Lords Sitting of 13 May 1974

Preamble
The House met an half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.
The Lord Stratheden and Campbell—Took the Oath.

DUNDEE AERODROME DEVELOPMENT
LORD KILMANY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it has now been agreed that financial aid will be forthcoming for improvement to Dundee airstrip and when work is expected to begin.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, the Department of Trade recently received a deputation from the Dundee Corporation to discuss the development of Dundee Aerodrome. A detailed submission from the Corporation is now expected which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade will consider, together with proposals for financing any development. The Government have no information as to when work on any such development might begin.
LORD KILMANY: My Lords, may I take it from the noble Lord's reply that the principle is agreed that it is a sensible proposal and that what is holding up matters now is merely a financial consideration?
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I can only say that we await the written submission of the Dundee Corporation. When that is received the arguments will be taken fully into account.

MIDDLE EAST PEACE CONFERENCE
2.37 p.m.
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 whether they will consult with their co-chairman, the Soviet Union, regarding the desirability of recalling the Geneva Conference for a peace settlement in the Middle East at a suitable negotiating occasion.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS): My Lords, the United Kingdom is not one of the co-chairmen of the Geneva Conference on the Middle East. These are the United States and the Soviet Union. The communiqué issued in Geneva on April 29 after talks between Dr. Kissinger and Mr. Gromyko says:
"Both sides expressed themselves in favour of the resumption of the work of the Geneva peace conference on the Middle East at an early date."
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for what he has said, particularly for his correction. In view of the fact that the Soviet Union and the Government of the United States of America have now agreed that it would be desirable to recall this Conference, and in view of the situation in the Middle East, in regard to which Dr. Kissinger's negotiations may lead to a settlement about the Syrian/Israeli border, is it not desirable that the much larger questions concerned should be brought before a Geneva Conference representing all the Governments concerned?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the Conference is composed of the representatives of the participants, as they are called: the U.N. Secretary-General, the United States, the Soviet Union, Egypt, Israel and Jordan. They came together on December 21. Syria, which was also a member and was invited, decided not to attend. There have been successful initiatives as a result of this Conference leading, as the House knows, to a disengagement agreement between Israel and Egypt. Dr. Kissinger, to whom this work was deputed, is now engaged—successfully, we all hope—in a similar effort between Israel and Syria. We expect that the Conference will, as the noble Lord suggests, be recalled as soon as there is some definite news of success

731
in the matter of the disengagement negotiations.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply.

NORTHERN IREAND: SPONSORSHIP OF DETAINEES
LORD TEMPLEMORE: 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 before making their pronouncement about the possible sponsoring of detainees released from the Maze Prison in Northern Ireland, they consulted the churches whose ministers would be involved in this scheme.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE): My Lords, the sponsorship of detainees was one of a series of possible measures which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said on April 4 that he was considering to assist the resettlement of released detainees in their local communities. No previous consultations about it had taken place, because no decision had been taken on whether this, or any other of the measures he mentioned, would be incorporated in the scheme, details of which are still being worked out. Present intentions do not, however, include a sponsorship scheme of the kind referred to.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government one further question. In view of the fact that a sponsorship scheme seems now improbable to be enacted, for which I am extremely grateful, I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that had this become official policy it would have placed the clergy, who, among others, would have been expected to administer this scheme, in a position not only of great embarrassment but of extreme physical danger?
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware of this fact, and this is one of the reasons which has led to our dropping the scheme.

HIJACKING OF AIRCRAFT: SECURITY MEASURES
2.43 p.m.
LORD JANNER: 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 steps, including international steps, they have taken in respect of hijacking and terrorism, and what future steps they propose to take.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH): My Lords, intensive security measures have been taken ever since international terrorism began to threaten British interests. The measures cover a wide range, and many of them depend for their effectiveness on not being made public. Her Majesty's Government have always taken a leading role in international co-operation to counter terrorism, including the preparation of international conventions, and we shall continue to do so.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that the situation is extremely serious and urgent, particularly in view of the fact, for example, that only a little time ago in Greece two terrorists who had been accused, charged and convicted of murder, and sentenced, were actually released under pressure of threat? Is this not a matter of considerable international importance? As a civilised nation of the world, should we not get together with other civilised nations to see that sanctions are imposed on those countries which harbour and train these criminals? Would the noble Lord also say in what circumstances we allowed two people who were carrying arms to disembark from an aeroplane into this country? Why did we let them go despite our law which says they must not carry these arms but are liable to imprisonment or a fine if they do?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, on the latter point. I understand there was no reason to believe that the two men to whom my noble friend referred were potential hijackers or terrorists. On the broader question, I think there is no disagreement with him here. We are fully aware of the grave dangers involved in the growth of international

733
terrorism of the character my noble friend has described. This is one of the reasons why the Government will soon be coming forward with proposals, which have already been announced in another place by my right honourable friend, to deal with the particular problem of policing of Heathrow.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is it not desirable that there should be further consultations between the international pilots' association, who are so intimately concerned, and Governments to try to find a way to deal with this problem?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, yes; there is great truth in what the noble Lord has said. It is only fair to say that, during the lifetime of the previous Administration, the United Kingdom delegation to the Extraordinary Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organisation last year tried to some degree to move in the direction of more satisfactory arrangements. Unhappily, however, despite the efforts of the British delegation, progress was not possible on that occasion.
EARL COWLEY: My Lords, will the present Government advocate the proposed Amendment of the Conservative Government to the Chicago Convention of 1944 which was discussed at the last meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organisation?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, I think I require notice of that question. I do not think there is any particular disagreement between either side of the House on this particular point.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, at what point do the Government decide whether, when people bring arms into this country which are found in their suitcases, those people are terrorists or are harmless tourists?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Gaitskell can be reassured that this is not a matter for the Government, but one for the police and, through the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Attorney General.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the only real way of counteracting hijacking is in fact by international agreement? Would he
734
further agree that while there exist various Conventions which would substantially reduce the possibilities of hijacking, the real trouble is to get other countries to be parties to those Conventions? If that is so, will he give some assurance that he will endeavour to persuade these countries to become members?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, on that particular point, the Government have ratified two of the principal Conventions, the Hague Convention on Hijacking and the Montreal Convention on Sabotage.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, while this terrorism is continuing against civilised nations, is it not time we took a lead by asking the civilised nations to come together to do what they can about it, and also to exclude those nations which harbour terrorists and which allow them to be trained? Is this not an extremely serious matter at the present moment? May it not develop into a reign of terrorism throughout the world?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, I think the present Government and their predecessors have great sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Janner, has said. But I repeat that this matter was raised by the United Kingdom delegation to the I.C.A.O. special assembly last year. Unhappily, we were unable to make any progress on that occasion, but we will certainly continue to do what we can to bring others into line with our views.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, is the noble Lord in a position to say how many countries were parties to those Conventions to which he has just referred, and how many have also ratified them?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, on the two Conventions I alluded to earlier, 68 and 51 respectively.
LORD HALE: My Lords, is it fair to say that this is a matter for the police, who are already overburdened and are called upon to bear almost incredibly difficult responsibilities, who normally refer such matters to the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions, in connection with whom the Home Office have a dirigeant authority?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, I hope I was not unfair to anyone when answering the Question. I was simply stating the facts.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, does the noble Lord know whether any progress has been made in the devising of a gas, harmless but soporific, which could be released in the cabin of an aircraft when a hijacking started?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, this is exactly one of the points of difficulty about going into too much detail on any precise measures which could be taken at any time to deal with this particular problem. On the specific question that the noble Lord mentioned I will see whether I can write to him and give him some information.

NORTHERN IRELAND
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Donaldson will be making a Statement on Northern Ireland at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.
CLERICAL, MEDICAL AND GENERAL LIFE ASSURANCE BILL [H.L.]
An Amendment (Privilege) made; Bill passed and returned to the Commons.

CONTROL OF POLLUTION BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Control of Pollution Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order, vizt.:

Clauses 1 to 56,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 57 to 90.

Schedule 2,

Clauses 91 to 98,

Schedules 3 and 4,

Clause 99.—(Lord Shepherd.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

FARRIERS (REGISTRATION) BILL [H.L.]
2.52 p.m.
LORD NEWALL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The basic intention of this Bill is fourfold, most importantly to prevent unnecessary suffering by horses and ponies, to promote the proper shoeing of those animals, to increase the number of farriers by training and to prevent unqualified people from doing the shoeing. These are the reasons for introducing it now. The numbers of horses and ponies continue to increase rapidly. Farriers are in great demand, and therefore some untrained and ignorant people are able to cash in on this need for farriers; they offer their services at short notice to unsuspecting owners and disappear back to their normal place of work without the owner knowing where they came from. This often leaves a very lame horse, an angry owner, and sometimes weeks while the horse is unusable and lame. Some horses have even had to be destroyed, and they are certainly not safe to ride when in that condition. In these days, with petrol prices increasing so rapidly and public transport sometimes unable to cope with the travelling needs of the general public, I think it is true to say that we are likely to see more horses and ponies used, at least for some specific purposes, as well as just for pleasure.
The increased popularity of riding is often instanced by some particular activities such as show jumping, three day eventing, pony trekking (which is becoming very popular), driving, and even polo. There are many other activities which use the horse or pony, and these activities stretch the capabilities of farriers more and more. It is very difficult to estimate exactly the number of horses and ponies, donkeys and mules that there are in this country. It is estimated at just under half a million although the Sunday Times eight days ago did say that the population was one million. Anyway, it is certainly growing, whatever the actual population is. Of

737
course this population does omit the undetermined number of people using shanks's pony.
There are about 1,600 farriers in the United Kingdom. This is quite a conservative estimate, and it definitely makes clear that each farrier has to shoe approximately 1,200 feet and look after these feet at regular intervals. Some of these horses and farriers are not exactly relative to one another; the farriers are not necessarily spaced about in proportion to the number of horses. Some farriers work a very seasonable time, and others a very concentrated time in a short period of activity. I would suggest that the situation must be dealt with, or it may get out of hand, before too many animals have suffered at the hands of ignorant people making a quick profit. There are, of course, certain animals that are never shod; possibly donkeys come into this category more than any other. But their feet need trimming, and they need trimming by people who know what they are doing, or they can get out of true.
A great deal of work has been done in the past on behalf of the farriers by various bodies, notably the Worshipful Company of Farriers and the National Master Farriers and Blacksmiths and Agricultural Engineers Association. They have been trying for years, even from as far back as 1924, to obtain statutory registration of farriers. The farriers want this Bill to be passed into law. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons support it, even agreeing to be on the Council. There are many other bodies; the British Horse Society, the Jockey Club, the Pony Society, Ponies of Britain, the R.S.P.C.A., the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas—all of these have shown active support, and there are others, too, and they are all connected with the horse and pony world. The time surely has come to regularise the situation and help the farriers to do their job properly.
Perhaps I should explain some of the clauses briefly. It is, to those who have read it, quite a lengthy Bill, but I think it is only lengthy because we have tried to make it absolutely complete and to cover all eventualities. No doubt there will be people who will say that these have not been covered. But I think it is very clearly set out, and therefore I will not elaborate at any great length. Clause 1
738
makes the Worshipful Company of Farriers responsible for standards of competence and the conduct of people who are shoeing horses. Clause 2 provides for the Registration Council and its constitution and powers are outlined in Schedule 1 to the Bill. Clauses 3 and 4 explain how the register is organised. The fees of course, will be kept to a minimum, merely to make the control of the register self-supporting financially. The next two clauses refer to false representation and the removal of names from the register.
Clause 7 is extremely important, in my opinion, because it says who can and who cannot register. Those who are able to register in Part I of the register—and I am only summarising it now—will have had to pass some exam. Those registered in Part II will have been actively engaged in the trade on the appointed day. People who are registered in Part I, which is obviously important, will have had to be shoeing for 18 months out of the past 24. The second point on Clause 7 is also important, because it applies particularly to people in remote areas. Scotland is obviously an area that comes to mind. There are often very few or no farriers at all. By tradition a gillie or some other person shoes the horses. This problem has been very fully understood, and I think anybody who has read the Bill will see that subsection (6) will allow this practice to continue, although the people concerned must obviously register.
Clause 9 allows an appeal if an application to register has been turned down. When registering, of course, in Part I appropriate certificates will be sent, or in Part II an acknowledgement will be sent. Then we come to Clauses 11 and 12 and these give the Council powers to approve training and exams, in keeping itself aware of all the current developments going on in this particular field. Clauses 13, 14 and 15 provide for the Investigating Committee and the Disciplinary Committee. These committees give people a chance to state their complaints. On the strength of that, obviously names can be removed from the register, but appeals can be made to the High Court, or the Court of Session in Scotland. Clause 16 makes it very clear that it is unlawful for unregistered people to shoe, or to pretend that

739
they have qualifications to do so. There are some very important exceptions, which, I should like to name: farriers' apprentices, farrier trainees, veterinary surgeons, people giving first-aid in an emergency, and owners shoeing their own horses.
I now come to the Schedules, and I have already mentioned Schedule 1 which sets out the composition of the Registration Council. I should like to point out here that if anybody feels extremely strongly, and if it is required, representatives of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or the Small Industries Council for Scotland, are more than welcome on this Registration Council. Schedules 2 and 3 deal with the constitution and procedure of the Investigating Committee and the Disciplinary Committee.
Finally, I would re-emphasise one or two points, even though I have been fairly brief. The Farriers' Company have had a Charter since 1674 which was granted by King Charles II, and they have continued their active association with this ancient trade ever since then. There are over 20 well-known organisations, including the farriers themselves and veterinary surgeons, all closely connected with horses and ponies. They want this Bill, and they cannot all be wrong. There are few families nowadays who have not been brought into contact with horses, ponies, or donkeys at some point in time. Anybody who has seen the suffering at first-hand will know how necessary it is to stamp out the callous cruelty inflicted by ignorant, inefficient people, and it is high time that we acted. Perhaps I may close with a quotation from Benjamin Franklin, which some of your Lordships may know:
"A little neglect may breed mischief
For want of a nail the shoe was lost,
For want of a shoe the horse was lost,
And for want of a horse the rider was lost."
My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Newall.)
3.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, there can be few, if any, in this House who do not applaud the noble Lord, Lord Newall, for the motives which prompted him to bring this Bill before your Lordships' House. Indeed, we all wish the
740
four intentions of the Bill well, and all I shall try to question is whether they will be fulfilled by the Bill as it stands, or whether at some later stage amendment of the Bill will be advisable in the interests of preventing suffering to horses, promoting proper shoeing, dealing with the increase in demand, and preventing unqualified persons from undertaking jobs which require great skill, knowledge, and qualifications.
I intend to be brief in speaking on this Bill, because the real discussion will come at a later stage when we try to move Amendments in order to improve it. Certainly, nobody on these Benches would wish to stop the Bill going through, or to prevent it from being in substantially the same form as it is now. But speaking on behalf of the Scottish Liberals, and also on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran who would like this said as a Welshman, we consider in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Newall, said, that it does not deal with the special requirements of remote areas. I shall come to that point, which I particularly want to make, at a later stage. But before doing so I should like to mention one or two points which the noble Lord, Lord Newall, may like to take up at the end of this debate. I mention them because they are points about which I am not clear.
The noble Lord said that under Clause 16 of the Bill a person will be allowed to shoe a horse belonging to him. I wonder why, because he owns a horse, he should be magically so qualified as to be able to shoe it. Certainly, I have pared the feet of many of my horses, done first-aid, removed shoes, drawn nails, and done things of that kind. But I would not presume either to cold shoe or hot shoe any horse that I own, without taking a course of training and submitting myself to examination by a competent body. This is a slightly doubtful provision to allow through, if one is really intending to prevent the suffering and exploitation of horses, and the shoeing of horses by unqualified persons. I am not clear how the trimming of feet is covered, and this is an important point. As the noble Lord, Lord Newall, said, a large number of donkeys and hill ponies—and there are a very large number of ponies used for deer work, pony trekking, riding in the hills and things of this kind—are ridden

