry that I was not here to hear the explanation of the noble Lord about these Regulations, but I should like to express my gratitude to him for bringing them forward now. They make a significant advance in the conditions under which animals will be kept. I remember with horror some of the experiences I had as a boy on Welsh farms, when animals seemed to me even then to be unnecessary mutilated. We are very grateful indeed to the noble Lord and to the Government for bringing in these Regulations.
4.3 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am very grateful to the House for the welcome it has given to these Regulations, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, who spoke with all his great wealth of experience. I am glad he endorsed what I said in my speech, that these malpractices are indulged in by only a minority of people. Indeed, as he pointed out, of over 4,000 farms only 36 were found to be below standard. We are grateful to him, speaking for the Opposition, for his support. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, of the Liberal Party, for their support. The noble Lord, Lord De Clifford, also welcomed part of the Regulations. He mentioned the question of game birds. As he said, he wrote to me about this subject in advance. I gave him some information, but I know he would like me to develop that a little.
The Draft Regulations really apply only to animals or birds which are livestock for the time being situated on agricultural land within the meaning of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968. In general, this means animals or birds kept for the production of food, wool, skin or fur, on land used for agriculture for the purposes of a trade or business whether a farm in a rural area or an intensive livestock unit in an urban area. The Draft Regulations would not apply to animals kept for the production of meat, milk or eggs for private domestic consumption; nor would they apply to game birds reared on farms solely for sporting purposes, nor to ornamental fowl. As the House will be aware, an authoritative interpretation of the law is a matter for the courts, but we consider that game birds reared solely for sporting purposes would not be held to be livestock for the purposes of the Draft Regulations. Game birds reared as laying stock which after producing eggs for hatching are fattened and killed for human consumption might, however, be held to be kept for food production and thus to be "livestock". A definite ruling on these points could of course be given only by the courts, but may I remind the House that the
758
animal or the bird could also have the additional protection of the Protection of Animals Acts of 1911 to 1964, which make it an offence to cause suffering to any animals.
My noble friend Lord Leatherland raised the question of the castration of poultry, or capons as they are usually known. He said that people might be deprived of enjoying these birds at the table, and he gave the impression, I thought, that they were fairly widely bought. I understand that the surgical castration of poultry is not much practised in this country as it is uneconomic. It is of course practised in France, but I am informed that even there this is done only in the smaller and more remote farms and is gradually dying out. It has been superseded by chemical caponisation and by the production by means of special diets of birds similar to capons. The noble Lord raised an interesting point about the effects that some of these practices might have on people consuming poultry in future. I am informed that table birds of high quality similar in carcase characteristics to capons can now be produced by feeding a high-energy, low-protein diet so that the birds lay down fat. The increased growth rate makes it possible to market such birds before they have developed the secondary sexual characteristics which caponisation or castration would he intended to suppress. I hope that that explanation gives the noble Lord the answer he wants, and I beg to commend the first Regulations standing in my name on the Order Paper.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WELFARE OF LIVESTOCK(DOCKING OF PIGS)REGULATIONS 1974
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg leave to move the second Regulation standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Draft Welfare of Livestock (Docking of Pigs) Regulations 1974, laid before the House on May 14, be approved.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CARRIAGE BY RAILWAY (REVISION OF CONVENTIONS)ORDER 1974
4.9 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHYrose to move, That the Draft Carriage by Railway (Revision of Conventions) Order 1974, laid before the House on May 14, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the United Kingdom is a party to three international railway Conventions referred to in the Carriage by Railway Act 1972 as the Railway Passenger, Railway Freight and Additional Conventions. The purpose of the Order now before the House is to make a few minor amendments to the Schedule to that Act which arc consequential on the revision of the Railway Conventions.
In simple terms, the Draft Order will give statutory effect in the United Kingdom to amendments to the additional Convention which link it with the Passenger Convention of 1970 and so extend its duration: and ensure that certain provisions of the Carriage by Railway Act 1972, which assist the implementation of the Passenger and Freight Conventions of 1961, will continue to do the same for the Conventions of 1970 when these come into force on January 1, 1975. It is in the interest of railways and railway users that the United Kingdom should continue to be a party to these Conventions which enable railways to issue through consignment notes and tickets. They also give traders and passengers a guarantee that uniform rules concerning railway liability for personal injury and death and for loss of or damage to goods will be applied. My Lords, I ask that the House approves this Order so that ararngements can be made for United Kingdom ratification of the new Passenger and Freight Conventions and the Protocol containing the amendments to the Additional Convention in good time before the ratification period expires on October 31, 1974. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Carriage by Railway (Revision of Conventions) Order 1974, laid before the House on May 14, be approved.—(Lord Garnsworthy.)
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, on behalf of the Conservative Party, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, for explaining
760
so lucidly and briefly what appears at first sight to be complicated but is really a very simple series of points with which we are in agreement.
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, may I also thank the noble Lord for the clear and lucid way in which he has explained this Order which we are happy to support.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for what they have said.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL [H.L.]
Report received.

DUMPING AT SEA BILL
4.13 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales that they, having been informed of the purport of the Dumping at Sea Bill. have consented to place their prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords. I apologise for not being in your Lordships' House when I should have been. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time, and I hope your Lordships will feel that I can take this matter briefly as we have already been through it very carefully. I should like to take this opportunity of telling your Lordships that I regret that I misinformed the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and in consequence your Lordships' House, on whether the appropriate clauses would be subject to an Affirmative or Negative Resolution procedure. My recollection is that I told the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that they would be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure but, in point of fact, an Order will be laid before Parliament and will be subject to scrutiny in the normal way, and no further Parliamentary procedure will be required. I have written to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, pointing

761
this out, but I take this opportunity of informing your Lordships as many of you would not otherwise know that there was a correction. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
LORD ELTON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his explanatory letter and statement. My question was simply intended to obtain an elucidation which has now been received and for which I thank him. I thank him also for clarifying the question which I asked him at Committee stage about the effects of giving powers to British enforcement officers under Clauses 7 to 10, which I understand are limited to the occasions upon which a British enforcement officer is acting in his capacity as an officer. However, having said "Thank you" in regard to those two points, I would raise the further microscopic and miniscule point of the strange intrusion of a closing bracket without a corresponding and symmetrical opening bracket in Clause 13(2)(a).
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, I have nothing, either microscopic or miniscule, to raise at this stage. All I wish to do is to thank the noble Lord for the clear and frank way in which he has presented the matter, and to presume to congratulate him on the way in which he has dealt with the Amendments in this Bill.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if I may first deal with the second point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, the reason why this subsection has not been put right is that this Bill went through your Lordships' House without amendment. But perhaps I may inform the noble Lord and the House generally that in line 17 on page 13 there should be a bracket after the word "proceedings" and before the word "other", so that the part in brackets reads "other than proceedings for the recovery of a fine". This has been noted and will be put right when the Bill is printed afresh. With regard to the second matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, subsection (4) of Clause 5 sets out the limitations imposed upon the British enforcement officer which are set out more or less fully in the matters referred to on page 7.
762
I should also like to take this opportunity of thanking the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, to whom I have always want to refer as the "noble and learned Lord" but am not allowed to do so, for his very generous comments and observations.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his further explanation, which I am glad to say will give meaning to Clause 13. May I join with those on other Benches in thanking him for his able and swift despatch of this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