741
unshod, and a large number of breeding ponies are kept semi-wild.
For instance, in Scotland most Shetland ponies will run wild unshod. Icelandics, Garrons and ponies of that sort running wild on the hills will all be unshod. At least annually, if not more often, those ponies require to have their feet trimmed, looked over and levelled up, and so on. I do not quite see how, under this Bill, that will necessarily have to be done by a qualified person. I feel that a slightly different question arises here. If it is necessary that this should be done by a qualified person, then the level of qualification will have to be lowered, because it is stupid to try to arrange for people to acquire skill in making shoes, in remedial shoeing and in learning about all the different kinds of shoes that have to be made, in order that they may be able to do day-to-day, or month-to-month or year-to-year trimming on the feet of horses which are more or less running wild. This Part of the Bill requires a good deal of clarification.
It would be better if the arrangements left to the Council were slightly wider in the sense that one does not want one qualification. I think that one wants whole layers of qualifications which will apply to the whole business of tending the feet of horses, both when they are sick and require remedial attention and in the day-to-day work of keeping them fit and keeping their feet in sound condition. A qualification to trim could be a qualification on its own. It does not require any skill or ability at actual ironwork, at blacksmithing, but it requires a certain knowledge of how a foot should grow and how a foot should be trimmed and pared. This skill can be acquired, quite readily, by a skilful person, and I should like to see provision made for the Council to give a qualification showing that somebody is qualified at that level.
Then, of course, there is ordinary shoeing, which is the ordinary, day-to-day putting on of an uncomplicated shoe on an uncomplicated foot—because there is a difference between the feet of horses, just as there is between the feet of people. If you are lucky enough to have a horse or pony whose feet are reasonably uncomplicated and reasonably easy to shoe, then there should be a level at which a blacksmith or a farrier is qualified to shoe
742
that horse. In addition to those there are horses with peculiar feet, damaged feet, sick feet, and so on, where remedial shoeing or specialist shoeing of some sort is needed. For this there should surely be some higher qualification in the register which marks out a farrier as a man of particular skill and training. The noble Lord may well say, "Ah, but if you have a horse like this, you should go to the vet". That is all very well, but the vet is a very busy man in most remote areas. He has many other animals to see to besides horses—cows, sheep, cats, dogs, and anything from budgies to elephants in some parts of the world—and therefore one cannot rely on asking the vet to do remedial shoeing. If one is to promote the better knowledge of shoeing and the higher skill in farriery, one should also be promoting the top skills which are remedial farriery, where a balanced shoe has to be put on a horse with a bad action, and so on.
I come now to the specific point where to some extent I cross swords with the noble Lord, Lord Newall; that is, how Scotland is dealt with in the Bill. I should have preferred a Scottish Bill because in Scotland different conditions apply. There are different bodies I should have liked to see involved in this, not merely a representative from the Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or the Small Industries Council for Rural Areas of Scotland—as the Scottish Country Industries Development Trust is now called—but also bodies like the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Royal Dick Veterinary College at Edinburgh. I do not see why the Council for Scotland should not be a wholly Scottish Council with the equivalent Scottish representatives and perhaps some other representatives from Scottish bodies that do not have an English equivalent. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran I am sure would welcome a similar Council for Wales.
I should like to emphasise the Scottish side of it because in Scotland we have our own law. Not only that, but we have some words of farriery different from those in England—for instance, a "doorman" and a "driver" are the same person but one is the English and the other is the Scottish term. Therefore I should very much like to see the Bill amended to

743
provide a purely Scottish committee to deal with the administration of its provisions as they apply in Scotland.
The problem in Scotland is even greater than was perhaps admitted by the noble Lord, Lord Newall, in his introduction of this Bill, because in Scotland I am quite sure that we have far fewer farriers to call upon. We have a much greater problem in training. For instance, to give your Lordships an idea of the problems that can arise in training—and this has nothing whatever to do with farriery but is actually to do with family planning—my wife was involved in a committee starting a family planning clinic in the town of Thurso which found a doctor qualified to take on the advisory part of that clinic. The Society promoting this worthy cause advised that the doctor should have a refresher course, and so the doctor said, "Oh yes, and where can I find a refresher course in family planning?" They said, "Why don't you take evening classes in Glasgow?" Now it is 300 and something miles from Thurso to Glasgow by train so the poor lady could not have done it—it was not "on". That is the sort of thing we want to avoid. We want to get a Council in Scotland that will look into the problem of farriery in Scotland and will work out ways and means to combat the problem.
We also want people who are already in societies which know their way about. For instance, the Scottish Country Industries Development Trust, as it was called, and which is now called the Small Industries Council for Rural Areas of Scotland, is very knowledgeable in this matter. It is in touch with many blacksmiths around the countryside and it is the body which could do most to put people in touch with blacksmiths. The Highlands and Islands Development Board is another body that is equally knowledgeable. They are the sort of people who know where to find the premises, the skills and the interested parties. Then indeed there is the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society who have for years run shoeing competitions and who could well be brought into play as part of the Council.
Noble Lords can see, therefore, that we have plenty of talent in Scotland from which to draw to make a purely Scottish Council—and I should like noble Lords to realise that what I am asking for is not a
744
committee or sub-committee but a totally separate Scottish Council to administer this Bill if it becomes law. I am hoping that we shall have a Council so well based in existing Scottish bodies that it will know its way around from the start and will be able to get under way from the very beginning the prevention of suffering and the promotion of farriery. So, my Lords, while we on these Benches support the intentions of this Bill, we are indeed extremely critical of the way in which it is proposed to deal with the matter in Scotland and we shall hope to be able to introduce Amendments at a later stage to deal with that aspect of the Bill.
3.18 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Newall very much on having introduced this Bill and on having explained exactly what it is supposed to do and why it is necessary. As he explained, its purpose is to provide some form of regulation on the shoeing of horses, and to make it clear that only those who know how to shoe—and who can prove that they know how to shoe—should be permitted to do so. Of course the Bill may not be perfect, as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, indicated. I am bound to say that I know the Scots like to consider that in many ways they are different from the English—which indeed they are. But I thought that the way in which farriery was carried out throughout the United Kingdom was fairly standard. However, we shall certainly look forward to seeing in what way the noble Viscount intends to amend the Bill. I thought the term "farriery" was fairly limited, and of all the subjects that one might have thought could be raised in this debate family planning is the last one that could have been imagined. However, one never knows.
I am bound to admit that I am not an equestrian, either by nature or by hobby. I had a go once when I was about eight years old and I was thrown from a pony. I suffered such acute pain and distress that I was quite convinced that I was within minutes of immediate death. But it turned out that that was only my first experience of being winded. However, I found the whole exercise so wholly disagreeable that, as a result, I have always regarded horses as dangerous at both ends and uncomfortable in

745
the middle. I suppose that I ought to declare an interest in this matter, albeit an interest of the most modest and limited proportions. Those who claim to know about these things tell me that my name derives from the fact that one of my forebears was skilled and practised in the art which we are at present discussing—indeed, the heraldic appendages of which some of your Lordships find yourselves possessed would seem to support this view—since mine incorporates a horseshoe, regrettably placed upside down so that all the luck falls out. But I can assure your Lordships that any skills which my predecessors may have had in the art of farriery have all long since been washed clean away in the sands of time.
I am never likely to find myself a candidate for inclusion in the register as proposed in Clause 3 of the Bill. I have always had a great fear and respect for the back legs of a horse, and nothing on earth would induce me to get hold of one, and least of all to attack it with a hammer. But I feel sure that in general this Bill will commend itself to your Lordships, because in this day and age education and training and apprenticeship play such a tremendous part in all facets of our life, industrial and agricultural. It is only relatively recently in agriculture that we have had the craftsmen's certificate, where people are persuaded and encouraged to go along and prove that they are skilled in a certain subject. Having done so, they are then permitted by law to ask a higher rate of pay. Indeed we had specifically set up the Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Training Board, to train people in various aspects of those subjects.
Then we have codes of practice to ensure that animals are kept in proper circumstances. They must have sufficient ventilation and food, space for watering and air space. There is always concern in regard to the health of livestock. Indeed, as your Lordships well know, the exporting of livestock is a subject that causes great concern. I have heard your Lordships on many occasions request—and indeed I have been obliged to defend the fact that the request should not be met—that unskilled people should be permitted to take blood samples for brucellosis, in order to encourage the quick spread of the brucellosis eradication scheme; but for a variety of good
746
reasons this course has not been permitted. Always the accents are on concern for animals, on health and on skills; yet it is extraordinary that any totally unskilled person may hit any form of rusty nail into the shoe of a horse in any manner, provided he is doing so in the name of shoeing. I feel it is high time this particular craft was brought under some form of regulation. As I see it, all the Bill does is to ensure that those who wish to shoe horses are known to be competent and knowledgeable in the art. While the machinery suggested in this Bill could be a little cumbersome. I do not think in practice it will be so. As with the Industrial Relations Act there may be a few small teething problems. Thereafter, I dare say the similarity may end!
One drawback may be that fewer people will be available than at present for shoeing horses, simply because those who have not obtained the appropriate certificate will be prohibited from carrying out this work. I hope this will not be so. The Bill ought to encourage those who may not have the required skills to carry out this work nevertheless to obtain such skills. I believe it is a fact that the Worshipful Company of Farriers at present spends something like £400 on each apprentice, encouraging him to be trained in farriery and seeing he is taught properly. That same apprentice, having had all that special teaching, goes out into the world to shoe animals in a knowledgeable and competent manner and yet there is no benefit for him over anyone else who at the moment is allowed to shoe horses. Therefore I consider this to be a modest and a simple Bill. To me it is quite extraordinary that it has not been produced before. I hope the Bill will receive the agreement of your Lordships, and I wish my noble friend the best of luck with it.
3.25 p.m.
LORD HILL OF LUTON: My Lords, in supporting this Bill, the Second Reading of which the noble Lord, Lord Newall, has moved so cogently, I want to speak briefly only on one aspect, namely, the principle of statutory registration. Although I am a newly admitted Liveryman of the Farriers Company, something I formally declare at the outset, let me say that my own acquaintance with horses and their problems—and indeed with their speed—is very limited.

747
Over the years Governments of all kinds have been chary of extending the area of statutory registration, although they often accept the principle of it on the Second Reading of a Bill, and then quietly proceed to whittle down its main provisions or even to cut its throat at the Committee stage. I am sure that will not happen on this occasion.
The critics often use three arguments: First, that the work of the group seeking recognition is not sufficiently important for the dignity of statutory registration. Secondly, though this is suspected more often than it is said, it is sometimes thought that the real purpose of the promoters of statutory registration is to give status and respectability to a large number of untrained persons who, once they are on the register, proceed to erect high standards with the purpose of keeping others out. Neither of these comments can be applied to this proposition. There is a third argument, and it might be thought to have weight, as it did recently in the case of the Hairdressers Bill. That argument is that it is enough for a register of trained and experienced persons to be published and for the choice to be left thereafter as to whether a trained person is selected. It has to be faced, although perhaps it is not generally realised, that that is the basis of medical registration. With few limitations anyone is free to practice medicine. The purpose of the register is to enable people to choose between the trained and the untrained—and let it be said that some people have a strange preference for the untrained.
Does that argument apply in this case? I think not. For one thing, intelligent though they are, horses cannot choose. The issue here is essentially one of cruelty clue to unskilled shoeing. That is of the very essence of the case. In any case, in the subsequent registration of professions, practice was limited by law to the trained, as for example in the case of dentists and the veterinary profession. I would urge, first, that effective protection of horses is much more likely to be achieved by restraining, so far as is practicable, the activity of the inexperienced and the untrained from the outset, and that in this case the Government should not seek to apply the principle they insisted on before agreeing to the passage of the Hairdressers
748
Registration Bill. To put it mildly, the perils to our heads through unskilled hairdressing are not to be compared with the pain and damage caused to horses by inefficient shoeing.
As has been said, the details can be dealt with in Committee. Some may doubt whether the horse owner should be exempt; others may think that the machinery is somewhat cumbersome, and indeed the traditional use over the years of the word "blacksmith" may pose problems. But on the basic point I urge upon your Lordships that if the case is made out on cruelty grounds alone, that is sufficient to warrant the protection of horses by the registration of farriers and the limitation of the practice of the craft to those on the register. I hope the House will give this Bill a Second Reading.
3.30 p.m.
LORD MARGADALE: My Lords, first I should like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Newall, for bringing this important Bill before the House. I should like also to declare an interest in that ever since I was a very young man I have always been interested in horses and ponies. The first recollection I have of having directly to deal with the trade of the blacksmith or farrier was in the very early days of the last war, when I was put on to a Board to pass out some farriers. There were about 700 horses to shoe which were due to go abroad fairly soon, so naturally the farriers were all passed out pretty quickly or the job would not have been done. So as far as I know, no ill effect came about so far as the horses were concerned. Only last week I happened to meet one of the gentlemen who were passed out then and I asked him what he was doing now. He is now the head of a firm of farriers employing 12 to 14 other men, and his son has gone into the business, making the third generation of blacksmiths in that family. I call that a very good record. He shoes horses of all descriptions and is well recognised in the area in which he lives as a master of his craft, as are all the men who work for him. He tells me that he always puts it to the young men to go to work for him that they should register as farriers and they do, which, in the centre of a horsey part of the world, is right and proper, and is quite easily achieved.

749
Having said that, however, I must also say that I do not think the same conditions apply all over Britain as in the more horsey centres such as Lambourn, Newmarket, Gloucestershire and the Home Counties. As the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, has said, there are different problems in Scotland and particularly in the Highlands and Islands. I should like to say a word or two about the Islands because I have intimate knowledge of one of them. I was interested to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, say that evening classes were suggested for one person living near him, but that these were in Glasgow, 320 miles away. Exactly the same thing happened to me regarding something else, which shows that this kind of thing can happen, as I know only too well.
I have a letter here from a friend who writes pointing out the following on this subject. I quote from his letter:
"If there is known to be cruelty, I should have thought that the Bill falls down completely on Clause 16(1)(vi) which says that a person may shoe a horse which belongs to him. This could surely produce the most likely source of any cruelty."
I do not know how many of the speakers upon the Bill this afternoon have tried to shoe a horse. I know that I should be a dreadful failure if I tried to do it myself and that I should no doubt inflict cruelty upon the animal and that the animal might inflict cruelty upon me.
If somebody owns a horse but is totally impecunious, he may decide to have a go at shoeing it himself rather than wasting money on a blacksmith. This could easily be cruel, though it would be legal. Conversely, I may own a horse but be incapable of shoeing it and have no blacksmith within miles so I have to get the first person I can, be it the local plumber, iron worker, groom or stalker. This is probably not cruel but it would be illegal. If it were not done the horse or pony—and there are still ponies working in outlying areas on hill work of various kinds—might well go without being shod at all and without having its feet trimmed, which would be more cruel. I think, therefore, that I find myself in agreement with the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and with the writer of that letter, that there is a case, no matter how good the Bill is for the central parts of Britain, for further thought in amending it so far as the outlying areas
750
of Scotland are concerned and maybe of Wales as well, though I am not competent to speak in any way for Wales.
I wonder whether it is possible, as has been suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, that some form of Scottish Council could be set up to make direct liaison between the shoeing authorities in England and in Scotland. If that were the case, I believe that the problems are so different that it would make for a better Act of Parliament. I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Newall, for bringing the Bill forward and to commend him, if this is not presumptuous, for his brief speech in doing so, which is always welcome to me. I do not want to spoil that by going on too long myself.

NORTHERN IRELAND: I.R.A. PLANS
3.36 p.m.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, with permission, I should like to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement reads as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a Statement. Last night I was informed by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who was in conference with senior officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Army, that in the last few days the Security Forces in Northern Ireland had come into the possession of a quantity of documents, the general purport of which I must disclose to the House.
"These documents reveal a specific and calculated plan on the part of the I.R.A., by means of ruthless and indiscriminate violence, to ferment inter-sectarian hatred and a degree of chaos, with the object of enabling the I.R.A. to achieve a position in which they could proceed to occupy and control certain predesignated and densely populated areas in the City of Belfast and its suburbs. The plan shows a deliberate intention to manipulate the emotions of large sections of the people by inflicting violence and hardship on them in the hope of creating a situation in which the I.R.A. could present

751
themselves as the protectors of the Catholic population.
"It is also clear from the documents that the I.R.A. did not expect, even if they were initially successful, to be able to continue to hold a number of strong points in parts of Belfast and that their intention would have been to carry out a scorched earth policy of burning the houses of the ordinary people as they were compelled to withdraw.
"Some of the information in the possession of the R.U.C. may be important in the bringing of potential criminal charges and the House will understand that there must be some reservation on the disclosure of documents. I can however tell the House that the documents include orders to battalion commanders, an outline of the general concept with associated maps and a draft proclamation to the civilian population. The Security Authorities, together with my right honourable friend's Department, are considering what documentation it would be right to make available, and in the light of this I will later consider what information should be made available to right honourable and honourable Members by placing it in the Library of the House or by other means.
"This discovery reflects great credit on the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Army. An apparent I.R.A. operation of potentially great danger has been brought to light. Nevertheless, the House should not readily assume that those who made these plans will not turn to other acts of ruthless violence to frustrate political advance and restore their flagging fortunes.
"The British Government are not to be deterred from the political course on which they have embarked in the conviction that it is right and fair. I want to make it clear also that it is the duty of the Army and the police—not of unofficial para-military forces—to maintain law and order in Northern Ireland. I repeat that the Security
752
Forces will act against violence from whatever source it might come."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.40 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I think that all noble Lords would want to join the Minister in congratulating the Security Forces in Northern Ireland on their vigilance and on their initiative in finding and arresting some of those responsible for planning this calculated and illegal operation in Belfast. The exposure of the plans referred to in the Prime Minister's Statement show once again that the tactics of the I.R.A. are based on disruption, are sectarian and involve murder and cruel violence. So far as one can tell from the outside, the success of the Security Forces' operation in the last 48 hours has turned on an increasingly effective intelligence network. This has always been—and we do well to remember it—the most effective single way in which to counter terrorist activities. From my experience I have found that Statements of this kind are best not debated in this House because we do not help either the Government or the Security Forces by pressing Ministers, and I have nothing further to add.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I should like to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has said, and congratulate the Army and the Security Forces generally, including the R.U.C., on these discoveries. We are reinforced in the confidence we have always placed in the Security Forces and I think that it is a magnificent thing that they have achieved. I hope that when the Government have made up their mind as to what can be published it will be given the widest possible publicity both North and South of the Border.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I am most grateful for what both noble Lords have said. In reply to Lord Byers's last point, about publicity, that is indeed the Government's intention. In fact, there will be some release of documents by the Security Forces this afternoon in Ireland. I am grateful to both noble Lords.