FARRIERS (REGISTRATION) BILL [H.L.]
4.19 p.m.
LORD NEWALL: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Newall.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL or LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Functions of Farriers Company]:
LORD NEWALL LORD NEWALL moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert ("and shall promote, encourage and advance the art and science of farriery and education in connection with the said art and science").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is a fairly simple one and I do not think that it should cause much controversy. On Second Reading, I made it fairly clear that the Worshipful Company of Farriers is the only body of which I know which is doing anything about increasing the number of farriers, by having a charitable foundation the purpose of which, simply and solely, is to give extra money to apprentices in the world of farriery.
The object of this Amendment is merely to enlarge upon their duties and responsibilities, and to make it even clearer than previously that they will do everything in their power to promote the cause of farriery and help to add to the extra number of people that are so

763
earnestly desired by the whole world of horses. I beg to move.
LORD AUCKLAND: May I, as a Past Master of one of the livery companies, the Worshipful Company of Broderers, express my personal good wishes and those of my own livery company to my noble friend on this venture. Throughout their history the livery companies have tried to support the craft which they represent. This is an epoc-making Amendment, and I think all livery companies would wish to be associated in the tribute to the Worshipful Company of Farriers and to wish them every success in this important venture.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Removal of names from register]:
4.22 p.m.
VISCOUNT THURSO VISCOUNT THURSO moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 7, line 29, leave out from ("Court") to end of line 30.
The noble Viscount said: May I first say that those of us in the Committee who have put our names to this Amendment would yield to no one in our desire to see the welfare of the horse paramount in any decisions which may be taken in this Committee. We question whether in fact this Bill, as laid before your Lordships. is suitable for the conditions which apply in Scotland. We question whether a case has been made out to show that there are more known cases of cruelty taking place in Scotland as a result of people not qualified as farriers shoeing horses, or purporting to be farriers in order to shoe horses, than there are known cases of discomfort caused to horses by not getting any farriery done at all. This is the real problem in Scotland, which, being a large part of the total land area of Great Britain, has under 200 farriers spread throughout the whole area.
There are in Scotland ponies and horses still working on farms and certainly on milk rounds; working for pony trekking, for recreational purposes as children's ponies, and so on. These horses and ponies require to be shod. In many cases the ponies are in fact being shod and
764
having their feet cared for by people who would not qualify under this Bill were it to become law. It is said in the Bill that such people might be accepted to begin with, but it does not in any way provide for the recruitment of farriers, other than by the rather vague method of hoping that farriers will become recruited or that young men will wish to apprentice themselves to the trade of farriery simply because farriery becomes a closed shop.
Those of us who have put down our names to this Amendment sincerely believe that a great deal must be done in Scotland to promote the training of farriers before it can be regarded as a sensible move to bring about the kind of restriction envisaged in this Bill. We have therefore tabled a number of Amendments, of which this is the first. Your Lordships will see that this Amendment No. 2, which we are now discussing, is followed by Amendments 7 and 19 and, in the Schedules, Amendments 10, 13 and 14. These Amendments all deal with the same point. We believe that there are not enough farriers already in Scotland and that to restrict farriery quite so drastically as is proposed in this Bill, to people who could get the full qualification under the Bill as it would be if it became law, would not encourage young men to apprentice themselves to the trade of farriery, and we feel that certainly at this stage Scotland should be left entirely out of the provisions of the Bill. We notice that an Amendment will be moved later, suggesting that certain areas of the country might be left out of the provisions of the Bill for five years. We do not feel that this really answers the question, because it is not simply a question of time: it is a question of performance. It is a question of whether in fact a sufficient number of farriers can be trained and are being recruited to the ranks of the trade at a rate sufficient to deal with the problem of the shortage of farriers. We do not feel that merely to leave out certain areas for a period of five years is any guarantee that at the end of five years there will be enough farriers to deal with the situation.
Therefore we propose to go ahead with our Amendment and to ask the Committee to agree to it. We should have preferred to have grouped all the Amendments together, but I do not know whether it is possible to do so. If it is possible, we feel that it would greatly

765
facilitate the work of the Committee this afternoon if we could in fact group Amendment No. 2 to Clause 15, Amendment No. 7 and Amendment No. 9 and the various Amendments to the Schedules; namely, Amendments 10, 13 and 14. They are in effect one Amendment in purpose.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: I think I am right in saying that it is perfectly proper for these Amendments to be considered together, but of course they will have to be taken separately as they appear on the Marshalled List.
VISCOUNT THURSO: I thank the noble Lord for his advice. I have indeed spoken to all the Amendments because they are in effect one Amendment, which is to leave out Scotland, just as Northern Ireland is left out of this Bill. Obviously in dealing with Amendment No. 2 we shall deal with it as though it were Amendment No. 9, which is of course the meat of the whole group of Amendments. I beg to move.
LORD ALLER TON: I do not wish to oppose this Amendment, but I think it is right to point out that there is a slight error in it. It should read "… leave out from the first word ('Court') …", as there are two.
VISCOUNT THURSO: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Allerton, for drawing my attention to this point. This is at the line 29, after the words "the High Court" to the end of the sentence.
LORD ALLERTON: As has been shown by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, this Amendment is designed to ensure that the Bill will not apply to Scotland. During the Second Reading of the Bill, the difficulties which would arise in Scotland were demonstrated clearly by the noble Viscount and others. Your Lordships will be aware that the distances and problems of remoteness are difficult in Scotland, and that the horse population is nothing like as large as it is in England. Indeed, even if there were many farriers, in many areas, which there are not, I doubt that they would be able to get a living in the remote parts of Scotland, owing to the distances involved and the comparatively small number of animals requiring to be shod. This does not mean that the few horses and ponies that exist are unnecessary.
766
They are very necessary; indeed their work could not be done in any other way.
In the past, Parliament has always been understandably cautious in considering legislation to control various professional and business activities. Measures which might have the effect of taking away the livelihood of a person, or even a part of his livelihood, in general have been enacted only when they could be shown to be in the public interest. I do not believe that the inclusion of Scotland in this Bill is in the public interest. If this Bill goes through in its present form, there are many districts where horses and ponies could not be used at all if their owners are to keep within the limits of the law. There are parts of Scotland where ponies and horses can be used unshod, but even in those areas, the feet of the animals would require paring and rasping from time to time, which apparently can be done only by a registered person. My thoughts on the Bill have been much influenced by the Second Reading speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Wells-Pestell and Lord Wigg. Indeed, it might be appropriate, in view of the subject of this Bill, if I were to quote from Jorrocks:
"We seem to be adding to the theory with as little practice as possible."
4.33 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Speaking from this Bench, may I say that this is a completely non-political Bill. What has been said by my noble friend, Lord Allerton, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is perfectly correct, and I am sure no one would wish to argue against what they have said. When one considers the areas North of the Clyde on the West side of Scotland, and North of the Tay on the East side of Scotland, what the noble Lord. Lord Allerton, said is absolutely right. The horse population is small, so farriers are almost nonexistent. I hope my noble friend Lord Newall will see his way to accepting this Amendment because otherwise it would result, as my noble friend has said, in the horse population having to be completely reduced or else the law being broken, which I think would be a great pity and would be stupid.
LORD BURTON: Since the Bill was introduced, I have canvassed round Scotland to try to ascertain what the

767
feeling is there, and I found that few people had seen the Bill. With the exception of one or two people, none knew about it. There are only a few people in Scotland who see the Horse and Hound, and in that publication they had seen one or two of the letters. If training is to be encouraged, one of the bodies which ought to be brought in is the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society who run the only Show in Scotland, and run a competition for farriers. They have not heard about the Bill. Your Lordships may well laugh, but this is a fact. I spoke to the Director, and he got on to the Secretary, and they did not know about it. I was told the Bill was widely supported by the veterinary surgeons. I rang up two of the largest veterinary practices in the Highlands—neither had heard about the Bill. They had received no communication on it. I should point out that one veterinary surgeon said that he heard something about it on the car wireless, but they had received no communication from any veterinary organisation or anyone else, so it is hardly right to say that the veterinary organisations supported it.
I tried the Regional Commissioner of the Pony Club, who was hotly opposed. I tried several members of the British Horse Society Committee in Scotland, and a great many of those people were opposed. Only the chairman was somewhat in favour of it. When I questioned one or two people, they said, "Oh, we had a meeting only a month ago; this was never brought up at the meeting". So to say that the British Horse Society in Scotland supported it, cannot carry any weight. One problem we have is that many ponies are not used during the winter months. In the spring, pony trekking, Pony Club work, and so on starts, and this goes on throughout the summer. This means there is a rush to get the animals shod by Easter time.
During the winter months, there is practically nothing for a farrier to do. To qualify to be a registered farrier, a man has to be working regularly in farriery for an average of 18 months out of 24. Of course, many farriers in the North are working only part-time. Apart from their training which we are all in favour of, some farriers would be out of work. It would not greatly encourage training, so
768
far as I can see, because if we are to have training in Scotland, we do not want the English body which would be set up and which, I think, is in Schedule 1. the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. There is a separate body in Scotland, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas was to be on it. They are separate bodies in Scotland.
If this Bill is to apply to Scotland, we would have to alter the whole Bill and put in a separate Training Council for Scotland. The Bill would have to be altered. It would be easier to leave out Scotland at this stage. In a year or two, if it works well in England and Wales, we could have Scotland with a separate Bill and a separate Training Council.
4.39 p.m.
LORD MARGADALE: As one who is an interested party as I breed ponies in an offshore Island of Scotland, I should like to support warmly the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, as I did on Second Reading. It is a fact that offshore islands are further away from centres where many able farriers might normally live. As I see it, if this Amendment is not accepted it will mean that fewer persons are allowed legally to shoe horses, and it would affect the inshore islands in Scotland. In order to make a livelihood—the point made by my noble friend Lord Allerton—it is vital that they do other things in connection with ironwork; as well as shoe horses or ponies, because there is a limited supply of them, they have to weld things, they have to work as foremen plumbers, and to deal with motor cars, at all stages of their lives. Therefore, I warmly support my noble friend Lord Thurso in this Amendment.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: I have listened carefully to the noble Lords who have spoken. I am not sure what is in their minds. The Amendments taken together would have the effect of applying the Bill to England and Wales only and not, of course, to Scotland. The issue of whether or not there should be a separate Scottish Council and whether or not there should be a separate Scottish Bill was raised, as your Lordships will remember, during the Second Reading. I do not know whether I am right in saying that those who favour the Amendments have in mind a separate Scottish