FARRIERS (REGISTRATION) BILL [H.L.]
3.42 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
LORD GRANVILLE OF EYE: My Lords, after that very sober Statement I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Newall, for introducing this measure which, however imperfect it may be, in my view is long overdue. I have no doubt that the constructive criticism which has been levelled at it will be considered in Committee, and in particular the point which was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, about whether we would be well advised, in a measure of this kind, to give Scotland her own Council. In an age of leisure, with greater growth in holiday-time fast approaching, we shall perhaps depend on horses for leisure as we have never depended on them before. As the noble Lord said, television has made show jumping and three-day eventing extremely popular with a very much bigger and wider circle than ever before. It is important to emphasise in these circumstances that the horse is certainly not a machine. I have no doubt that in racing, breeding and perhaps in even more expensive pursuits, there is probably a plentiful supply of well-qualified farriers but, as has been said this afternoon about ponies and hacking, I think that without a doubt there are many non-qualified shoesmiths operating at present. It has been rightly stated that bad shoeing can ruin an animal and, as the noble Lord said, "No foot, no horse." So qualification and training, and I think subsidies as well, are essential if the Bill is to be really effective.
There is not the slightest doubt that with the great current increase in the number of horses and ponies throughout the United Kingdom a good deal of foot trouble occurs which is perhaps not even noticed until it gets really bad. I do not mean the sort of trouble that Arkle had, or in the tragic circumstances to-day which necessitated Princess Anne's horse being destroyed. I mean trouble due to hard grounds as well as bad shoeing; and also, in many of the gymkhanas, which are so heavily populated by competitors, trouble caused by overriding. What I am not sure about is the amount of cold shoeing going on
754
at present. The days when a horse was taken to a forge seem in many cases to have disappeared; to-day farriers are mobile and journey from stable to stable to carry out what is called cold shoeing. Whether that method is as effective as forge shoeing as we knew it, I am not sure. But I emphasise the tremendous problems caused through hard grounds. Thousands of new and young riders are coming into the sport to-day, particularly with the Foxhunter Competition which takes place in the summer when the ground is extremely hard. As a result, you get the problem of shoeing faults as well as overriding, when the horse often goes lame. The animal can only indicate his problems by limping.
My Lords, certainly in the summer, I should like all horses competing to be inspected in the collecting rings, as they are at the present time in three-day eventing. I should like also the British Horse Society and B.S.J.S. to stipulate that peating or ploughing of the landing side of jumps should be undertaken in the summer to save horses from the impact of hard ground. May I ask whether, under Part unqualified farriers will be permitted to continue to operate? Does that ban anyone—an assistant or anybody else—shoeing a horse under the provisions of Part II? I am told that many are doing so to-day in conditions which are rather similar to "lumping". They go around with a conveyance, without having had proper experience; they shoe a horse, which may have pedalitis, sideburn or serious foot trouble, and give imperfect shoeing.
I would further ask: who will set the standard for training and for examination? Who is to supervise? Many Bills in this House have dealt with the export of horses and cattle and so on, and many of them have failed in operation because of lack of supervision. Who will supervise that the necessary requirements are being carried out? Why, too, should Northern Ireland be exempted from the Bill? Northern Ireland has many horses. There must be some reason for that exemption. Perhaps the noble Lord can tell us the reason when he replies. As the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said, owner-shoeing is exempted. The owner may think that that is all right, that it is his own affair. But what about the horse? Should we allow owners to shoe their own horses?

755
This is a worthwhile Bill, my Lords, and we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Newall, for introducing it. I hope we shall be able to amend it in Committee. I trust that it will get a Second Reading here and in another place.
3.50 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, my intended short intervention is motivated by the desire to add one more voice to the many others which have supported this Bill, and to congratulate my noble friend Lord Newall on introducing it. He has explained it carefully and has advanced it persuasively. He also mentioned that it was the Farriers Company which promoted it, and we are glad to know that the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, is a member of that company. I suspect that Lord Newall is a member also. It is interesting to any noble Lord (and there are many in your Lordships' House) passionately interested in the livery guild system of the City of London. The Farriers Company is not one of the wealthy companies, but it is a company which carries great responsibility, and that is displayed by this Bill which they have sponsored. It may interest your Lordships to know that I took the trouble, being also a liveryman, to look up the book of words about it, and I was interested to find that originally the farriers and blacksmiths were associated. A blacksmith was a gunmaker and a clockmaker, but later a farrier became a shoesmith. It also refers to a horse leech or primitive veterinary surgeon, and records that the ordinances for the regulation of the craft (approved, as my noble friend has said, in 1356) required all members to
"advise all those who shall seek counsel of them as well in the purchase of horses as in their cure".
There are many Members of your Lordships' House who have commanded mounted regiments, though a smaller number, perhaps, who, before 1914, served with mounted regiments on active service. Incidentally, if I may be pardoned for saying so, I suspect there are still fewer who, as members of a mounted regiment, can remember being inspected by Field-Marshal Lord Roberts, the hero of the South African War. But we are reminded that before 1914 there were about 80 mounted regiments, and that
756
that accounted for a good deal in the matter of farriery; and in those days, of course, every village had its local village smithy—a happy place of local meeting which had no difficulty in attracting apprentices. It is interesting that this Bill has been promoted by a livery company. I think it is unusual that any particular livery company should promote a Bill almost entirely associated with its own activities.
The Bill has the support of all the leading national organisations associated with the horse, and I am asked to mention that, among others, the British Driving Society, which is gathering members so rapidly, gives it their support. We know that, with the support this Bill has received on its Second Reading there is not likely to be much opposition in this House. The clauses of the Bill themselves have been explained by my noble friend. Where amendment is necessary, it will occur in Committee stage. Among the Members of this House who have given it their blessing we heard the noble Lord, Lord Margadale, who all his life has been associated with every aspect of horse use, but with additional authority as a steward of the Jockey Club.
In the Explanatory Memorandum it mentions prevention of cruelty to horses. It seems not improper to refer to the widely-felt concern as to the treatment of ponies in many riding establishments in this country. I think it was our late distiguished colleague Lord Silkin who, speaking from the Socialist Benches, piloted a Bill which was particularly concerned with the protection of ponies. I find that a great number of people in the country think that the policing and inspection under that measure is inadequate and that there is much cruelty, overwork and underfeeding; and, of course, as all Members of the House know, it is most difficult to ensure that the inspection which is demanded is effectively carried out. It seems appropriate that this matter should be raised at this stage.
In conclusion, my Lords, it is interesting that this Bill should have been introduced by my noble friend Lord Newall. There is not frequently a connection between flying and equitation but, still, it is interesting that he, the son of a distinguished Marshal of the Air, should be introducing a Bill of this character. If I

757
may be pardoned one minute, I remember an air officer who was appointed to command at Cranwell, and who had previously been a cavalry officer, saying that the best way to train effective fighter pilots was to get them accustomed to equitation; and, on assuming command, he promptly detailed two of his officers to attend the cavalry school at Weedon. This Bill is timely, it is appropriate, and it is sponsored by the Farriers Company, with all their authority. I strongly support it.
3.58 p.m.
LORD HELSBY: My Lords, I, too, wish to add my voice to those which have supported this Bill, and to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Newall, for introducing what is a very timely and welcome measure. We live in an age of great resurgence of interest in the horse. The horse population and the pony population is increasing very greatly, but there never has been a time, I think, when so many of those horses or ponies have belonged to or been managed by people with very little experience. This means that those who are responsible for ensuring that their horses are shod are, on the whole more than in the past, in the power of the expert who will do the job. I think that is important, and that is one very good reason why the Bill is exceptionally timely. In a very humble way, I have been interested in horses for, I suppose, half-a-century, and for the last 18 years I have been responsible for seeing that horses were shod. I have no horror stories to tell about this. I am among the fortunate few who have had a very happy relationship with one of the most skilled master farriers in the country. During that time I have seen the skill passed down from father to son, and not only to the son hut, through apprenticeship, to an impressive range of young men who have gone through training. I have taken some interest in this aspect of the matter and it seems that very few of them have dropped out. You get the odd lad who drops out because the work is too hard—and it must not be forgotten that it is extremely hard work—or because he finds that he just does not get on with horses. All of us who have had something to do with horses know that there are such people, and perhaps they are wise to turn to other spheres.
758
One of the difficulties in recent years in getting the right sort of lad to become an apprentice and start training has been that it is not always very obvious what he will get out of it in terms of earning a livelihood. He goes through an arduous four years' strict training and sees alongside him—at any rate, in many parts of the country—men with little or no skill who are earning just as good a living or perhaps rather better. It is surely high time that we saw to it that those who can be induced to train for this very necessary trade should at least be given the satisfaction of knowing that, at the end of the day, they have a skill which is special, and that others who do not have it will not be allowed to do the work.
Lastly, my Lords, although this Bill may need some amendment, I hope we shall try to keep it as simple as possible. I confess that I am a little concerned by the suggestion which the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, made, that there might be gradations of qualification and that a man might be qualified to do a simple shoeing on a simple straightforward foot but not to do remedial work. The trouble is that if a man is qualified to do the simple shoeing, how is he to know that the foot before him is one which needs something more than he can give? We probably need to insist that our apprentices should go through the full training and should know all aspects of the work. I admit that trimming may be something that should be dealt with separately from shoeing, since most of us who have dealt with horses over the years have sometimes found ourselves doing some trimming of a horse that was out at grass, and which obviously ought not to be left without some tidying up of the foot being done. As regards owners doing shoeing, I should have thought that most owners were the last people to undertake a job which they knew they could not do satisfactorily, risking cruelty or damage to their own horse. However, this is a matter on which there may be other views. My Lords, I welcome this Bill and I hope that it will have a Second Reading.
4.5 p.m.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, with others I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Newall,

759
on this Bill. I certainly think that it is a very good Bill and is long overdue. Like one other noble Lord, I was surprised that this Bill had not been through the House before. I hope that it goes through with as much speed as possible, because even when it has been passed it will still take some time to bring its object to fruition. I think all noble Lords who have spoken have come from differing areas and have had differing experience. The area from which I come—the centre of the South, including the New Forest in which I have had an interest as official verderer and from which I have just retired—is filled with old farriers and many children's ponies. Many of the children's ponies arrive in homes more or less as pets. The parents are very willing, the children are very kind to the ponies, but the ignorance is terrible. Quite frequently, they do not appreciate that if you own a horse or a pony it will cost a certain amount of money to keep. They say, "Yes, we have a paddock", or "We can turn it out in the forest" "and so on, and they feel that the matter can begin and end there. But, of course, it does not. As has been mentioned, the horse has four feet and they have to be looked after.
There are as many kind, but also ignorant neighbours. There are the do-it-yourself chaps who buy their shoes by the sack in varying sizes and hope that a shoe will fit a pony's hoof. Of course it is only luck if it does, and the few ageing vets in this large area spend a great deal of their time putting right the injured feet of these ponies. I was talking to a farrier only yesterday. He has an apprentice who has nearly completed his training at that wonderful place the Hereford Technical College, which I believe has the only farrier's course in the United Kingdom, which is well supported by the Farriers' Company, and he has learned a lot from it. I asked this skilled farrier if he would take on another apprenticeship when his present lad left him to set up on his own. He said, "I do not think so, because there are so many do-it-yourself, so-called smiths in the area that it is not very encouraging for a young man to spend four years in training and then not be absolutely certain of getting a fair livelihood." It is essential that this Bill should go through
760
in order to stop cruelty to the ponies and horses, and to encourage young chaps to come in to train and be registered as proper farriers. The rest of the Bill has been covered by other noble Lords, and I merely wish to say that I support the Bill in the strongest way.
4.9 p.m.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, I, too, must add my voice in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Newall, on introducing this Bill, but perhaps I may be forgiven if I pour a little cold water on the project by recalling some facts. My noble friend Field-Marshal Lord Harding has apologised because he had to leave the debate, and I mention his name with permission. He was my predecessor as Chairman of the Horserace Betting Levy Board, and when he took on that job and was charged, in conjunction with his colleagues, with the statutory responsibility of disbursing the levy, he found that the number of farriers undergoing training under the Worshipful Company's scheme in 1962 was five. When I assumed Office in 1967 the total number of apprentices entering the scheme for the whole of the United Kingdom during that year was one. The job, therefore, was not that of registration, but of training.
Almost every speaker to-day has underlined the fact that this is a belated Bill. If the Bill had been introduced before, it would really have been a case of your Lordships' bleeding hearts running away with your bloody heads, because there were no farriers to do the job! I began my acquaintanceship with horses at the age of 11, driving a milk-cart before and after school, and when I went to the Levy Board I got in touch with the Worshipful Company, and a very happy relationship followed. What we had to do was to provide some money. Up to 1967 the annual grant had been £2,000, and I persuaded my colleagues to double that figure and make it £4,000 and enter into a vigorous training policy. I am very happy to say that whereas in 1967 there was only one entrant and the total number under training was 16, to-day there are nearly 100. The accent therefore must be on training and the big question mark about this Bill is whether it is a step forward or whether, by going perhaps prematurely for a policy

761
of registration, we may be imposing a superstructure on the present scheme which it cannot bear. There is now a sound educational training scheme, brought about solely through the public spirit of the Worshipful Company, but it may not be able to bear a policy of registration on top.
May I say—without any bitterness, but referring to one or two scars which have not quite healed, arising during my time as Chairman of the Levy Board—that the one source from which I received no help was the Jockey Club. They were quite oblivious to the problem and had done nothing about it. I am still interested in racing, mainly from an academic point of view but not quite—I picked a couple of winners on Saturday, I am happy to say—but leaving that aside, if this Bill goes through, I should like to ask somebody for information. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Margadale, will be able to tell me because I heard him referred to as a Jockey Club Steward—the news has travelled fast. The information I should like to have is what is to happen to the head lad who, after a lifetime in a racing stable, knows as much about the game as the horses do suddenly finds a horse's shoe is pinching, and although he has not gone through a farrier's course tries to do something about it. He is liable to a fine of £50. This is what happens when what I have described as bleeding hearts run away with bloody heads. This needs to be looked at with very great care.
I shall not vote against this Bill, and indeed shall do my best in Committee to try to remedy any deficiencies that may exist. The noble Lord, Lord Granville of Eye, referred to the extension of interest in horse riding. This is true. Not the least pleasing activity in which I found myself engaged was helping handicapped children, who became new beings when astride a horse. I am happy to say that, as a result of the work of my Board in connection with the acquisition of Epsom and the amalgamation of Epsom and Walton Downs, 6,000 acres have been opened up for a thousand years for old and young alike. Many of those who regard the riding of a horse as the prerogative of a social class adequately represented by your Lordships, are now riding horses, although at one time they
762
would never have dreamed of doing so, and I am very happy about that.
I must mention one fundamental point which has not so far been mentioned. Why is the Home Office dealing with this Bill? It has gone all around the Home Office and has landed up in the section which deals with cruelty. The training of farriers is being dealt with in a branch of the Home Office which knows absolutely nothing at all about the subject. Why? It is because about a decade ago the decision was taken—presumably by a Conservative Administration—that the horse is no longer an economic animal. That being so, the Ministry of Agriculture would of course have nothing at all to do with horses. How many times have I knocked at the door to try to persuade the Ministry of Agriculture to do something about diseases which afflict horses and to get more research done! Not a penny was given for research. They even got rid of the National Stud and it disappeared from the Vote of the Ministry.
I claim no special knowledge, but I am interested in the subject and make up for colossal ignorance by doing my homework. I believe that the horse will once again become an economic animal, and so I would say to the Minister when he replies: "Please go back to your masters and ask them why they sent you to reply from that Dispatch Box on a subject on which they have no responsibility and no knowledge". I am sure that the Minister himself may well be interested in the subject but his Department do not seem to be.
Let me now turn to the other side of the House and ask: how many years is it now that the Committee on veterinary science which is presided over by Sir Michael Swann has been sitting? The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will remember the questioning that went on when he was sitting on this side of the Chamber, as to when Sir Michael Swann was likely to make his report. There is no interest in Government circles in this matter, and the consequences are fairly well-known. I am not a supporter of the Common Market, to put it mildly, but the fact is that veterinary science in Great Britain lags miles behind that in Europe. Why?—it is because they spend money and we do not. Therefore, the quicker that the Swann Committee reports and there