769
Bill, or whether it is their intention not to have a Bill, resulting in an Act, at all.
VISCOUNT THURSO: Perhaps I may intervene on this point. It is clearly our intention at the moment to leave Scotland out of the Bill, because we do not think Scotland would be well served by the Bill. We are not pressing for a Scottish Bill. We are reserving judgment on whether Scotland could be well served by including it within the Bill, if it is passed and shows itself to be successful in England. We feel that those who are interested in the horse and who think that to be relieved of having the Bill would be a disadvantage would do well to get together in the meantime and see what they can do about encouraging training within Scotland. I do not suppose that we would require a Bill in order to bring together bodies like the Royal Highland Agricultural Society, the Scottish Small Industries Trust, the Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; these bodies could all be brought together without having the Bill, and we could then see what we could arrange by way of training. At this stage it is in our minds to leave Scotland completely out of the Bill, so that we can see what success we can have in arousing interest in the training of farriers, and what success the Bill will have when applied to England and Wales.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. If it is the intention of noble Lords from Scotland ultimately to have a Bill I would have thought that this is the time to consider it. I would accept that there are some subjects, and I do not want to go into them all, such as local government, education, housing and so on, where it is desirable to legislate for Scotland alone. I accept, if I may be permitted to say so, that there are sometimes traditional reasons why Scotland should have its own Acts of Parliament peculiar to Scotland. One reason, of course, is the different legal background, which is markedly different, as we all agree, from England and Wales. But it is not immediately obvious, at least not to me, what factors would justify separate Scottish legislation in the case of the Farriers Registration Council.
The general principle of having a Registration Council was, I think, endorsed at
770
Second Reading. The matters raised by the Bill now before your Lordships' House should, I think, be applied to Scotland. On the face of it, the best course would seem to be to have a single Council for the whole of Great Britain, and I would accept the necessity—not just the desirability, but the necessity—of having representation on it from Scotland. The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, mentioned during the Second Reading debate that there were fewer farriers in Scotland than in England, and a greater problem of training. I remain doubtful, however, whether a Scottish Council, if it is the intention ultimately to have a Scottish Council, could be regarded as a viable organisation in any sense of the term. As I understand the position, there are about 120 farriers in Scotland, and even with an increase in the figure there would be problems in keeping a Council going which depended on an income from fees. That it could make a greater contribution to training than a larger Council, I would have thought, with great respect, seems most unlikely.
I would say to your Lordships that the arguments of principle seem to be perfectly clear. If the case for a Farriers Registration Council is accepted, should not the Council cover Great Britain as a whole? Are Scottish conditions so distinctive in this field that a Scottish Council would be justified, and, if so, I think noble Lords from Scotland, provided it is their intention to have registration along the lines suggested in the Bill, have to ask themselves whether this could possibly be self-supporting. Taking all these factors into account, I must advise your Lordships to oppose these Amendments if they are pressed to a Division. I think it would be in the long run much more desirable to have a Council for the United Kingdom. As I say, I am in some difficulty because I am not clear what is in the mind of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, whether he is putting off the possibility of ultimately having a Council, or whether it is firmly fixed in his mind that a Council is not necessary at any time in Scotland.
VISCOUNT THURSO: May I come back on that? The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has said that he would advise your Lordships that it is essential

771
to have one Registration Council for the United Kingdom. How in that case does he envisage as desirable the situation in Northern Ireland? Why is Ireland being left out of this? Surely if it is possible for it to be satisfactory to leave Ireland out it is equally possible for it to be satisfactory to leave Scotland out.
I should like to try to explain to the noble Lord what is in my mind, because clearly he is not looking at the same problems that I am looking at. It seems to me that there is no reason at all why any farrier in Scotland, if the Bill is not applicable to Scotland, should not register, as indeed some do now, with the Worshipful Company of Farriers or any other organisation with which they wish to register. If they registered with the Worshipful Company of Farriers then they would have to comply with all the regulations which the Worshipful Company lays down from time to time. I see nothing to stop this happening if the Bill does not apply to Scotland. But, if the Bill does apply to Scotland, a number of farriers will be stopped from practising, and I do not think we can afford this to happen. I do not think a case has been made out to show that horses are being damaged in Scotland. We have had a case made out, by the other noble Lords whose names are on this Amendment, to show that horses would suffer severely from not being shod at all if the Bill were to go through as it stands.
Therefore at this moment we think it would be desirable for Scotland to be omitted. I do not see anything in adopting that course to prejudice the situation should matters change. Should we be able to achieve a good rate of increase in the number of farriers available in Scotland we might consider it desirable to apply all its provisions. We are not seeking to set up a Scottish Council for the registration of farriers. Our Scottish farriers can be registered in the City of London, if it were so wished, and if they complied with the regulations. We feel there are people in Scotland who are now successfully, humanely and skilfully shoeing horses but who would be debarred from so doing by the Bill if it became an Act of Parliament; but worse still, that the sort of people who 'have learned to shoe to this standard,
772
those who have been trained to a standard sufficient to shoe the hill ponies during the season, will no longer be available because they will be debarred from learning to do it unless they appretice themselves to a registered farrier. Frankly, in many places that would not be possible. This is the point which the other noble Lords whose names are appended to the Amendment, have been trying to make.
At this stage we feel we do not necessarily want to ask for a separate Council to be set up in Scotland. In the meantime let those who care and can qualify use any Council that is set up under the aegis of the Worshipful Company, but leave Scotland out and leave it to try, as it has successfully done in the case of the drystone dikers, to encourage training in this ancient art.
4.53 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: May I put another point of view which probably has not been heard? On the Second Reading I spoke as warmly as I could in favour of the Bill. I believe it is desirable and that we should do all we can to get it on the Statute Book. From the arguments of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and other Scottish Peers from whom we heard on earlier occasions, it is obvious that there will be opposition from the Scottish element to their being incorporated in the provisions of the Bill. I do not regard this as being the spirit of Scottish Nationalism rearing its ugly head. I see it from the point of view that there are only about 100 farriers in Scotland. I want to see the Bill passed. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Newall, who is the sponsor of the Bill, would perhaps be contributing more to its rapid passing if he were to say:"We will exempt Scotland from its provisions." Not only have we to consider the Scottish opposition that comes to this House, but also the Scottish opposition that will come to another place. I feel therefore that the whole Bill might be wrecked if we insist on incorporating Scotland in its provisions.
I should like to see an all-nation Bill, including Scotland; but if it is to be a question of getting the Bill through for England and Wales and wrecking it by including Scotland, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Newall—I do not mean to