763
is a fundamental examination of veterinary science in this country—and, of course, farriery would be included in that science—the better it will be.
If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Newall, is on the fringe of a very important subject. I wish the Bill well, but I warn the noble Lord that the provisions concerning registration will have to be looked at with very great care. I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Margadale and Lord Kilmany, will take note and examine some of the objections that there may be over the application of this Bill in the remoter corners of the country, so far as racing is concerned. But it is not only in racing where there may be difficulties. It may be very difficult to enforce this Bill in certain parts of the country. It is one thing to put a measure on the Statute Book, but quite a different problem to enforce it. There may be a great deal of pious hope; there is hardly a word in this Bill with which one can find oneself in a difficulty until one reflects upon it, and then remembers the history.
The debate to-day has made me speak longer, and more vigorously, than I had intended, because there has been great confusion running through this debate—the confusion of will o' the wisp registration, and a tendency to overlook the reality of training. I stand absolutely convinced, as a result of fruitful partnership—and humble partnership, so far as I am concerned—with the Worshipful Company, that their policy of training is right. They have followed a vigorous policy of collecting money and applying it, and having a field officer to see that the standard of training is up to the required level—or, indeed, increasing. That is all to the good. It may well be that the time is not yet right for the registration. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Newall, to reflect on the fact that although his measure may be completely wise, he may be doing a disservice to the very object that he is seeking to serve by acting too quickly.
4.22 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I found the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, extremely thought-provoking and far ahead of the rather trivial remarks that I propose to mention in this debate. I express the hope, as no doubt many
764
other noble Lords do, that we shall hear further from him when this Bill goes to Committee. He raised numerous and extremely important points which undoubtedly will be considered by the Worshipful Company. First of all, I should like to apologise to your Lordships, and specially to my noble friend Lord Newall for failing to be here at the beginning of the debate because the aeroplane in which I was travelling was late. I should like to confirm what my noble friend Lord Barnby said regarding the gratitude of horselovers for the work of the Worshipful Company, and also to emphasise the importance of the City of London and its contribution to the affairs of the State in almost every way through the different Livery Companies.
I put my name down to speak because I have a Coat of Arms with a Bordure of horse-shoes sable. My name stems from a horse-leech who came in the train of Marie de Guise. Apart from that, I spent some time in a forge when training to be a Sapper Officer, and could shoe a horse hot. I do not say that I could do that to-day, but I would try to shoe one cold. Perhaps I may be permitted to make a wisecrack about this Bill—when reading through it I thought one might describe it as an anti-dumping Bill. That is a technical term connected with farrieries. I remember that we had an extraordinary experience in 1919; we had some hundred absolutely "green" South American horses landed upon us. I can tell your Lordships that trying to shoe a South American horse in a "crush" reminds one of the phrase—if one can paraphrase Kipling—"I learned about horses from them".
Although I am not qualified to-day to comply will the very proper requirements included in this Bill, I am qualified to give it my total support. I realise, as your Lordships will have realised on having heard the speeches—particularly that of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg—that there is a good deal further to go before we achieve what horse lovers wish to achieve in this connection. I have been connected with horses since the first war, but the only animal I possess to-day, and which is covered by Clause 18, is a donkey, and the grandchildren love it! I regard myself as qualified to attend to its feet as its owner.
Joking apart, this point about an owner being permitted to shoe his own horse is

765
one which I hope will be very carefully debated in Committee. Anybody who knows anything about horses or donkeys knows what irreparable harm can be done and pain caused by careless and bad shoeing. The owner is probably the first person who wishes to take the utmost care that his animal is properly shod. Having mentioned donkeys—and this matter is not covered by the Bill; it is more a matter for the R.S.P.C.A.—many of your Lordships will agree that there is an enormous number of donkeys, many treated as pets, kept in fields or employed on the sands, whose feet are in a deplorable condition. I hope that I can use this debate as a vehicle to press upon the R.S.P.C.A. for more attention to be given to the problems of donkeys in the country, most of them being unshod anyway.
The only other point I wish to make is something which has come out of the debate. I express the hope which the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, put forward most strongly, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Newall did—and the Worshipful Company have this point in their minds—that this Bill, however it ends up, will improve the availability of farriers in the length and breadth of the country. I did not hear the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, but it is clear from what was said that he appreciates probably better than I the problems in Scotland. My Lords, I close by re-emphasising that one of the ultimate objects of this legislation should be that the availability of skilled farriers should be improved in the length and breadth of the country.
4.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, I rise to say how delighted I am to be taking part in this debate on the Farriers Bill this afternoon. In recent years a number of animal Bills have gone through your Lordships' House. I hope that my noble friend Lord Newall's Bill will also he passed and will protect the farriers and blacksmiths throughout this country. I congratulate my noble friend on introducing this Bill; many of us consider it to be extremely important. Its importance, first of all, is the recognition and the protection of the farrier. The second point deals with cruelty to horses and ponies. Coupling those two together, we
766
do a great service to the farrier and the horse.
To-day, and especially where I live in Wiltshire, there is a large number of horses and ponies. Some ten or twelve years ago I could count one or two within a diameter of a mile around me. To-day there is a phenomenal number of horses and ponies within a two miles diameter of my home, but there is only one blacksmith. Before the war there was a blacksmith to each village; to-day the blacksmith who succeeded his father—and his father is still alive in my village—has to cover an area of 20 or 30 miles, and that includes racehorse stables. He has told me that he can barely cope with the work, and he is extremely frightened of the effects of the work of the new type of blacksmith who is not qualified, but who wanders around the countryside damaging the feet of horses, and causing a great deal of concern. So in that respect, if this Bill produces greater recognition so that there are more recruits to the industry, it will do a great deal of good.
I notice two points in the Bill. Many provisions in the Bill have already been discussed which we can deal with when we come to the Committee stage, but, as I say, I have two points, which I will deal with as briefly as I can. First, if a blacksmith or farrier is trained, so far as I can see he will get only a certificate. I do not know how many of your Lordships ever go into a blacksmith's shop, but those who do will know that it is covered in soot and is dirty, and if a certificate is hung up, even if it is in a frame, it will soon deteriorate. My view is that as soon as a farrier has qualified he ought to have both a certificate and a plaque outside his shop which would give him recognition straight away by anybody passing by. The plaque would also be better protected than the certificate inside which will probably shrivel up with the heat and so on.
It is of course very important to see good shoes, good feet, on a horse. Corning to the House one often sees the lovely Metropolitan Police horses walking along in their shoes. They look absolutely immaculate. I often wonder whether they have been to Lobb's in St. James's Street, to acquire £40 worth of shoe, because they look really good. It is a great art and craft to be able to put

767
a good shoe and keep a tidy foot. It is important for the animal, and if by this Bill we can improve the standard of the blacksmith then I am all for it.
I have looked at one other point and must confess to my noble friend that I am not exactly happy with the Council. Perhaps we could look at that matter during Committee. I notice that there are people who are to be brought on to the Council who would probably not have experience of blacksmiths. It is very easy to call somebody in and to say to him: "Now you are on the Council. This man has been cruel to a horse." If I were called in, I doubt very much whether I should be able to say whether the blacksmith had been cruel or not. I might think so. I should think that a better way is for anyone on the Council to have been through a small course on farriery so that he knows what he is talking about. The Council is having only two qualified farriers and two veterinary surgeons. Very often veterinary surgeons are not the most up-to-date blacksmiths, if I may say so. All those on the Council who are opted in should either have been on a course or be otherwise qualified, as it is important they should know about the subject. My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on pro-clueing this Bill, and I fully support it.
4.33 p.m.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I intervene for just a moment or two because I want to support most strongly what has been said by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and the noble Lord, Lord Margadale, with regard to the situation in Scotland. I do not live in the Highlands and Islands as Lord Thurso and Lord Margadale do; I live in a very civilised, so-called, part of the country which is called the County of Ayr. I can assure noble Lords in this House that if one can find there a farrier who is willing and able to call whenever you want him one is very lucky indeed.
My interest in this matter arises from the fact that my daughters have from childhood until middle age managed and worked a very considerable stable. They have dealt with not just one or two animals but a good many. Last night they expressed to me their fear that, having at last found a blacksmith who could really shoe a horse without doing
768
it any damage, he might not be allowed to do so in future. I understood from what was said by the noble Lord who introduced the Bill, that people who are knowledgeable and who have worked as farriers over a considerable period of time will still, though they register, be allowed to operate. But it is this shortage which is the fear of many people. Farriers are not there. They may be in some of the counties in England, but they are not there in Scotland, and one has to rely on finding a farrier.
I would draw attention to the criticism made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. I agree with every word he said about the dangers there may be in forcing something on the horse-loving people of this country which is not capable of doing the job that is required. I want to support the words which have been spoken by the two noble Lords from the Highlands and Islands and by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg.
4.36 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, my name is not on the list of possible starters, so I will be brief. I do not think we need to regard this Bill as one that impinges on Party politics. So as an old foxhunting man with many thousands of very happy hours in the saddle, and a few unhappy hours after hitting the top bar of the fence and diving into a ditch, I want to give my support to this Bill. In these days it behoves every Parliamentarian to be careful about declaring his interests. I have no financial interests to declare but I have a sentimental interest. My grandfather was a village blacksmith in Bedfordshire and many is the time when, as a boy, I used to stand at the forge and watch with awe the sparks rise into the air. My great fear was that one of them some day would burn grandfather's beard. As a special treat I was sometimes allowed to blow the bellows. And by way of completing the historic story, I should mention that just outside the forge door there really was a spreading chestnut tree. Of course, appropriately enough, it was a horse-chestnut.
In these days when the machine is taking over from the man it behoves us to a great degree to try to preserve high craftsmanship where that still exists. We are considering now a relatively small and select body of men—perhaps 1,600

769
of them. But with the growth in the popularity of horsemanship, under very distinguished leadership let me say, I am sure that more and more farriers will be needed in the years to come. It is absolutely essential that they should be properly trained—I have heard all that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has said—and that they should not enter upon their practice until they are properly qualified. This may possibly lead to a small "closed shop", but I do not think that that would be likely to lead to any ideological indignation from other people who might be concerned.
A good horse can be ruined by bad shoeing. There can be cruelty and pain and suffering. Too many nails can be put in a hoof; nails can be too large; there can be incompetent paring of the hooves. Shoes can be slightly too heavy or of not quite the right shape. All these are calculated to do very great harm indeed to the animal. We in this country have a record, which I believe surpasses that of many other countries, for the way we care for our horses and farriery. This of course is an historic craft. In the second century B.C. metal shoes were being used in some parts of the world. True, we had to wait until William the Conqueror came here before we adopted metal shoeing; but all through the Middle Ages the farrier in this country was held in high esteem. That was at a time when many other countries still adhered to the ancient idea of sheathing the hoof of the horse in a sock of straw. Even Japan did not adopt metal shoeing of its horses until just over 100 years ago. I do not know whether we are in advance of Belgium which has a State School of Farriery, with 150 students who have to undergo thorough grounding in theory and practice for two years before they qualify. If I must mention women's lib, there are two women students among those 150.
With the increased use of mechanically propelled vehicles, more and more farriers in this country are going out of business. In the days when I used to keep hunters there were three farriers at blacksmiths' shops within three or four miles of my house and it was quite easy to get a horse properly shod. All those three blacksmiths' shops are now closed. Many blacksmiths have taken to fabricating iron ornaments and furnishings, and
770
in my own county, believe it or not, my Lords, one of them has embarked upon the specialised trade of making chastity belts. Out of fairness to British womanhood, I ought to say that this is largely an export trade.
My Lords, we have in this country a high reputation for kindness to animals, except, perhaps, to foxes, but that is by the way. I feel that that reputation will rise even higher if we give this simple Bill a rapid passing. From what we have heard to-day regarding Scotland, and training, it may well be that some amendments will be necessary in Committee, but I hope that we will not hammer on the anvil too heavily during that Committee stage and that the Bill will not be unduly delayed.
4.42 p.m.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, my name was not on the list of speakers either, but this has been such an interesting and worthwhile debate that I think I should say how grateful we should be to the noble Lord, Lord Newall, for making it possible for us to talk about it this afternoon. Two things have struck me very forcibly. One is the cross-section of opinion amongst horse lovers across the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. The second thing which I found extremely interesting was the experience of cavalry officers and fox-hunting men: that of the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, who was inspected by Lord Roberts as a young man when that great Field Marshal returned from the South African war, right up to the present time when Field Marshal Harding and the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, referred to the lack of farriers.
I can speak as possibly being of the veteran class, but still lucky enough to be the last cavalry officer who went on a course at Weedon in 1939. At that time Weedon, as your Lordships know, was pre-eminent in teaching equitation, horse mastery and horse management and it is probable that we will never see its like again, with the possible exception of the Vittorio Quinta Riding School outside Rome.
Even then, my Lords, the point was made by young subalterns in the Cavalry and in the Yeomanry of the then British order of battle that hot shoeing was becoming a thing of the past. A noble Lord opposite, I think it was Lord

771
Granville, made the point that cold shoeing is becoming increasingly necessary. I feel that it is now of paramount importance. No noble Lord has actually referred to the cost of running a smithy. They are, of course, non-profitable enterprises. Cold shoeing presents fewer difficulties. It does not necessarily have to be done in a blacksmith's shop, because it does not require a forge. Cold shoeing must, I think, be the answer if it is true, as the instigator of this debate has said, that there are now more horses in the United Kingdom than there were thirty years ago. Frankly, I find this hard to believe, but I live in the North of Scotland where horses and riding cannot be compared with England or the Shires. Whether or not horses have increased in number, it is certainly true that farriers are literally on the way out and I feel that money will have to be raised. Not enough stress has been placed upon the cash required to encourage the young apprentice to go into the farrier's trade.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said a word about the possibility of the Highlands and Islands raising funds, but frankly I do not feel that they are the right people to do it. Surely it is the duty of our horsebreeding societies and the Royal Show in England and the Royal Highland Show in Scotland to make it worth while for young men to come into the business. If I am not raising a red herring, I think we should breed horses with better feet. I can no longer afford to hunt, but I have certain experience in judging horses, particularly in South America, and I would have your Lordships know that horses are chosen on the soundness of their feet before they can come into the show ring in Buenos Aires in the Argentine.
While every breed of horse has its champions, and while every great horse in every country has an international reputation in the way of performance, there can surely have been no finer equine feat than that concerning the two horses that were ridden by a Swiss schoolteacher. They were caught on the Argentine Pampas and ridden across the Andes, over deserts and through forests to New York, and they were ridden barefoot all the way.
4.47 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I want to make two small points which I had expected to have been made by now. For that reason I did not put my name on the list of speakers. To my knowledge, the number of ponies and horses in this country is proliferating enormously, but I have a strong suspicion that the Government, at any rate, do not know how many there are. I have never seen an agricultural form upon which I have had to write down whether there were any horses or ponies grazing on my little bit of property. The noble Lord, Lord Newall, said that the figures varied between something under half a million, as estimated by the farriers, and a million by The Sunday Times. Perhaps the noble Lord has an accurate figure. My point is that if the number is anything like a million, that is a tremendous "plus" credit for British agriculture, because British agriculture is supporting a million more quadrupeds than apparently is the case and is, therefore, much more efficient than people think.
I have been told that if these animals are properly fed, even half a million of them would be eating over half a million tons of oats a year and a million tons of hay. I do not suppose that many of them get many oats. Nevertheless, this unknown quantity of horses and ponies is a tremendous "plus" for British agriculture. I hesitate, among all these horse lovers, to suggest a remedy, but it would be this, that if you need a licence for a dog, why should you not have a licence for a pony or a horse? Then you would know how many there are.
The other point is that the more farriers there are the more blacksmiths there will ultimately be, and there is a very grave shortage of blacksmiths all over the country. My Lords, those are the two small points I want to make.
4.49 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I want to resist the temptation to deal with the many points which have been raised by noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I want to say to my noble friend Lord Wigg that I find myself to a very large extent in agreement with what he has said. But perhaps I may return to that in a moment or two.

773
The only thing that I want to say—perhaps I am deluding myself—is this. I have no master either in a Government Department or in a political Party, and the only master I recognise—at least I hope I am right in saying this—is my conscience.
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Newall, will allow me to congratulate him on not only the lucid but, if I may say so, the persuasive manner in which he has presented this Bill to your Lordships. Although the Bill is not particularly long, I think we must confess that it is complex and our thanks are due to the noble Lord for putting it so succinctly and so clearly. I do not remember a Private Member's Bill being presented—and again I hope he will not think I am being impertinent when I say this—so ably in such a short time.
I can assure the House and the noble Lord that the Government are in complete sympathy with some of the objectives of the Bill. First, the prevention of cruelty to horses which is spelt out in the Long Title of the Bill, is a subject on which I do not think I need to elaborate because I believe it must speak for itself and find general approval among your Lordships. But on the second, the enhancement by various means of the status of the trade of farriery and the reversal in the decline of the number of farriers, perhaps I may be permitted to add some comments on the position as the Government see it. Here again I realise that perhaps I am in danger of being accused of damning the Bill with faint praise. That really is not my intention.
Farriery is one of the craft industries which benefit from the technical, advisory and trade services provided in the rural areas of England and Wales by the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas, and in Scotland, as your Lordships know, by the Small Industries Council for Rural Areas of Scotland. Both these organisations are sponsored by the Development Commission and are financed by grants from the Development Fund. Both agencies are sympathetic towards the desire of the Worshipful Company to improve the standards of craftsmanship and to improve the status of the trade. They have also drawn attention to the increasing concern that is felt in rural areas about the decline in
774
the number of farriers, and on this point I shall, if I may, quote from the Report of the Council for England and Wales in the years 1970 to 1972. Their Report says that:
"Farriery is becoming an increasing headache in many counties. The rapid growth in interest in riding produces an expanding demand for farriers but in most counties the number of master farriers working full time is declining. Waiting lists for shoeing build up and in many instances customers have to wait for several months. There are many youngsters willing to learn the craft and some master farriers will take on apprentices, but they require considerable incentive, especially in the form of grants from sources such as the Worshipful Company of Farriers. One Kent farrier has taken on several apprentices with grants from this source. Rather more master farriers however are unwilling to accept the responsibility of training. For instance, this is so in Surrey, South Wales and Hampshire. Some farriers are enterprising enough to become itinerant, and portable forges and cold shoeing are becoming the order of the day in Norfolk "—
as probably the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers will know—
but the overall picture is not a healthy one …".
The Worshipful Company of Farriers reported in their brochure that there are still insufficient farriers in many areas. The horse population is given, as the noble Lord said, as being between 400,000 and one million. I can only say that it is our understanding that the view of the Worshipful Company of Farriers is that it is between 400,000 and 500,000, but there is the article which appeared in the Sunday Times quite recently which gives the figure as something like one million. We frankly do not know what the figure is and it is no good my pretending that we do.
To meet their needs there are something like 1,200 shoeing smiths. Many of them are elderly and the number that is thought to be needed at the present moment is in the region of 1,500—and one has to recognise that new apprentices are urgently required. Both the Small Industries Councils in Rural Areas—that is the one in England and Wales and its Scottish equivalent—and the Worshipful Company of Farriers have been tackling the problem with a very real degree of urgency. The increase in the number of horses and the need for them to be properly shod indicates the importance of the work which is already in hand to increase standards in the

775
farriery trade and to recruit apprentices. I do not think I need say any more to show why the second main object of the sponsor of the Bill is viewed most favourably by the Government.
I have indicated that the objectives sought by the noble Lord, Lord Newall, are broadly acceptable to the Government, but I should be less than frank if I did not say that the Government are not altogether persuaded that a Bill is necessary to achieve these objectives, or indeed that legislation is the most effective way of bringing them about. I enter these reservations now, not because the Government are opposed to the underlying purposes of the think this is a matter for your Lordships to decide—but in order that its sponsor and the House should be fully aware of the implications, as the Government see them, of legislating at all on this matter. I would refer the noble Lord, Lord Newall, to what my noble friend Lord Wigg has said on this matter of the need rather to emphasise training as distinct from the need for registration.
If I may be permitted to say so, there are two main areas of doubt. I mention them, but I do not want to stress them, and I suggest that some attention should be given to them. The first is whether it is necessary to erect the elaborate and possibly expensive administrative organisation envisaged in the Bill in order to give horses protection from suffering through being shod by persons without the appropriate competence. The second is whether the erection of this machinery will do anything to encourage recruitment to the trade of farriery. As noble Lords will know, farriery is a trade with a long and distinguished history in this country.
As it has already been touched upon by my noble friend Lord Leatherland, I do not want to give your Lordships what I was proposing to give you; namely, a short history of farriery. It is perfectly true that it came to England from the Continent with William the Conqueror. He himself provided money on the condition that farriers should be provided. There was a Company of Farriers in London as far back as 1674, when Charles II granted it a Royal Charter. I think it is only fair to say that since that period, the Company has a very fine record in
776
this particular sphere, and I think deserves the commendation of everybody interested in this particular subject. It is perhaps a little strange that after this long time, and with this distinguished background, it should suddenly be found necessary to impose by statutory means strict standards upon the trade in order to protect horses from cruel treatment at the hands of incompetent farriers. I do not wish in any way to challenge or even doubt the validity of the evidence of such cases. Noble Lords will recall that a dossier was prepared by the National Master Farriers', Blacksmiths' and Agricultural Engineers' Association. Their comments were given in the Sunday Times on May 5, where it was alleged that horses have suffered severely at the hands of amateur farriers. But I would make the following observations.
My Lords, neither the Home Office, which is the Department responsible for the law relating to the protection of animals from cruelty, nor the two Government agencies involved in the training of farriers, have had hitherto any evidence of cruelty or injury caused to horses by incompetent practitioners. My noble friend Lord Wigg wondered where the Home Office came in so far as this matter was concerned. I think the only reply I can give (and it may not be a satisfactory reply) is that the Bill covers a wide field of interest. I think in particular of rural industries, which have some responsibility for training farriers, cruelty to animals, and various regional interests. I am informed that there is no one Department that has an overriding responsibility for this particular sphere. It is for this reason that the Home Office is handling the Bill in a co-ordinating role—
LORD WIGG: My Lords, I entirely accept that but the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell has missed the point. Perhaps he wants to miss the point. The responsibility ought to rest with the Ministry of Agriculture. That is the point.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it gives rise to the question whether the Ministry of Agriculture recognises the horse as an agricultural animal.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, I quite agree.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the Home Office, which is the Department responsible for the law relating to

777
the cruelty of animals, has had no complaints at all. The shoeing of horses is by its very nature not a trade that can be undertaken profitably by an incompetent person. Causing pain to the horse while shoeing is surely likely to be known. It must create a reaction on the part of the horse, and if bad shoeing lames the animal, surely the blame will be attached to the person who is doing it. In either event, the incompetent man in the circumstances cannot possibly stay in business. In any case, already there exists legislation to protect animals, including horses, from cruelty. The article in the Sunday Times of May 5, to which I have already made reference, mentions cases of amateurs paring the hoof almost down to its quick, and of shoeing animals in such a way that the iron cuts great gashes in the fetlocks when they move. Such cases prima facie seem to fall within the ambit of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, which makes it an offence, punishable by a fine or a maximum of three months imprisonment, for any person by wantonly or unreasonably doing or omitting to do any act to cause any unnecessary suffering to any animal, or being the owner, permitting any unnecessary suffering to be so caused.
Noble Lords will no doubt have observed that the Bill implicitly recognises the protection of horses afforded by the existing law. If it did not, what is the point of Clause 16(1) which allows a man who is not registered under the Bill to shoe a horse which belongs to him? With great respect, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Newall, that I think it is necessary to look at Clause 7(4) in addition to the one that I have just mentioned, which presumably will give exemption to a large number of persons by virtue of the fact that they have been shoeing horses for a specified period. I may be wrong in my interpretation, but this is how I understand the situation. I think it is questionable whether Clause 7(4) and Clause 16, subsection 1(b)(vi) should remain in the Bill. If the protection of horses from cruelty was the only objective, then this exception would not have been made. If there are cases of suffering caused to horses by incompetent farriery, those responsible can be brought under existing law before the courts and punished.
778
My Lords, I should like to turn now to consider whether the Bill is likely to achieve the objective of increasing the number of farriers by enhancing the status of the trade. Of course, this must be a matter of opinion and not of certainty, but the following points I believe can be properly made. As I mentioned earlier, although youngsters can be found to learn the craft, and the various training and apprenticeship schemes are operating to the full, one has to admit they are limited in number and the facilities provided are also limited. It appears, both from evidence available to the Government agencies and from the experience of the Worshipful Company of Farriers, that many master farriers are unwilling to accept the responsibility of training unless they receive considerable financial incentive. I understand the Worshipful Company of Farriers expended in the year 1972–73 nearly £10,000 on grants for apprentices. It is arguable whether financial inducements of this kind may be a more effective form of encouraging recruitment to the trade and for training to high standards than the complex arrangements for registration proposed in the Bill. The Bill allows the Farriers Registration Council to approve courses of training at a school of farriery or other establishments, attendance at which will enable a farrier with the other necessary qualifications laid down in the Bill to become registered, and to practise his trade.
My Lords, as I understand it, at present only two courses have the approval of the Worshipful Company of Farriers. Those are at the Herefordshire Training College and the Royal Army Veterinary Corps Training Centre. It is possible—and I do not want to put it any more strongly than that—that limitations on the number of farriery courses available could work against the improvement of standard generally. On the other hand, competence in the trade does not necessarily come from paper qualifications, or from courses. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Newall, will know that the many handbooks on the trade—and I just give one, Hogg's book, Hammer and Tongs—make it clear that farriery is best taught by close association with the forge and the horse. If the law on the protection of animals provides adequate safeguards against cruelty, which it can and should, it is not altogether certain that the

779
creation—and I use a phrase used by my noble friend Lord Leatherland—of a closed shop, of the type envisaged by this Bill, would necessarily produce more and better trained farriers, or even be in the public interest.
I would mention one final practical point for the noble Lord, Lord Newall, to consider. The Bill creates a very elaborate machinery in the Council with its Investigating and Disciplinary Committees. There will be examinations to be set; there will be courses to be approved. All this will take staff and will need premises and other facilities, and that means, I submit, that a substantial amount of money has to be found. The Bill's Explanatory Memorandum says, somewhat blandly:
"It is intended that the registration fees will be kept to the minimum necessary to lead to maintenance of control of the trade under the Bill being self-supporting financially".
But, my Lords, so far as we know in the end there will only be something like 1,500 farriers. What size of fee will each need to be charged in order to produce an adequate annual revenue to run the kind of Council envisaged with the responsibilities which are quite clearly set out in the Bill? I hope the noble Lord will consider this in detail, since the financial complexities of running a council of this type should not be underestimated. It would, I suggest, be little short of disastrous for the objectives if the cost of running the statutory machine proved to be so high that the fees of registration were a positive discouragement to potential recruits to the trade.
I hope that in saying this—and I realise that in some measure I have been critical—I have said enough to indicate that my comments were intended to be constructive, even if they did not give that impression. The Government certainly wish to see the noble Lord's objective fulfilled, and that there should be an adequate number of skilled farriers to provide a service up to the standard of their ancient trade. Our only doubts are whether legislation is really necessary for this purpose and whether it is the most effective way of achieving what the noble Lord, Lord Newall, so clearly has in mind.
I wonder whether, before I sit down, your Lordships will allow me to say something about the Scottish situation,
780
because this matter was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and it was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who, I was delighted to hear, lives in a civilised part of Scotland; I had always been led to believe that there were no uncivilised parts! It has been suggested that there is need for a separate Scottish Registration Council and that this could be provided for either in the Bill or by having a separate Scottish measure. I think your Lordships would wish to consider very carefully whether it would really be justifiable to have a separate Scottish Bill. If there is general support for the present Bill, it would seem desirable to regard it as one which should apply to Great Britain as a whole. If this view is accepted, then consideration has to be given to whether there should be a Scottish Council, and I am bound to say to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, that to contemplate a Scottish Council to superintend and control a trade of something like 100 to 150 farriers in Scotland is perhaps going a little too tar. The income from fees, I think, could hardly be significant. It is of some relevance that the State veterinary service is organised on a Great Britain basis and the current code of law on welfare of animals on land used for agriculture is contained in a Great Britain Statute, the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968. I think a better course, in meeting the points made in relation to the application of the Bill to Scotland, would be to include provisions which would ensure Scottish representation on the Registration Council. The noble Lord, Lord Newall, may wish to consider this, by making Amendments to Schedule 1, if the Bill obtains a Second Reading in your Lordships' House.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether he would answer a simple question? He referred to a book called Hammer and Tongs and he said the author's name was Hogg. Could he tell us the full christian names of the author, as the lawyers say, for the avoidance of doubt?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot help my noble friend. All I know is that there is such a book and that the author was named Hogg.
5.17 p.m.
LORD NEWALL: My Lords, obviously, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I dare say that the Government have been rather surprised by the amount of time it has taken, even though I was probably the shortest speaker. I feel that I should like to reply to every noble Lord who has spoken, but, obviously, that would be impractical, so I hope that those I do not mention will not mind too much.
I should like to deal with one or two points. First, the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said that the Bill does not deal with remote areas, such as Scotland; and this point was also mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Margadale. I must say that I tend to disagree, although there are areas for argument here and this will be further looked into. I believe that the point is already covered, but we will look at it. Many noble Lords raised the question of owners. I think it must be agreed that owners cannot be stopped from shoeing their own horses; it would be stupid to make a law which is not enforceable. I would agree with noble Lords who made the point that an owner is one person who will try extremely hard to keep his horse going.
Trimming is not mentioned in the Bill and we must look at that aspect, although it is something else which will come with the passage of time. I do not think it possible to have a separate qualification for trimming, but I will take legal advice. The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, also said that there should be two categories for shoeing—one for ordinary feet and one for bad feet. I would submit that ordinary feet can become bad feet through bad shoeing, so it is impossible to differentiate. So far as the Highlands and Islands are concerned, a wonderful picture was conjured up of a great many asses in kilts wandering over heather-clad hills—but, of course, only the quadrupeds. There are many words in the Scottish language which are different, apart from those in this context, but I submit that it would be possible to make them correspond exactly. But I believe that the noble Viscount is not completely supported by the veterinary surgeons in Scotland whose opinions I have sought.
We were most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Lord,
782
Lord Ferrier, for telling us about their heraldic problems and about the links with their forefathers. The noble Lord, Lord Margadale, mentioned that he is interested in many aspects of the horse, but those who are interested in these things often come off second-best if they take on a subject like shoeing without certain knowledge. The noble Lord, Lord Granville of Eye, said he had reason to believe that there is a lot of "foot" trouble about. I presumed that he was talking in the equestrian sense and not in the political sense. He also asked about Part II in particular, and I should like to assure him that if registered, people are able to go on shoeing even if they have not passed an examination. This is clearly set out in the Bill. It takes time to get it completely organised, and one cannot do it all at one fell swoop. So far as Northern Ireland is concerned this is being looked at, but I believe that it is perfectly normal to leave Northern Ireland out of a great many Bills of this type. The noble Lord, Lord Barnby, was very kind in his remarks, and I am grateful for his support and historical information. His reference to flying made me think that many people connected with horses had more than a passing knowledge of flying, although it is sometimes rather uncomfortable when they arrive! The noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, mentioned training establishments. I should like to assure him that there is another one at Melton Mowbray which does a great deal of good work.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, made many references to matters about which I know less than he does, but there are 120 apprentices in training and all the new inquiries are going very well, so it looks very hopeful indeed. We all hope that if this Bill becomes law it will encourage grants, and will get publicity and therefore more trainees and apprentices will come to light and put the thing on the road. So far as his reference to a head lad shoeing a horse is concerned, it would be an emergency in that case and perfectly admissible under the Bill. Perhaps I could ask him to use his influence with the Government to talk about different Departments and leave that task to him, because I have no ability to do that. I think that enforcement will come in time. The veterinary surgeons, the R.S.P.C.A., and the owners

783
themselves will do a great deal to make sure that this is enforced as time goes on, but, as I said before, it will not happen overnight. So far as the request of the noble Viscount, Lord Long, for plaques as well as certificates is concerned, we could look into that matter if it is not too expensive. The constitution of the Council is well laid out in the Schedule. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, for raising the question of finance. I hope that as a result of this debate donations will start pouring in from to-day.
We come now to the final speech of the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite, who I felt was speaking with a slightly lonely voice, if I may say so, even though he said that he approved of it in principle. It is fairly obvious to most people that if master farriers will not take on apprentices, then something will have to be done about it. It is no good saying that it is not popular; more money must be found. With the increase in horses and ponies it is no good shutting one's eyes to the problem; one has to look at it carefully to see how it can be made to work, and make arrangements for more money to be available. I was a little worried about his estimate of the number of farriers. All the information that I have indicates 1,643 farriers available at the last count in the United Kingdom as a whole, so his reference to approaching 1,500 in the future was a little on the low side.
I suggest that if this Bill becomes law it will enable local grants to be given where they are not able to be given at the moment, or people do not feel that they can be given. The noble Lord talked at some length about the expensive machinery necessary. It should be made absolutely clear that the machinery is already in existence. The Worshipful Company of Farriers, and many other people, are already making examinations and arranging courses. It is all going on now. All we need is more money, more interest, and more farriers. I think that the noble Lord also mentioned the necessity for practical experience, and I could not agree with him more. I shall read his speech carefully, and if there are any points about which I have doubts perhaps I could communicate with him.
784
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ROYAL ASSENT
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD ELWYN-JONES): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
National Insurance Act.