773
be presumptuous in giving him advice—will be well advised to say: "All right, let us stick to England and Wales and make almost certain of getting the Bill through this Session".
LORD CHAMPION: I do not want to enter into the merits of this matter, but the noble Lord, Lord Somers, was correct in saying that the Amendment is not in order. I sincerely hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, will not press it to a Division.
The Amendment reads:
"Page 7, line 29, leave out from ("Court") to end of line 30."
In page 7, line 29 the word "Court", appears twice. This Amendment could apply to either and it ought not to be left to anybody other than the House itself to decide which it should be. The House does not know and will not know, if the Committee divides on this Amendment, to which the noble Lord is actually referring and whether the context of his remarks might have made it clear. May I advise the noble Lord to submit a Manuscript Amendment, if he proposes to go to a Division, setting out that he is intending to apply his Amendment to the first word "Court" and not to the second?
VISCOUNT THURSO: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Champion, very much for his advice. May I ask the Committee if it is in order for me to submit a Manuscript Amendment now?
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: As I was, unfortunately, not here on Second Reading I should like to interject at this point. I live in an area where a great deal of riding occurs. We have three packs of hounds and riding and walking are practised almost to exactly the same extent; that is to say, practically everybody who can walk can ride. An enormous amount of riding goes on in Roxburghshire, as the noble Lord, Lord Burton, knows very well, and in other areas. I know people who are anxious that we should have this registration, that our farriers should qualify and should be as good as any other farriers. I think that they are just as good. If the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is correct in saying that they can register with the Farriers Council without the Bill, then perhaps what I am saying does not count. But I think that
774
we want to encourage a higher and better standard; we want to encourage more farriers. Because of the number of pony clubs existing not only in our area but in the Highlands or elsewhere—pony trekking being a favourite sport for many people to engage in—it is important that Scotland should not be left out. Whether or not by having a separate Bill we can get round it, I do not know. But I do not like the thought that the whole standard of this ancient and most important skill will be improved and then somebody will say that Scotland is not up to it. I believe they arc up to it. I do not know whether what the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, says is true, that people who are now shoeing horses will not be allowed to do so as a result of the passing of the Bill. I know that my blacksmith would and does shoe horses exceedingly well. He cannot persuade his son to carry on the business after him. This is a great sorrow to me. He is very good, and there are many others in Roxburghshire who are extremely good and who would readily register under these conditions.
While I could not take part in the Second Reading debate, I did have one or two people writing and talking to me about the subject. On the whole most people who are keen on riding, hunting or pony trekking are anxious to see more farriers trained to a higher standard of horse shoeing than we attain now. If this process will be helped by the Bill, we should accept it and go ahead on those lines.
5.0 p.m.
LORD NEWALL: While, obviously, there is a certain amount of dissension in the Committee, I should hate those noble Lords who have nothing to do with horses to think that there is any real conflict. There is possibly some disagreement as to how the Bill should be worded and whether certain aspects and areas of the country should be omitted. I come here to speak for people who are not able to be here; not for various noble Lords, who I am sure have the best intentions and whose views I do not doubt. I should like to speak for many people who are not able to be here and have not a voice in your Lordships' House.
I seriously believe that a great deal of Scotland is not so very different from

775
many of the wilder parts of England. That is the first and most important point which ought to be made. Secondly, there are many more problems with regard to farriers in urban areas than in the very wild areas. I have various pieces of information from 14 pony trekking associations in Scotland, going from Perth to Skye, who have all said that they never have a farrier travelling more than 40 miles, and that is the absolute extreme. So I cannot believe that in every case the distances involved are as great as the noble Lord, Lord Burton, implied. There are certainly no livelihoods to be taken away by this Bill. There are very many parts of this Bill which allow part-time as well as full-time people to continue being farriers, and there is no reason why they should not do so if they are reasonably active and are good at their job.
Paring was mentioned by, I think, the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. Paring is not part of this Bill, unless it has to do with dealing with a hoof in preparation for a shoe. I do not think that the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Burton, about ignorance being an essential part really carried weight. He said that it should not happen in Scotland on account of ignorance, but I have put down Amendment No. 8 which I think fills the bill much better. I shall not go into too much detail, except to say that it allows the Secretary of State to leave out any part of the country—whether it be Scotland or anywhere else—if he thinks fit after receiving the advice of various horse organisations. I submit to your Lordships that that is a far better way of dealing with this point, particularly if there is so much ignorance about this Bill in Scotland. I should like to mention very briefly the organisations which have taken the trouble to notify me that they are in full support of this Bill so far as Scotland is concerned. These are the people I mentioned as being those for whom I am speaking since they are not themselves able to be here to speak to your Lordships. There is, first of all, the Scottish Committee of the British Horse Society, who have unequivocally given me their support.
LORD BURTON: May I interrupt the noble Lord on this point? The Scottish Branch of the British Horse Society met
776
about a month ago, and this matter was not on their agenda. They have never discussed it, and several members of that Committee strongly disapprove of the Bill.
LORD NEWALL: In contradiction of the noble Lord, Lord Burton, I should like to draw his attention to the fact that the Scottish Committee have a development management committee who have been given power to make decisions on matters of this sort. That development management committee have given their total support to this Bill, whether or not there are members of the other committee who do not support it. Obviously, they do not! have 100 per cent. support, but the committee as a whole have said that they agree and want the Bill. Secondly, the Scottish National Pony Society have endorsed it. As to the pony trekking associations which I have mentioned, I will not give your Lordships all their names but I have information from 14 of them to the effect that they are in favour of it. They are the ones registered with the Scottish Sports Council. Then there is the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals which has already been mentioned to-day. That Society have also given their support to this Bill. The British Field Sports Society in Scotland has also indicated to me that they are in favour of this measure.
LORD BURTON: May I interrupt the noble Lord once more? I am a member of the committee of the British Field Sports Society in Scotland, and we have not been consulted.
LORD NEWALL: I am very sorry that the noble Lord has not been consulted, but they as a society have told me that they endorse this Bill. The British Equestrian Federation, and all the Scottish people connected with it, have also endorsed this Bill. All the Scottish farriers, as a group, have endorsed this Bill. The Scottish Division of the Veterinary Association, who are very much in touch with the aims and aspirations of this Bill and who know very much more about horses than a great many people here, have taken the trouble to tell me only to-day that they fully support this Bill. The Scottish Small Industries Council also support this Bill; and every single horse organisation which is British, and which therefore covers

777
Scotland, has supported this Bill. There is not one organisation which has said that it does not support this Bill.
LORD BURTON: May I interrupt the noble Lord once more? I consulted the Highland Pony Society and the Shetland Pony Society, and neither of them have been consulted.
LORD NEWALL: I do not think I mentioned those two societies; I mentioned all the British societies. If you have a particular local one, it will obviously have local views. All I can say is that there is no real division of feeling here. 1 feel I am representing the people who cannot speak in your Lordships' Committee and who cannot be here, but if there is any doubt in your Lordships' minds as to who has more on his side we should perhaps wait and use Amendment No. 8. Then, if the Secretary of State wishes, he can change the Bill so that any part of the country can be left out on the recommendation of those who really know.
VISCOUNT THURSO: I am at a slight loss in knowing to which Secretary of State the noble Lord, Lord Newall, is referring. Does he mean the Secretary of State for Agriculture in England, the Secretary of State for Scotland in Scotland, or both?
LORD NEWALL: if the noble Viscount will forgive me, "the Secretary of State" is a terminology used by lawyers these days. There is only one Secretary of State, so far as the lawyers know, and the term applies to whichever one is most applicable.
VISCOUNT THURSO: I am not really tremendously encouraged by the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Newall, to the points which we have made on this
Amendment. In the first place, I asked him to tell us what cruelty he knew was taking place in Scotland due to these part-time farriers, but he has not been able to tell us of any cases. I would claim that we who have put down our names to this Amendment are just as much entitled as anybody else to say that we are speaking for people who cannot come to your Lordships' Committee and speak for themselves. To say anything else would suggest that we were speaking here in your Lordships' Committee solely for selfish motives, and I assure your Lordships that that is just not true of any of the noble Lords whose names are down to this Amendment. We sincerely believe that in this matter we are thinking of the interests of the horse. We are also thinking of the interests of people who derive their living, their recreation or their enjoyment from using or associating with the horse or the pony; and in that we include breed societies like the Highland Pony Society and the Shetland Pony Society. These are not little local clubs; they are societies concerned with breeds of horse.
We still feel very strongly on this matter, and we must press this Amendment to a Division. I have therefore tabled a manuscript Amendment to leave out from the first "Court" in line 29 on page 7, and I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, for giving me the appropriate advice. On behalf of those who have our names down to this Amendment, I ask your Lordships to support this Amendment, as amended by the manuscript Amendment.
5.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 2), as amended by a Manuscript Amendment, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 56.