RABIES BILL
5.25 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. The main objective of this Bill is to provide necessary powers for the effective handling of rabies outbreaks outside quarantine should they occur. I should say first that this Bill is worded in exactly the same terms as that which had been considered by the House and sent to another place just before the last Parliament was dissolved. I do not, therefore, propose to take up more time than necessary in explaining its provisions and the background to them. Rabies is a disease that has always terrified man, as it causes human death of the most unpleasant' kind. It i4 of course a virus disease normally transmitted by a bite from an infected animal. Once the disease has developed, it is almost invariably fatal. It is not only death and the way of dying that is frightening; while treatment immediately after a bite may prevent the development of the disease, it involves a long series of unpleasant injections with possible side effects. This treatment, coupled with an incubation period which may be many months, leaves the potential victim subject to a long period of anguish and discomfort.
Apart from three cases—I think that there were two in dogs and one in a monkey during the last ten years—Great Britain has. I am thankful to say, been free of rabies outside quarantine since 1922. But we cannot afford to be complacent about this matter. Rabies is endemic in wild life in most countries of the world. Since the end of the last world war, it has spread across much of

785
Europe from the East, crossing the Rhine and reaching Northern France in the last few years. Recorded cases in animals in France in 1973 were over 2,000, which is more than double the level in 1972. Comparable figures for 1974 indicate that the incidence is still increasing. Although the principal carrier in France and Europe is the fox, rabies has spread to dogs, cats, and other domestic and farm animals, and it is these which present the major contact danger to man. The French authorities have estimated that wild life rabies carried by foxes could be close to the Channel coast by 1980; the current rate of spread indicates that this could be even earlier.
It was against this threat that the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland appointed in 1970 a Committee of Inquiry, under the chairmanship of Mr. Ronald Waterhouse, Q.C., to review the policy and precautions against rabies in Great Britain and to make recommendations. The Committee did an invaluable job. Their recommendations fell broadly into two groups. First, they recommended improved safeguards against the risk of entry of the disc ase into the country; and, secondly, recognising that total security is not possible, the Committee made recommendations regarding the methods needed to control an outbreak, particularly in wild life. With few exceptions, the Committee's proposals for improved entry controls have been put into effect quarantine restrictions have been applied to a much wider range of mammals; conditions and controls for quarantine premises and carriers of quarantine animals have been tightened. This Bill deals primarily with the second group of measures concerning control of outbreaks, and I should like now briefly to outline what these are. The Bill is closely linked to the Diseases of Animals Act 1950 and covers matters where that legislation, drafted mainly with farm animals in mind, does not meet the needs of the situation that might occur in an outbreak of rabies among wildlife on the continental pattern. Each clause of the Bill supplements the Order-making powers in the 1950 Act and will require Orders to be made under that Act as extended by the powers in this Bill.
Clauses 1, 2 and 4 contain the main additional provisions needed to deal with
786
outbreaks. Clearly, as with any other disease, rapid detection, isolation and control are the keynotes. Clause 1 enables infected areas to be declared and the destruction by all possible means within these areas, of foxes—the principal carrier from continental experience—and other wild animals not in captivity. It also prescribes powers of entry to land in order to carry out destruction and to take other measures to control the movement of wild animals and the disposal of carcases. The need to isolate and eradicate an outbreak quickly would call for drastic measures against foxes and, if any other species showed a similar capacity to spread the disease, against them as well.
Three methods of destruction were recommended by the Waterhouse Committee. These were, first, gassing; secondly, the use of poisoned baits, and then, exceptionally, trapping. Gassing is perhaps the least objectionable of these methods but it has serious limitations: it can be used successfully only for a relatively short period of the year; that is, during the spring when vixens and cubs are in their earths, and even then it is not suitable for every type of area. It seems probable, therefore, that we should have to rely mainly on poisoned baits which would, of course, be used with appropriate safeguards to reduce the dangers. There is also a fairly remote possibility that gin traps might have to be used; for example, in certain mountainous areas where other methods would not be suitable. But, again, if this became necessary such traps would be used only as a last resort with other safeguards. I agree that none of these methods is welcome, but I am sure noble Lords will recognise that the alternative to controlling an outbreak in the most effective way might be endemic rabies and damage and suffering on a much wider scale than the eradication measures would involve.
Clause 2 complements Clause 1 by providing powers for dealing with domestic animals, either confined or stray, and wild species held in captivity; for example, in zoos and safari parks. It provides for the extension of current powers for controlling such domestic and captive animals by providing scope for Orders to be made requiring their confinement, control and vaccination. The clause also enables an Order to provide

787
for the sub-division of the infected areas into zones, so that all these general provisions can be applied with flexibility and discretion.
Clause 4 is a relatively minor provision. Present powers require notification of rabies, or suspected rabies, by the owner of the animal concerned. Since an outbreak might well concern wildlife, this clause closes the potential loophole by requiring any person to report suspected rabies in any animal. Prompt notification would be a key factor in the successful control of an outbreak. The remaining clauses. Clauses 3, 5 and 6, seek to strengthen further our preventive measures against the risk of the disease being imported into Great Britain.
Clause 3 is concerned mainly with rabies virus. Animals exposed to rabies virus in research institutes are not currently subject to statutory controls similar to those which apply to imported rabies-susceptible animals. Even though such institutes are aware of the hazards involved and already take precautions in the handling of materials, it is anomalous that animals posing a clear rabies risk should fall outside the scope of rabies controls. Power is sought under Clause 3 to enable us to control the keeping and importation of virus and to require suitable quarantine arrangements to be applied to animals used in experimental work involving rabies virus. We are confident that these controls can be applied without inhibiting necessary research work.
Clauses 5 and 6 are measures to help deal with the problem of illegal landings. In previous discussions in this House, it was recognised that unlicensed landings of animals represented a major threat to our rabies security whether these involved deliberate smuggling or claimed ignorance of the law. No quarantine accommodation or authorised transport has been arranged in advance for such animals, and while attempts are being made to make necessary arrangements, either to re-export or direct them to quarantine, the animals represent a security hazard. Moreover, it may be impossible to make satisfactory arrangements and humane destruction may become the only secure course of action. Existing legislation, however, does not empower the authorities to destroy
788
such animals without the owner's consent. Clause 5, therefore, provides the power to destroy illegally landed animals without the owner's consent and gives the authorities the scope they need to deal with these difficult cases.
Clause 6 was introduced following Third Reading in this House of the previous Rabies Bill, in response to a good deal of disquiet expressed by certain noble Lords about the seriousness of offences against rabies importation controls and the seemingly inadequacy of available penalties and the punishment imposed on offenders. The present maximum penalty for such offences—perhaps I may remind your Lordships—under the Diseases of Animals Act 1950 is a fine of £400. The average fine imposed has been much below this level and substantially less than the cost of quarantine that the smuggler could save in successfully carrying out this anti-social and potentially dangerous evasion of the law. Therefore, Clause 6 will enable Ministers to declare the more serious offences under rabies control optionally indictable. The authorities would then have, as an alternative to summary trial by magistrates, the option of prosecuting on indictment when the defendant would face trial by jury and, if convicted, up to a year's imprisonment, or an unlimited fine, or both. I think noble Lords will agree that this provision will give us a substantial, realistic penalty for such offences.
My Lords, I have tried to be brief, because the measures proposed in this Bill have been previously discussed and welcomed by all sides of the House. I should add that the Waterhouse Report, upon which most of these proposals are based, was also welcomed by those directly concerned with various aspects of the proposals. In formulating the detailed Orders needed to implement the powers of the Bill the Government will have further consultations. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
5.40 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for having introduced this Bill and I can assure him that I will support it, as indeed I am sure that everyone else will, because it is identical to the Bill which we had in the previous

789
Parliament and which I had the privilege of looking after when it was in your Lordships' House. Rabies is a disease which we in this country fortunately do not know very much about as individuals. By that I do not mean that we do not know what the effect is, but fortunately we do not see it very much and we tend to forget about it, whereas the noble Lord said that it is spreading across Europe at a terrific rate.
I believe that the Government are wholly right in asking Parliament to approve the Bill and to give them the powers which they consider necessary should the disease get nearer our shores. I remember the noble Lord the Leader of the House, when he was on these Benches, saying on Second Reading how he had seen somebody suffering from the disease and how, once you had seen that, you never forget it. I think it is a fact that anyone who contracts the disease in fact never recovers from it. That is a distinction between those who are bitten by a rabid animal as opposed to those who, after having been bitten, contract the disease. It is a foul disease and anything that can be done to keep this country free of it is welcome.
My Lords, although the Bill is identical to the Bill which we had during the last Parliament, it is different in one respect; that is, that it is not identical to the one to which we gave a Second Reading. As a result of the pressure which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, referred to from his noble friend Lord Shepherd—it was considerable pressure and I pay tribute to it—Clause 6 was inserted. Everyone knows that the penalties which courts put on offenders for smuggling in animals is, by general consensus, far too low. The limits which the courts were entitled to put was much higher but they never carried it out. This was the point which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, pressed strongly and it was a question with which my noble friend Lord Hailsham, as Lord Chancellor, was concerned. I know that it incorporated problems by making this an optionally indictable offence; I suspect there were problems of precedent and so on. Nevertheless, those problems were overcome and the clause was inserted in the Bill and I congratulate and pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for his admirable persistence, because I think that it immeasurably strengthened the Bill.
790
My Lords, I can only hope that, now that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, finds himself on the other side of the House, he will be equally happy and willing to reciprocate by incorporating into Bills put forward by the Government any Amendments pressed from this side of the House, especially those that are pressed vigorously. I welcome the Bill and hope that it will have the approval of your Lordships, because although it may never have to be used its provisions are essentially very desirable.
5.44 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like also to thank the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi for introducing the Bill once more to us. We had a full debate on it last year and I do not propose now to make a long speech. I should however like to mention some of the points which I thought were important when we discussed the Bill previously. The first point is that there has been a certain amount of pressure from time to time that the period of quarantine should be relaxed. I hope that the Government are not thinking of doing that because it would be disastrous. It is said that vaccination is very successful now. I think that that is probably true; it is a successful preventive, but it is not 100 per cent. successful. Indeed, in one of the cases where a rabid dog appeared in this country in, I think, Newmarket in 1970, it was supposed to have been vaccinated three times before its entry. It was quarantined for six months and it developed rabies about a month after it came out of quarantine. So although one should encourage vaccination it should not be regarded as a complete safeguard.
The other point I am pleased about is the question of deterrent. There is sufficient body of feeling about that people who bring animals improperly into this country and get caught should be fined a great deal, and that they should go to prison at the same time. Although it is not an important point, I should like to ensure, in addition, that the animals they bring in are destroyed—not may be destroyed. I do not seek that because I wish to be unkind to the animals concerned, but because such action would have a bigger deterrent if some foolish person who wished to import a pet knew that if he was caught that he would be fined not only a big sum but that his pet

791
would be killed. That is all I wish to say about the Bill at present. I welcome it and hope that your Lordships will give it a comfortable passage.
5.47 p.m.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, may I join with other noble Lords in welcoming the Bill. It is a subject which, when nothing is happening, tends to fade from the public mind. There are so many people now going to Europe that the temptation to return with animals, and the willingness to smuggle them in, becomes very great. I do not think the public realise the horrors which can come from an outbreak of rabies. I was privileged to see in Westminster Hall the other day a most stark and brutal film which brings home to everybody the horrors of this terrible disease. I should like that film to be shown as widely as possible to as many people as possible. Although it is brutal and beastly, I should welcome it if it were shown nationwide on television in order to bring home to the public the appalling results of an outbreak of rabies. I have only one lingering doubt about the Bill, which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has introduced, and that is still about the omission of Northern Ireland. I feel that the control of animals coming from Northern Ireland is still too light and if through ill chance, the disease spread there it would be difficult to control it. The Waterhouse Committee made a number of recommendations. I was most pleased to hear the noble Lord say that most of these had been carried out. Although I know it is not directly connected with the Bill, I ask him whether the recommendations on individual runs for dogs in quarantine have yet been completely enforced and whether the restrictions on animals used in circuses are, in fact, completely tight? There was a period when I know from experience that the restrictions were extremely loose.
The other matter, which I hope the noble Lord can assure us about, is the by-chance importation of animals on these multiple cross-channel ferries carrying heavy vehicles. There may be no intention of importing a wild animal but, as rabies can be borne by any wild or warm-blooded animal, I hope the Government are satisfied that their checks in this regard are quite sufficient. My
792
Lords, I thank the noble Lord for presenting this Bill again. It is one which is greatly needed.
5.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, with your Lordships' approval and unannounced, may I make a short but sad speech? I have certain information about the subject which is difficult to mention. I do not mean that I have personally suffered from rabies, though noble Lords may well think so, but there was an inquiry by Mr. Arthur Koestler twelve or thirteen years ago which recommended a change in the law. The late Lord Silkin and I took the matter up and under a different Government we got so far as to persuade the Under-Secretary to declare a rabies-free customs union for eleven countries. This was not announced, because the plan was suddenly stopped by the import into Holland—which was one of the rabies-free countries—of a mad dog which did infinite harm, and also, later on, into Italy, where even greater harm was done. So Lord Silkin and I reluctantly gave up the plan. We knew that we were right to do so and, personally, I do not expect to see any such legislation—at any rate in my lifetime—re-introduced.
There are one or two questions which I should like to ask the Minister and to which he may be able to give satisfactory answers. The Bill speaks of "mammals". Does that include bats? I believe that bats are mammals, but I should like to make sure of this point because there was a tremendous epidemic in Detroit 30 or 40 years ago and it was proved that the infection had been brought in by bats. How the Government propose to remove that danger I cannot guess—bats are hard to trace. The second point about which I should like to ask the noble Lord relates to Clause 3, which speaks of the banning of the importation of certain vaccines, notably, I should imagine, one which has been proved 100 per cent. efficient in the laboratory and 99·9 per cent. in the field, though your Lordships may well think that that is not good enough. I wonder what it is that the Minister had in mind when he talked about the importation of anti-rabies drugs. I should have thought that the more they were imported the less the

793
danger, but perhaps the Minister will explain.
Apart from that I have absolutely nothing to say, except that I think it is a very sad thing that it should be so. Of course, the amount of money lost to the Revenue from owners of dogs who might otherwise have brought them from abroad—notably American ladies, who love dogs and like to have them always—must be enormous. But I realise the point behind the Bill and it has my wholehearted approval.
5.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, I should simply like to say, as a former Minister of Agriculture, that it is impossible to exaggerate the seriousness of this disease. I remember many cases of kindly, humane people in my day who urged me towards relaxation of the penalties with the most kindly intentions. But if they had known the disease, I do not believe they would have done so. I entirely agree with what my noble friend Lord de Clifford said just now. If a film would help to educate people, it would be a very good thing indeed.
In any case, I think that one of the ways in which one can emphasise to the people involved the importance of this matter is through the sternness of the penalties involved. Therefore, my Lords, I am entirely in support of the Bill. I think it very timely and very necessary indeed, and I hope that it will be given a fair wind at every stage.
5.56 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I should just like to say a brief word in support of the Bill and to thank the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for having introduced it. I agreed with him when he said that our long freedom from rabies is no cause for complacency, because now that we are—at any rate nominally—a part of Europe, our contact with the gradually spreading wave of rabies is even closer. The noble Lord named the fox as one of the chief spreaders of the disease, and this makes the need for care even greater. I live in what might be called a suburban area. It is just outside the borders of London and foxes are very frequently seen there. In fact, we have twice had one inside our own garden and they are coming up towards human habitation more and more; and, of course, there are
794
dogs and cats galore, though I do not know whether cats suffer from this disease. In any case, there are many dogs and, if a fox were to attack a dog, who knows what might be the result?
The noble Lord made one other point on which I should like to comment when he was talking about the possible preventives. He said that we might have to go back to the gin trap. I sincerely hope that we shall not have to do so. The gin trap has been outlawed for very right reasons, and there are other traps in existence which could be very effective. At the time when the gin trap was banned, the R.S.P.C.A. held a competition for the design of a trap which would prove effective in its place, and I believe that a very effective one was produced. Also, it is not impossible, as is commonly supposed, for a really good marksman to shoot a fox. It takes some doing, but a really good shot can do it and that would be more merciful than using gin traps, which, of course, can injure animals other than foxes. Apart from those few remarks, I welcome the Bill very much.
5.59 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords for the welcome which they have given to the Bill. I should like to thank the noble. Earl, Lord Ferrers, particularly, the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, from the Liberal Front Bench, the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, with all his great experience, and other noble Lords from all sides of the House for the welcome which they have given to the Bill. I am also glad that noble Lords agree that the previous penalties were for the most part too low.
I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, that the period of quarantine will certainly not be relaxed. He mentioned the case of a rabid clog developing rabies one month after quarantine. This was considered by the Waterhouse Committee. The Report of the Committee described how a dog had developed rabies nine months after the end of the period; but the Committee considered that this was a very unusual case and recommended, on the whole, that the six-month period should be retained. Of course, my Lords, one also has to balance this with the great sadness and disappointment caused to owners, and indeed also to the dog, if the poor animal is to be kept separated from them for long

795
periods. I think there is probably a risk that they might lose much of the affection, and so on, if the period is longer than six months.
The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, mentioned an interesting film that was shown in Westminster Hall. I am afraid I did not see the film, but I understand that it was made in France. We certainly will consider using films of this kind for advertising to the general public the dangers of importing animals without licence and trying to smuggle them through. As I say, I believe the film which the noble Lord mentioned was made in France, and while it was a very good film it was directed mainly at specialised audiences—veterinary audiences, and so on—and we think it is probably rather too specialised for general consumption. But we are certainly looking into this and other ways and means of informing the public that this is a very dangerous and irresponsible thing to do. There are many other channels, of course, through which this can be done, such as putting up fairly prominent notices at Customs points, informing people when they go abroad, as well as trying to make some representations to the troops, including the Army of the Rhine, through the Secretary of State and through the commanding officers. In that way they, too, will be aware of the importance of sticking to the regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, asked whether the proposals about quarantine kennels and quarters were being implemented. I am happy to say that we can give him this assurance. Most of the Waterhouse recommendations have been implemented except those relating to communal runs. In new kennels these are being implemented at once, but in respect of older kennels we are proposing to give a few years' notice. That is about the only recommendation that has not been implemented. Also, in future it will be essential for an owner to see his dog only in the compartment, and the dog will no longer be allowed to contact the owner outside the cage. The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, mentioned zoo animals. I can confirm that the controls have been strengthened, as recommended by Waterhouse. The noble Lord then asked about Northern Ireland and controls there, and said that he thought
796
there were dangers that animals might slip in. I am surprised he said this, because it has been our experience that Northern Ireland, which of course has not had rabies, is extremely stringent and very strict about the powers, and is very well aware of this problem. So I think the possible dangers there are exaggerated.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us—I have not any idea what the answer is—whether the Eire Government have strict controls in this respect? I rather fancy they have.
LORD STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords; I understand the Government of the Republic are very well aware of this problem and have controls which are at least as strict as ours. The noble Lord also mentioned cross-Channel ferries. Of course he is quite right in saying there is a danger here, but we are doing our very best to strengthen supervision at the ports and also to increase portal veterinary officers, both qualified and non-qualified, who carry out the initial searching, so that any loophole will be stopped up.
The noble Earl, Lord Arran, mentioned the mad dog which was introduced into Holland. This, of course, pinpoints what can happen with rabies and how it is gradually spreading across Europe. I can confirm to him that bats are mammals. With regard to Clause 3 and the vaccine, I will, if I may, write to him about this as I should like to go into it a little more carefully. I am very grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, for his support. The noble Lord, Lord Somers, mentioned the fox. At present the fox is the particular culprit of rabies. I do not say that always in past history it has been the fox, but the fox is the animal responsible for the rabies outbreak in Europe and for its spread, and it is thought that the fox will pose the danger in this country as well. I note what the noble Lord said about gin traps. As I said in my opening speech, the Government will introduce them with the greatest reluctance, and, here again, only in areas where it is not possible to resort to gassing. These are mainly mountainous areas, where the foxes, instead of using earths, use cairns, where gassing is not practical. There it may be necessary some times, I regret to say, to use the gin trap. But these

797
traps will be used only as a last resort, and here again all precautions will be taken to see that they are inspected frequently.
My Lords, I hope I have answered all the questions that noble Lords have asked me, but if there is anything that I have not covered I shall be happy to write about it in more detail to the noble Lord concerned. In the meantime, my Lords, I trust your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT (DETERMINATION OF REQUIREMENTS) REGULATIONS 1974
6.7 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL LORD WELLS-PESTELL rose to move, That the Draft Supplementary Benefit (Determination of Requirements) Regulations 1974, laid before the House on April 30, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Supplementary Benefit (Determination of Requirements) Regulations 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on April 30, be approved. Your Lordships will know that reference was made to them when the National Insurance Bill received its Second Reading on April 30. These Regulations provide for increases in the supplementary benefit scale rates laid down by the Supplementary Benefit Act 1966 for normal requirements. As your Lordships will know, these rates, together with an allowance for rent, make up the guaranteed levels to which the income of retired people and others not in full-time work can be brought up by means of supplementary benefits. The proposed increases broadly match those for national insurance benefits contained in the National Insurance Bill, to which your Lordships gave a Third Reading this afternoon.
My Lords, the main supplementary benefit increases are provided for by Regulation 2. First, as to the increases in the scale rates themselves, it is proposed that the long-term rates, which are payable to supplementary pensioners and to people, other than the unemployed, who have received a supplementary
798
allowance continuously for two years, shall be increased by £2·25 to £10·40 for a person living alone, and by £3·50 to £16·35 for a married couple. The ordinary scale rates, which apply to the unemployed and to people other than pensioners who have received a supplementary allowance for less than two years, are to be increased by £1·25 to £8·40 for a person living alone, and by £2 to £13·65 for a married couple. Regulation 2 also provides for increases in the amounts allowed for attendance requirements in the supplementary benefit schemes. These apply to supplementary beneficiaries who receive the National Insurance attendance allowance. Increases in attendance requirements are the same as those made to the attendance allowance itself; the higher rate will become £8 and the lower rate £5·35. A beneficiary who is not a householder receives a standard weekly addition for rent and it is proposed that this shall be increased by 10p to 90p per week.
My Lords, these proposals will bring very much needed help to people who are particularly vulnerable to price inflation. The Government are confident that these increases will not only maintain the value of supplementary benefits, but will provide a real improvement for supplementary beneficiaries who must by definition be among those needing the most help. Your Lordships will be pleased to learn that the Supplementary Benefits Commission have decided to increase the standard additions awarded for extra heating needs where there is ill health or poor accommodation. Heating additions will be increased by one third to 40p, 80p and £1·20 per week respectively. Allowances for special diets will also go up, from 40p and 92p to 50p and £1·12 per week respectively. These increases are not dealt with in the regulations because they are made under the Commission's discretionary powers.
The Government have given the highest priority to the introduction of the new social security benefit rates. All the increases I have outlined will come into operation in the week beginning July 22, at the same time as the increases in national insurance benefits. I must explain to your Lordships that not everyone will receive their increase by that date, but I would reassure your Lordships that no one will lose by this because

799
arrears will eventually be paid in full. Although this situation is far from ideal, it has come about because of the Government's wish to bring the increases into operation as quickly as possible. Expenditure on supplementary benefits will increase by about £81 million in a full year as a result of the proposals in these regulations. The increases will help about 2¾ million people and their dependants including some 1·8 million pensioner claimants, many thousands of the sick, widows and the unemployed. As I have said, the increases will provide a real increase in purchasing power for these people. I am sure your Lordships will approve the purpose of these Draft Regulations. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Supplementary Benefit (Determination of Requirements) Regulations 1974 laid before the House on April 30 be approved.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
LORD ELTON: My Lords, we on this side of the House are entirely in sympathy with the purposes of these Regulations, and I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the way in which they will operate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FAMILY INCOME SUPPLEMENTS (COMPUTATION) REGULATIONS 1974
6.15 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL LORD WELLS-PESTELL rose to move, That the Draft Family Income Supplements (Computation) Regulations 1974 laid before the House on April 30 be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the Regulations is to raise the prescribed amounts for family income supplements; the change takes effect from July 23, at the same time as the uprating of all the other social security benefits. The family income supplements scheme gives help to families who are bringing up children on low incomes; the heads of these families are in full-time work and they must satisfy a means test before an award is made. As many of your Lordships know, this type of arrangement does not commend itself to this side of the House, but until we can develop our own longterm
800
plans we must keep the family income supplements in being and ensure that they maintain their value.
For a one child family, the prescribed amount goes up from £21·50 to £25; for each additional child the prescribed amount will be £3 higher, instead of £2·50 at present. The maximum weekly payment will go up from £5 to £5·50 for one and two child families; for larger families the maximum goes up from £6 to £7. In July, it will be only ten months since the last time the prescribed amounts were raised in October last year. The July increases in the prescribed amounts represent a considerable improvement in percentage terms over the October, 1973, rates; for example, 16 per cent. for a one child family and 17 per cent. for a three child family. These increases can be expected to keep ahead of the movement in prices for the ten months from last October to July of this year. For the year immediately after the increase in the prescribed amounts, the cost of family income supplements will be a total of £18½ million; this can be compared with £12·6 million, the cost for 1973–74. I hope that these Regulations, increasing the prescribed amounts, will be welcomed by your Lordships. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Family Income Supplements (Computation) Regulations 1974 laid before the House on April 30 be approved.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

B.B.C. OVERSEAS SERVICES
6.18 p.m.
LORD ALPORT LORD ALPORT rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what reductions are proposed in the allocation of resources to the Overseas Services of the B.B.C. and what is their policy with regard to the future of British information and cultural services, operating overseas, generally. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask a question standing in my name on the Order Paper. There has been recent dramatic evidence of the continuing impact of the B.B.C.'s Overseas Service on public opinion abroad. When Mr. Solzhenitsyn wished to protest against the decision of the Russian Government to force Mr. Ginsberg to leave Moscow, and when he, at the same time, wished

801
to make his first full appeal to the Russian people over the heads of that Government, he telephoned the B.B.C. from Zurich and asked them to put out his statement on the B.B.C.'s Russian Service. The reasons why he chose the B.B.C. are clear. The Statement would, he knew from his own experience, be heard in Russia and listened to. We remember the world reputation which the B.B.C. established in the Second World War and we know from our own experience, too, that that reputation has been maintained during the last three decades. The B.B.C.'s Overseas Service is, from the British point of view, a major national asset.
My Lords, I shall return to the politics and the philosophy of the problem a little later. However, first let me set out the financial factors as I understand them. In doing so I hope I may make it clear that this is in no way a Party political debate. Indeed, I am asked by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley (who had intended to speak but in view of the length of the list of Peers wishing to take part in the debate has decided not to do so) to say that both he and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, warmly support the views which I hope to present to your Lordships during the next few minutes. Indeed, the Conservative Government imposed a cut of nearly £400,000 on the B.B.C.'s Overseas Services in the financial year 1974–75, adversely affecting the Caribbean Service and the service in English to Africa; and, in addition, imposing certain reductions in the technical efficiency of the presentation of the Overseas Services in general.
It is now alleged—and in asking my Unstarred Question I am seeking reassurance from the Government—that a further reduction of 10 or 12 per cent. is being considered, involving some £1·5 million out of the B.B.C.'s present overseas budget of £15 million. The effect of this could be that in many parts of the world the B.B.C. would not be heard in the vernacular. In the league table of what is a very competitive field, Britain would sink below such countries as Egypt, and perhaps 200 out of a total of 1,000 highly-trained staff would be declared redundant. Your Lordships will have seen a report in to-day's paper of a statement made by the Secretary of the Association
802
of Broadcasting Staff, evidencing the anxiety and worry which that possibility brings to members of the B.B.C. at the moment. In addition, much capital expenditure, which is essential to ensuring that the B.B.C.'s voice is heard effectively amid the hubbub of voices which to-day characterises the world of broadcasting, would be abandoned.
My noble friend Lord Cromer has authorised me to say from his experience in the United States that the improvement of the B.B.C.'s North American Service is vital, from the point of view of audibility in the United States. My noble friend Lord Trevelyan, who would have wished to take part in this debate, has also authorised me to say that in the light of his long experience of service in many parts of the world the maintenance and development of the B.B.C.'s Overseas Services is vital to the effective presentation of British policy in the Middle East and Asia. A number of your Lordships will be taking part in this debate and will be giving your own views in due course. I merely take the opportunity at this point of thanking noble Lords for joining me in this discussion. From my own smaller experience, I must say that I am horrified that at this point in time a reduction should be imposed on the B.B.C.'s services to Africa.
I remember, long years ago when serving in Africa, hearing from the B.B.C. the news of the Normandy landing. I recollect more recently how dependent were those of us who sought a viable solution to the problems of Central Africa upon the authoritative news and the powerful support which we received through the B.B.C.'s Overseas Services. I know—and other noble Lords will also know—from friends in India, Pakistan and many others parts of the world how directly they look to Britain, through its voice (the B.B.C.) to preserve their friendship and their faith in Britain. It may well be that many people here are content that our country should be diminished into the role of a European off-shore island. In the world outside, however, there are millions who, despite the overwhelming material resources of Russia, China and the United States, seek from Britain the inspiration and reassurance which we alone can give.
I say that we have a moral responsibility in this country: we have also material considerations to bear in mind. Since our argument is not really with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office but with the Treasury, let me say that the B.B.C.'s Overseas Services represent the flag which to-day trade follows. In forty languages, for over 100 hours each day, the B.B.C.'s Overseas Services broadcast to the world. Much of this time is devoted to matters relating to British efforts in the areas of science, technology and industrial development. As your Lordships will know, a central unit acts as a collecting and co-ordinating point for industrial and export news which goes out in the appropriate linguistic services. As examples, the British contribution to the construction of the Niteroi Bridge in Brazil and the Bosphorus Bridge have recently been featured on the Portuguese Latin American and Turkish Services respectively. Further, between 25 and 30 per cent. of the mail received by the Arab Service in 1973—a total of nearly 60,000 letters—referred to matters connected with its daily programme, "Trade and Industry", or mentioned in its magazine Huna London. In 1973, 1,000 inquiries related to queries arising from its export-orientated programme called "A new idea from Britain". But it is not simply that the B.B.C.'s presentation to the world of the prospects ahead of Britain from our North Sea oil has reinforced confidence in the financial viability of our country and counteracted the forces of defeatism and denigration. As I have already said, there are millions of people in every continent who want to believe in Britain and to maintain the political and cultural standards which they have learnt to regard as part of the British tradition.
I cannot believe that any British Government are so negligent of our country's responsibilities and so ignorant of the assets provided by the B.B.C. programmes as to throw away the effectiveness of an instrument of influence and good will, simply in conformity with the hoary principle that cuts must, on some distorted idea of financial equity, always be right across the board. If it is the Government's policy—and I am sure it is—that there should be substantial cuts in Defence expenditure, amounting perhaps to hundreds of millions of pounds, it
804
seems to me all the more important that what is universally regarded as a major instrument of national policy be reinforced. If we can no longer influence the course of world affairs by the exercise of military, political or economic power, let us try to do so by the propagation of ideas, by standards of truth in the handling of news and by appealing directly to the minds and consciences of ordinary folk, just as the exiled Mr. Solzhenitsyn did in his own way to his own people through the B.B.C. a few weeks ago.
6.28 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, in the hands of a master such as my noble friend Lord Alport, the Unstarred Question is both a powerful and a delicate weapon. Like a general debate, it can draw attention to some area of our national life which needs attending to, but it does not end with the polite withdrawal by the proposer. It puts the Minister firmly where I believe all Ministers belong—in a spot, and having to give specific answers.
As my noble friend has discovered on Parliament's behalf, this development is the latest stage reached by a veritable snowball of a rumour—and it certainly sends a chill down my spine—that the B.B.C.'s External Services are in danger of suffering their largest cuts so far. I must declare right away from these Benches that these rumoured cuts would be in addition to those forced upon my right honourable friend Sir Alec Douglas-Home when he was Foreign Secretary. It was bad enough then: it is worse now. Certainly my right honourable friend did his best to fend off some of the cuts which the energy and labour crises forced on our Government.
I understand that the External Services were orginally to have suffered a cut of some £600,000 from their budget for the coming year, but that the then Foreign Secretary reduced the cut to just under £400,000. May I urge on the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, to confirm his already considerable personal reputation—to extend it even, over the whole world—either by scotching these rumours of additional and far greater cuts, or by persuading the Foreign Secretary (as I shall hope to persuade him) that the present is, as my noble friend said, perhaps the worst conceivable time for bringing such cuts about. We should be mortally