CONTENTS

Allerton, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Ardwick, L.

Mancroft, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Barnby, L.

Margadale, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Barrington, V.

Meston, L.

Burton, L. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Thurso, V. [Teller.]

Byers, L.

Moyne, L.

Vernon, L.

Denham, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Vivian, L.

Dundee, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Wade, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Berkeley, B.

Boothby, L.

Arwyn, L.

Birk, B.

Brockway, L.

Auckland, L.

Blyton, L.

Champion, L.

Chorley, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Northchurch, B.

Cowley, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Peddie, L.

Cromartie, E.

Phillips, B.

Daventry, V.

Halsbury, E.

St. Just, L.

de Clifford, L.

Helsby, L.

Sharples, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Slater, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Ironside, L.

Snow, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B. [Teller.]

Jacques, L.

Somers, L.

Elton, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Ely, Bp.

Long, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Maelor, L.

Summerskill, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Melchett, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gifford, L.

Merrivale, L.

White, B.

Greenway, L.

Newall, L. [Teller.]

Wise, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Offences by unregistered persons]:
5.17 p.m.
LORD MARGADALE LORD MARGADALE moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 8, leave out from beginning of line 17 to ("to") in line 18.
The noble Lord said: If it would be convenient to the Committee as a whole—and I understood from the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, originally that it might be convenient—I should like to speak to the next two Amendments together. If that is the wish of the Committee may I go forward with Amendments Nos. 3 and 4? If there are no objections I take it that I may.
The point of this part of Clause 16 is that by making it a criminal offence for an unregistered person to carry out farriery, the provision will make it more difficult for the owner of a horse to get it shod because the number of persons holding themselves out as being willing to shoe horses is likely to be much reduced if the clause is enacted in its present form. In so far as the Bill encourages the proper training of farriers and enhances the status of farriery, it is wholly admirable, as practically every speaker indeed has said. Moreover Clause 16 is unobjectionable in so far as it would prevent persons from passing themselves off as being qualified when they are in fact not so qualified. In the past, Parliament understandably has been cautious in considering legislation to control various professional and business activities. Measures which might have the effect of taking away a person's
780
livelihood have in general been enacted only when it can be shown to be in the public interest.
From the summary of the law relating to certain activities, to which I will come in a moment, it will be seen that so far as Clause 16 is concerned it seeks to impose in respect of horses a standard which in many ways is higher than that set by Parliament in respect to people dealing with human beings. In regard to architects, for instance, Section 1 of the Architects Registration Act 1938 prohibits any person from practising or carrying on business under any name, style or title containing the word "Architect" unless he is registered under the Architects Registration Act 1931, with certain exceptions such as registration required for the possession of proper qualifications. However, there is no prohibition against practising as such.
The same idea takes place in the registration of Hairdressers Act 1964—a voluntary system of registration for hairdressers. There are no penal provisions. In fact, although it does not take her long now, my wife cuts my hair perfectly legally and is not breaking the law, but in the proposed clause in this Bill somebody other than a registered person doing it would be breaking the law. For medical practitioners the Act contains no prohibition against practice by unregistered persons although they must describe themselves according to the qualifications to practice which they have.
A number of other ancillary provisions exist. Section 6 of the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960, as amended, regulates the use of titles such as State Registered Chiropodist, State Registered Dietician, State Registered Medical Laboratory Technician, State Registered Occupational Therapist, State

781
Registered Physiotherapist, State Registered Radiographer, State Registered Remedial Gymnast and State Registered Orthopedist, but the Act does not prohibit the practice by unregistered persons. I believe—if I may say so with respect to my noble friend Lord Newall who is having more "chat" about this Bill than he reckoned he was going to get—it would make for some form of compromise, and a happy compromise, if he could see his way to leaving out Amendments 3 and 4 which would take out the penal clause, at the same time encouraging, particularly by this debate, young farriers to come along and make unnecessary other Amendments which may be pressed on him at a later stage for omitting this, that and the other in outlying areas where it is of very vital concern that they be preserved. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT THURSO: I should like to support this Amendment, I have practised as a hairdresser; I used to cut my father's hair when he was ill in bed. Unfortunately, as your Lordships will notice, none of my family have deigned to practice the art on me—it might be a very good thing if they did. Joking apart, I think it is unnecessarily penal to seek to enforce the provisions of this Bill by making it absolutely impossible for anybody who is not fully qualified in every aspect of farriery to practise farriery at all. It has already been recognised at earlier stages of the debate and in parts of the Bill that there are indeed people who could not qualify in every sense as full farriers who will be accepted in the first crop. I think these are the people we are concerned about here—the part-time people on the Islands off the shores of Scotland and the remoter districts of Wales, Scotland, England, anywhere—who may be perfectly well able to be trained to do some day-to-day farriery of a very good standard and thereby relieve the situation in the remoter districts. Therefore, while quite seeing the point for retaining the prohibition on people putting themselves forward as being farriers when they are not I should like to support this Amendment. Nevertheless, I do not feel that we should stop people from practising farriery if they are capable of doing so effectively.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: I wonder whether your Lordships will allow me just
782
a little time to put the position as the Government see it. We want to be as fair and as balanced as possible. Clause 16(1) makes it unlawful for a person not registered under the Bill either to carry out farriery as defined in Clause 18 or—
"to use or adopt the style, title or description farrier' or 'shoeing smith' or any other style, title or description similar thereto or which may be calculated to deceive or mislead or cause any person to believe that such person is so registered."
The proviso to subsection (1) however enables farriery to be carried on by the following classes of persons: (i), apprentice farriers; (ii), persons on farriers training courses; (iii), veterinary surgeons; (iv), persons training to be veterinary surgeons; (v), persons giving first-aid to a horse in case of emergency, or (vi), owners of horses; that is to say, in certain circumstances exemption is available to the prohibition on carrying out farriery, but no exemption is afforded to the prohibition of laying claims to the title of farrier.
These Amendments before the Committee, which are linked, would remove the prohibition upon an unregistered person carrying out farriery. Removal of the total prohibition also removes the need to make certain exemptions. Accordingly, the second Amendment deletes the proviso to subsection (1). If the Bill were enacted with these Amendments the effect would seem to be that in order to claim to be a farrier—which amounts in practice to carrying on the trade of farriery—a person would have to be registered under the statutory scheme. But then a person could shoe a horse without being registered. If, however, he claimed to be a farrier he would commit an offence. The objection to these Amendments is that they will allow anyone, however incompetent, to shoe a horse provided he does not claim to be a farrier. The labourer or factory hand will not therefore be excluded.
It could be represented that this will destroy the whole purpose of the Bill of seeking to prevent cruelty to horses by incompetent shoeing. This may, however, be an extreme view. The sponsors are concerned, first, to stop the totally unskilled, those with no competence whatever, from shoeing horses; and, secondly, to secure better standards in those who carry on the trade of farrier. They have argued that the emergency of the casual farrier has been caused by the shortage

783
of fully trained and qualified farriers. If that shortage is to be remedied there will be no need for horse owners to turn to the casual farrier.
As I see it, the central argument of the sponsors and of those who support the Bill is that it will relieve the shortage of competent and qualified farriers by encouraging recruitment through the statutory regulation scheme, which will give the trade status. There is some merit in that, and it will ensure an adequate standard of competence in those who practise the trade. Accordingly, as the Government see the situation, on the sponsors' arguments the situation that they seek to remedy would seem to be met by the imposition of a compulsory registration scheme for those who wish to call themselves farriers, who are, in practice, those who wish to carry on the trade.
It may be argued that as this does nothing to prevent any incompetent from trying his hand, it will not give the farriers' trade the status that it requires. If the statutory scheme is given good publicity—as it will be in whatever form it is introduced—will the owner be likely to risk his horse in the hands of an unregistered man, when a registered man is available? If, nevertheless, an owner permits his horse to be shod by an unregistered man, knowing him to be unregistered, and the unregistered man causes suffering he is liable to prosecution under the Protection of Animals Act 1911, as is the owner who may also be deprived of his horse. If the unregistered man falsely represents that he is registered he will be committing an offence, as he will be under the Bill as it is drafted. In effect, all that the Bill does is to create two offences additional to those under the 1911 Act rather than one, which the unqualified man can commit if he wants to make money out of the shoeing of horses.
The Bill as drafted could have one undesirable consequence. If for any reason the statutory registration scheme does not produce an increase in the number of farriers and the number goes down, or if in a certain region or district a shortage of registered farriers exists or develops—for example, through the ill-health of the local farrier, or because he decides to move for family reasons—
784
horses will either have to go unshod or, in order to prevent their suffering in this way, more owners will have to risk shoeing horses themselves or using persons without qualifications. If there were a shortage of farriers, these Amendments would enable horses to get some attention without the law having to be broken, and the existing law—namely, the Protection of Animals Act 1911—would provide a safeguard against unnecessary or wanton suffering as it can and should do now.
There is something to be said in favour of these Amendments, and the Government can probably draw attention to the various considerations advanced. It is argued that a compulsory registration scheme for those who want to do regular business as farriers will increase the number of competent farriers by enhancing the status of the trade, by improving standards of farriery generally, and by minimising the risk of an unqualified man having to be invited to shoe a horse. The issue of these Amendments turns upon balancing the risk that allowing an unregistered person to shoe a horse will leave open the possibility of cruelty being caused to horses, which is beyond the control of the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which will devalue the status of the registered scheme, with the danger that closing the door to all unregistered persons could in certain circumstances cause suffering to horses because there were no farriers at all available to shoe them.
The points for and against could be said to be reasonably balanced, and this is a matter which must be left to your Lordships to decide. I do not wish to give the Committee advice on this matter, because the arguments on both sides are very finely drawn. There are certainly a number of points in favour of the Amendments, and a number of points against them, and it is a matter which must be left to your Lordships' good sense.
LORD NEWALL: Much as I respect the infinite wisdom and experience with horses of the noble Lord, Lord Margadale, I find myself in disagreement with him once again. I very much endorse the words of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, but I feel that this Amendment would completely defeat the objects of the Bill.
The main problem, as we all know, is that there are not enough farriers, and

785
there are very few ways in which we can get more farriers very quickly. Therefore, we have to take the long term point of view; and the long term point of view is simply that there are several dozen farriers waiting to be trained, apprentices waiting in the wings, as it were, who cannot find masters to take them on. There is no other way of training them properly at the moment without giving them to a master for a period of training, for four years. The problem with the masters is merely that they are very often unprepared to take on an apprentice because after a very brief period of training the apprentice can go off and start his own business, or he can get fed up and do something quite different—it does not really matter what. The point is that he can take away the industry and the practice which the master farrier has built up over a number of years. If we allow some people to go around still practising farriery without even claiming to be, because of the shortage we are going to be left with exactly the same situation we have now, where I believe people come out from factories and do a quick shoeing job and nip back ready for their next shift. Very often their motives are not very bad, they are just ignorant. They are not trying to be cruel or do any damage but the damage that is often done does not appear until several days later. Anybody who has had a horse will know that you can lame a horse, but the lameness will not necessarily appear until a little later. If we allow people to go round practising as farriers, whether they call themselves farriers or not, we will be exactly in the same state as we are at the moment, and this is the state, as I have mentioned before, that all horse organisations, all the present farriers and veterinary surgeons around the country are trying to remedy. For that reason, in spite of the fact that I see there are some aspects particularly for the Highlands and Islands and out-of-the-way places, I do not think that it would benefit the Bill to include this Amendment.
There is one other aspect we must consider. If we have this registration of all farriers, many local councils will cast a much more favourable eye on this trade. They will not necessarily be asked for money, nor will they provide it. But
786
they may provide a building or a place where farriery can take place, and even where a master can train an apprentice or two. Therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord Margadale, will withdraw his Amendment, there may be a solution. It is not a major point at issue, like the last one, and if he is prepared to withdraw the Amendment we can talk about it with the people who know a great deal about the matter, and find a solution with which we should all be happy.
LORD MARGADALE: In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Newall, has said, I am happy to withdraw my Amendment. But I hope that full consultations with the Farriers Company and other interests concerned all round will take place. I believe that a compatible solution which is helpful to the industry and to young farriers will then emerge. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD NEWALL LORD NEWALL moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 8, line 38, at end insert ("or").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is fairly simple. Those of you who have followed the proceedings during Second Reading of the Bill will know that it allowed owners to shoe their own horses. There are differing points of view on this provision. The reason it was inserted was a legal one, and several lawyers said that because this cannot be overseen or looked at properly and the law cannot be enforced, we have to say that owners must be able to shoe their own horses. On the other hand, time has passed and various other people have said that it is not necessary. Since many people were against owners shoeing their own horses, I felt it would be better for this matter to be left out of the Bill altogether, as it is not necessary. Therefore I ask for your Lordships' support in removing this anomaly. which was there for a legal reason. I beg to move.
LORD NEWALL LORD NEWALL moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 8, line 40, leave out from ("horse") to end of line 41.
The noble Lord said: I think this is exactly what I was talking about before, and therefore I beg to move.
VISCOUNT THURSO VISCOUNT THURSO moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 9, line 10, leave out ("or the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1954").
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 2, I made it clear that it was the first of a series of Amendments which were all designed to do the same thing. I have consulted with the noble Lords, Lord Allerton and Lord Burton, though not with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde; and we have agreed that in the circumstances we should ask leave to withdraw all these Amendments and hope perhaps to come back to the fray at a later stage if we are not satisfied with what emerges in discussion between the noble Lords, Lord Newall and Lord Margadale. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
LORD NEWALL LORD NEWALL moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 17 insert the following new clause:
Exclusion of specified areas
".—(1) The Secretary of State may by order made with respect to any specified part of Great Britain provide that for such period not exceeding five years as may be prescribed by the order section 16 of this Act shall not apply to the part of Great Britain so specified.
(2) Any order made under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(3) Before making any order under this section with respect to any specified part of Great Britain the Secretary of State shall consult the Company, the Council, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the National Master Farriers', Blacksmiths' and Agricultural Enginees' Association, the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas and the British Equestrian Federation, and may consult such other bodies as appear to him to be representative of the interests of farriers or owners of horses within that part of Great Britain.
(4) Notice of the making of any order under this section shall be published by the Secretary of State, if the order relates in whole or in part to England or Wales, in the London Gazette and, if the order relates in whole or in part to Scotland, in the Edinburgh Gazette."
The noble Lords said: After Clause 17, I think it is fairly obvious to those of your Lordships who have been listening to the discussion that there is some feeling in the Committee that there are parts of the country which are slightly different and therefore should be treated slightly differently, albeit the way in which that should be done has been the subject of some argument. Therefore I felt it necessary that in the event of there being an area which would suffer hardship if the Bill become law, there should be some provision inserted (which there was not previously) to enable the Secretary of State to delete any part of the country which he thought necessary, on the advice of those organisations most closely concerned. Therefore this new clause allows the Secretary of State to delete or omit any part of Great Britain for a period not exceeding five years. Obviously the period may be shorter, but if it were for more than five years it would have to be redone. The object is that if an area is hurt and has not its own training scheme, some method should be put into practice to enable them to have more farriers in the long run. This would allow some flexibility in parts of the country which are slightly different from the majority. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT THURSO: I am not terribly happy about this Amendment. It was only recently that I read this Amendment in full and it seemed to me to contain one or two difficulties. The first is that the time element is purely arbitrary. There is no provision for deciding what shall be a satisfactory set of provisions—and this is what the whole discussion is about. It is not a question of saying that one wants to be left out for five years, ten years or forever, but that one wants to be left out until such time as satisfactory conditions can be gained. Therefore I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Newall, might not wish to think again about this particular Amendment and to include it in the discussions he proposes to have regarding the Amendment which was withdrawn by the noble Lord, Lord Margadale.
In this way we might see how to achieve some general agreement on how to deal with the remoter areas, because I am not sure that, as drafted, I would

789
find this clause satisfactory. I am sure that, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, is not too happy about it, as it would apply to the remoter parts of Wales. Therefore, I would invite the noble Lord, Lord Newall, to throw this matter back into the melting pot along with the subjects of Amendments Nos. 3 and 4, which were withdrawn.
LORD MARGADALE: I should like, if I may, to support the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. I hope that this matter can be reconsidered.
LORD BURTON: May I say that, once again, we have a body that it is suggested should be consulted—the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas—which is not a body which applies to Scotland. Once again we are having legislation foisted on Scotland which does not apply to them, so I would support the suggestion that this matter should be further discussed before the Report stage.
LORD NEWALL: I have taken to heart what has been said. Perhaps I may add quickly that it does say,
"The Secretary of State may by order…"
Obviously it depends on what the order says. An order may be made to say a great many things, and therefore the time limit is not necessarily arbitrary. I refer to the point matte by the noble Lord, Lord Burton. Obviously if this is to apply to Scotland, the Secretary of State would he very unwise if he did not consult any Scottish equivalents of the bodies which have been mentioned. I think that goes without saying. In view of the mood of the Committee at the moment, I should he glad to undertake to look at this matter again, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Constitution of the Investigating Committee]:
5.48 p.m.
LORD NEWALL LORD NEWALL moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 13, line 21, at end insert—
("( ) Of the said five other members so elected at least one shall be a practising farrier or shall previously have been actively engaged in carrying out farriery for a period of not less than five years").
The noble Lord said: If I may, I should like to speak to Amendments 11 and 12 together. Even though I understand that we cannot actually deal with them both together, the object of both Amendments is to ensure that in the Disciplinary Committee and the Investigating Committee, which are there to control the problems that may arise once this Bill becomes an Act, at least one person on those Committees is actually a practising farrier, or one who has been actively engaged in carrying out farriery for a period of not less than five years. Obviously some of the questions involved in these Committees will have a direct relationship to the art of farriery, others to points of law and other matters. It is essential to ensure there is at least one farrier on the Committee. Therefore for that reason I felt it necessary to make these two Amendments.
LORD MARGADALE: I have been in disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Newall, on several occasions this afternoon, but I now have much pleasure in supporting him.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [The Disciplinary Committee]:
LORD NEWALL: I beg to move Amendment No. 12.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 40, at end insert (", of whom at least one shall be a practising farrier or shall previously have been actively engaged in carrying out farriery for a period of not less than five years").—(Lord Newell.)
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL
Examiners Certificate that no further Standing Order is applicable; Ordered to lie on the Table.