805
wounding perhaps the finest guardian of our country's reputation in the world.
I do not think many Members of this House of Parliament will disagree with me when I say that the Free World is at the moment in greater disarray and therefore in greater danger, than at any time since it recognised the menace of Fascistic and Communistic totalitarian regimes, and clubbed together to defeat the former while trying to contain the latter. America is standing on the brink of a Constitutional chasm which could pull her away from what I believe to be her best performance in world affairs for a generation. The painful and nerve-racking steps of West Germany's Ostpolitik could be dragged from under her; France appears divided and her political system does not easily accommodate division.
I believe that whatever our own individual political joys or sorrows, we in Britain are forced to admit that the Heath Government was the second successive Government, not the first Government, to be defeated by political forces outside our conventional political system. One part of Britain, still considered the most stable Western country, is simmering with civil strife and only the great efforts of our Army and sacrifices of our people prevents it from boiling over into civil war. Indeed the European Economic Community is troubled overall: by the energy crisis, by unilateral initiative on the part of Member States, by hardening of political attitudes, and weakening of political will. Inflation seems to have put paid to international monetary reform. The price of oil seems to have put paid to the non-aligned countries' hope of industrial progress, and this at a time when the world was at last paying the underdeveloped a reasonable price for their commodities. I believe that all Western countries will get together to overcome their own difficulties and help, as help they must, others in even greater difficulties than themselves. But it is not a good time and it will not be quick going.
I do not think it is Chauvinistic—and I use the French term advisedly—to say that the B.B.C. External Service is the voice of the West most trusted by the world outside for information, impartiality and detachment from any particular Administration. For what my own
806
view is worth, I believe the Service has at present the critical task of representing what is best in the entire Free World at a time when the Free World needs its best representation. I beg the Government to listen to the great chorus of anxiety which has been formed in and outside Parliament, in and outside this country, by the rumours which I mentioned earlier.
I have given so far what I believe to be the immediate and urgent case for not extending cuts made in the last Government. Since I am enjoying the luxury—albeit the impecunious one—of these Benches, I would go further and hope that the Government will restore any cuts that be made, any branches that we lopped off. May I now come quickly to the more particular case, the case of our own national interest for retaining present support for this broadcasting service. In essence, this case has to do with overseas broadcasting as a vital arm of commercial and national diplomacy. Your Lordships will have listened to my noble friend's powerful advocacy of that case. I would simply suggest why I believe that now is again the very worst time to lay about one with the shears.
External broadcasting is a continuing, long-term operation, involving the building up of regular listening habits on the part of individuals all over the world who, for a number of reasons, choose to listen to the B.B.C. in preference to other broadcasters. This hard core of listeners becomes crucial in times of crisis; for example, during the recent coup in Portugal, the Middle East War of 1973, the East Bengal crisis of 1971 and the events in Czechoslovakia in 1968. It is crucial because it is in times such as these that many larger numbers of people get to know about our broadcasts and turn to them because of their reliable information. To cut this or that Service for reasons of temporary economic stringency means the loss of that hard core of listeners, the ending of the special relationship they feel they have with the B.B.C. and, through the B.B.C., with Britain. How difficult it would be to recapture that audience at short notice should it one day become politically desirable and financially possible!
We must therefore ask ourselves this question: with economic recovery a very real possibility within the next few years,

807
and bearing in mind that broadcasting is now one of the only effective direct means of influence left to this country, as my noble friend said, should we be wise to cut it down for short-term reasons of financial expediency when the savings involved are far too small to have a major bearing on the national economy? To maintain external broadcasting at its present level, in spite of our difficulties, would be a far-sighted act of faith. May I remind your Lordships of another farsighted act of faith—the fact that the External Services of the B.B.C. were established in the early 1930s during our worst previous financial crisis. We would thereby demonstrate to others that we have not lost confidence in ourselves. Conversely, to cut external broadcasting would surely be interpreted as an indication that Britain is abandoning her world role and losing the will to disseminate the values for which she is admired and envied.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, would the noble Earl forgive me for one second? He has made the whole basis of his speech that the B.B.C.'s broadcasting is our broadcasting, meaning British policy being sold to the world. Would he accept from me—and I hope from some other noble Lords here—that we never thought that was so? I ask the noble Earl this: is it not the business of the B.B.C. Overseas Service to seek to give information, not to sell the British Government's point of view? If I may say so, he is doing a lot more harm than good with the speech that he is now making.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I must confess that I find that the most astonishing indictment from the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown. If he will read what I said, he will notice that in the second phase of my argument I said I should like to come to the particular case, the case of our own national interest. I am not sure if the noble Lord was present; perhaps he might have been otherwise engaged. The first part of my speech was devoted to the general role of the B.B.C. in the modern world. I doubt whether there are other noble Lords who would disagree with me on that item. However, I should be delighted to meet the noble Lord and thrash out the personal
808
argument between us on another occasion with Hansard in hand.
By its nature broadcasting operates differently from diplomacy, and I have been urging it as a wing of diplomacy, because diplomacy relies essentially on influencing a relatively small number of influential people in foreign countries. We have a great deal of evidence to show the extent to which broadcasting has this effect, but it also reaches a much wider public, among whom British ideas, values and achievements in every field are disseminated direct without any need for the assent and co-operation of local authorities. I understand the B.B.C. receives some 300,000 letters every year from all over the world, and the extent to which the B.B.C. is noticed by the Governments of many countries, and attacked by some—and I say to the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, the extent to which it is noticed in dealing with the affairs of such countries themselves, and not just our affairs—provides clear evidence of its impact and of the respect in which it is held.
My Lords, I have not mentioned those institutions which are contained by the second phrase of my noble friend's rubric, because I believe that where the general argument is concerned they are the other side of the one coin, and because I have not heard myself that they are so immediately threatened. In closing, I would just ask the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, this question. Might it not be possible to hive off some portion of the External Services grant-in-aid from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Ministry of Defence? I know of course that defence, too, is subject to cuts. But it would seem to me that in the very real battles that go on between various Departments and the Treasury the advocacy of two great Departments of State would strengthen the case, not for more money, but for not having less; and I do not believe that the Ministry of Defence will refuse to acknowledge that the microphone may be no less mighty than the sword.
6.41 p.m.
LORD BALLANTRAE: My Lords, may I begin by declaring an interest in that for the last 19 months I have had the honour and pleasure of being Chairman of the British Council. What I propose to say in a very few minutes is not

809
an expression of opinion; not a plea for more money; not a plea even against cuts, though I hope that that thought may occur to noble Lords as I speak. I thought I would say something on what the British Council does because I do not think it is well enough known. I would begin by saying that I am speaking in no sense of dissatisfaction. A month ago I was allowed to take a small delegation to wait on the Secretary of State. It comprised myself, the Director General and Lord Goodman, who is a member of many delegations. We called on the Secretary of State who gave us a most courteous hearing of 45 minutes and listened to our points with the utmost sympathy.
I am not going to express a lot of opinions, but I want to recall to your Lordships one or two facts. The British Council was formed roughly at the time the noble Earl was describing in the early 'thirties, about forty years ago, and its task has been ever since then—and I am quoting from one of the early documents:
"To make the life and thought of the British peoples more widely known abroad; to promote a mutual interchange of knowledge and ideas with other peoples; to encourage the study and use of the English language",
and so on. That has taken every sort of form—English language teaching, circulation of books, exchange of people, carrying cultural manifestations overseas. In recent years it has had other tasks added to it, notably administration and acting as agents for the Ministry of Overseas Development (as it is now known) in many countries overseas. Last year one of its bigger activities was Europalia in Belgium, a major cultural occasion which attracted much attention all over Europe.
We are represented in about 80 countries. During my 19 months I have been to 20 of them; during the last six months to 12. Those 20 are in Australasia, North and South America, Asia and Africa, and one is in Europe. Of the 12 I have been to in the last six months, it is not without interest that 11 are former Colonial territories. The 20 include Morocco, Tunis and Senegal; Vietnam; French territories; and the rest were British. The only non ex-Colonial territory was Thailand. One of the most interesting things, to my mind, was the thirst for British culture and English language in all these countries. Noble
810
Lords will remember that at the time of the partition of India in 1947 the feeling there was not to have the English language any more as the lingua-franca, but to introduce some other language. But the pendulum has swung right back and the demand for advice and guidance in spreading the teaching of English extends all over India, all over Pakistan, and all over these other countries, to a remarkable degree. There are demands for English language teaching, for technical training, and above all for books. In the last few months such people as Lee Kuan Yew and General Gowan have been pressing me for more books, more teachers and more aids to teaching. In all these countries I have met the Ministers of Education, in most of them also the Head of State, and all the Prime Ministers.
This is a two-way traffic. We send an enormous number of people overseas on contract as teachers or surgeons, technicians or engineers. They go on short or long term tours. And an enormous number of people come to this country. In the last year we have had 21,480 visitors from overseas: 550 were scholars or fellows coming here for a period of a year or more 625 were bursars coming for half a year; 450 were on study tours: 1,800 were on courses, and so on. They covered the whole spectrum from Cabinet Ministers to post-graduate students. They were from all over the world: 1,500 from the Commonwealth; 700 from the Middle East and non-Commonwealth Africa. Some were in education, some in medicine, some in art, some in technical and scientific fields.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what proportion of the total cost of those visitors was borne by the Council?
LORD BALLANTRAE: My Lords, I am afraid I do not have the figure—I was afraid this might happen to me. In almost all cases we pay, but countries which can afford to pay do pay. We do all the agency work for them. For instance, certain countries send students to universities. We place them. But in very many cases, especially in developing countries which cannot afford it, the British Council takes on the whole cost. Where we feel the developing country can pay—and some developing countries

811
nowadays are extremely well-off—it pays, but we do the agency work.
I have a mass of figures here but I will not inflict them on your Lordships any more. I said I would not inflict any opinions on your Lordships, but I am going to inflict one. It is that during these 19 months of travelling I have been immensely impressed with the quality of the staff I have met both overseas and in this country. I was a little pained to read in Hansard last Friday that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, told your Lordships that the upper levels of the British Council were largely manned by Foreign Office—what was the word?—"drop-outs"; "dead beats". I can assure your Lordships that in my 19 months I have met no "dead beats", no "off beats", nor any other kind of beat, and no single ex-Foreign Office official, bar one who was trained by us, went to the Foreign Office for two years and is now back with us and on our books. I welcome this opportunity to make that clear to your Lordships. My Lords, I conclude by repeating this one point. If your Lordships had had the privilege and experience that I have had over the last 19 months you would be impresed, I am certain, by the quality of the work being done and by the quality of the people doing it.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, would the noble Lord let me ask him this question, because all the Foreign Office "dead beats" are sitting in this House. However, because of the controversy I had with the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, may I ask whether the noble Lord would agree with me that the contribution which the British Council makes is achieved because it does not try to sell the British policy, but tries to present a British way of life?
LORD BALLANTRAE: My Lords, I do not want to get involved in a controversy between the noble Earl on the one hand and the noble Lord on my port quarter, but one of the things that is so interesting about the British Council is that its work with countries goes on, whatever the Foreign Office relationship may be. I can quote three countries, where in the past diplomatic relations have been broken off but where the British Council has been allowed to continue, without let or hindrance. In countries
812
where travel is strictly restricted for the foreign service, the British Council are very often enabled to go on maintaining their contacts. I believe that one of the most valuable things about the British Council is that, although there may be interruptions and a temporary loss of diplomatic relations at Foreign Office level, the British Council goes beavering on and on with its contacts.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, may I say how much the Foreign Office welcome the continuation of the British Council's work in these adverse circumstances.
LORD BALLANTRAE: My Lords, if there should be any doubt, may I say that I have finished what I wanted to say and that I thank your Lordships for the patience with which you have listened to me.
6.52 p.m.
LORD ARDWICK: My Lords, first of all, may I plead an interest, since these seem to be days when complete candour is demanded, in that I do twenty to thirty broadcasts for the External Services every year and that for this I am suitably but modestly rewarded. Nobody has ever been able to accuse the External Services of splashing their money about. Indeed, I have known these services from the inside as a fairly regular contributor over twenty years, and I think that the productivity of the staff of the External Services is as high as it is in any broadcasting body that I have ever seen. They get very good value.
Because of the hour of this debate, I have to defer the pleasure of drinks with an old friend, a ceaseless world traveller whom I sometimes think of as the "Flying Dutchman" of the Fylde. However, he said: "Speak out. Wherever one goes in the world, the B.B.C.'s External Services are Britain's best known and best respected institution." My Lords, if rumour is right, the best known and the best respected of British institutions is possibly in danger of amputation or of being cut down because a foolish, faceless, stony-hearted accountant somewhere in the Treasury, looking for bits to chip off Government expenditure, has hit upon something which is outside his experience.
If you are going to ask, "Why should we broadcast to other nations?" you may

813
as well ask, "Why do we have any information services abroad? Indeed, why do we have any diplomatic services above the bare minimum?" The answer is that we have a vested interest. We have a vested interest in a peaceful world, in a world which is moving towards freedom. We believe that in the long run the truth, or as near as we can come to the truth, is the surest route to peace in freedom.
How fortunate are we that the Overseas Service—the External Service as it is now called—was founded 44 years ago, not by some agile political warrior of the new style but by that man of stiff-necked rectitude, John Reith. How fortunate that, in spite of all the temptations, the moral standards that he laid down were maintained in those years of propaganda just before the war and in the actual years of the war. Of course, it was in the war years that the B.B.C. External Services built up their world reputation for fairness, accuracy and efficiency. It is possible to quote errors and to say that there have been aberrations. That is not surprising when broadcasters in exile are very often tortured by what is happening in the home country. Possibly there are no listeners throughout the world who think that the External Services are wholly perfect; but it is remarkable how few errors the External Services have made, how few aberrations there have been, and how quickly they have been rectified.
The B.B.C., as we have heard, can quote some quite remarkable figures of listening in Africa, in India, in Vietnam, in the Middle East, in spite of competition from the Russians, from the Chinese, from the United States, from Egypt, Germany and France. It is not only a question of numbers; it is a question of quality. All over the world there are political leaders, heads of State, Ministers, civil servants, university teachers, journalists, ministers of religion, the opinion-forming minorities in these countries, who are regular B.B.C. listeners. I have had the experience, and I think that every broadcaster who is a journalist has had the experience, of going abroad and meeting, say, somebody like the Prime Minister of Sweden. He knew me immediately, not by my work on the Guardian, not by my work on the Daily Herald, but because he had heard me so often on the External Services. Many of these people
814
are, or have become, devoted Anglophiles out of respect for the quality and integrity of our broadcasts.
Of course, one can add, too, as the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, did, that the services are of practical utility. The Overseas Services to-day tell the world much about our scientific achievements, about our achievements in technology and about the commercial products that arise out of those technical achievements. They can recount with pride and tell the world about the great contracts we have secured in civil engineering or about the industrial or agricultural units which we are now exporting.
We come back, however, to the question of information. There are two compelling reasons at this moment why, as the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, has pointed out, our views in Britain should be made known throughout the world—first of all on Ulster, this terrible phenomenon, which is so very difficult for the foreigner to understand, especially if he has listened to a compatriot of Irish descent. I do not think that there is any Irish exile, whether he comes from North or South of the Border, who would be wholly uncritical of British policy, although we are pursuing, I believe, an unselfish, bipartisan and enlightened policy and not clinging to a colonial possession, as so many newspapers, so many politicians, assumed at the beginning of this dreadful affair.
The second current need is to explain our various attitudes—again I use the plural—towards Western Europe and the Commonwealth. The London correspondents of foreign and Commonwealth newspapers and broadcasting stations are excellent men and women, but they, of course, see things through their own eyes and not through our eyes. Nor can we depend upon the travelling businessman. I do not assume for one moment that when our businessmen are abroad they lack either integrity or patriotism, but I do feel that sometimes the complexities of intervening governments of the modern kind escape them. These are political complexities at which they are not at their most expert. So I think that we have to put across abroad the British case, or cases, and the British view.
If the businessmen often fail to understand what a Conservative Government are doing, they may understand even less

815
what a Labour Government are trying to do. So I think we need to talk directly to our friends in other nations, to let them know not only what the Government are thinking but what the Opposition Parties are thinking, what the businessmen are thinking and also what the trade unionists are thinking. The point was somewhat forcibly made by my noble friend, but perhaps there was unjust criticism of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, because I do not think he said what my noble friend imagined he said. However, I think the point is well made that the External Services do not represent merely the view of the British Government, but the views of all the representative bodies in Britain; and this is especially important at a time of national crisis.
All our information services have a job to do, but the B.B.C., in particular, has a most important job. It has perhaps the most impressive job of all because it goes right into the homes of people. So even when we are cutting down we must take care to cut down on waste but not on some of our wisest and most rewarding items of public expenditure.
7.1 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, the House is indebted to my noble friend Lord Alport for asking this Question. In a measure it is overdue because I am one of those, of whom there are many, who are aghast at the prospect of any cut in the Overseas Services of the B.B.C. or the grants to the British Council, or the like. As the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, has just said this is a most important asset to this country; indeed, my noble friend Lord Alport said it was "a major national asset". Such contacts as I have are practically unanimous in their praise of the Services in English. I understand that the service is ordinarily well-balanced, perhaps compared with what it is at home. Curiously enough the only serious criticism I have heard was in connection with a religious broadcast with reference to the angle of approach to the World Council of Churches, as representing the balance of opinion in this country, and in regard to the policy of the Council on financial contributions to the so-called freedom fighters. Other than that my contacts—and they are many—are unanimous in their praise.
816
Be that as it may, as has been said in many speeches to-night the B.B.C.'s Service on the whole is an instrument of information and goodwill, and if I have any complaint to make about my noble friend's contribution to the debate it is that it was much too brief. However, I will be brief because I am sure that everybody (like myself) is waiting to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton. I only want to make two points, one of which I made the other day in a supplementary question about the Hindi broadcasts and the broadcasts in the vernacular to India and Pakistan, and now, of course, to Bangladesh.
There are thousands of people in this country who have longstanding friendships with those countries. We have colleagues, old comrades and associates, some of whom are old pensioners there, who set great store by the News from this country on how things are going with us. I believe it will be worth reading to your Lordships from the 1974 Handbook of the B.B.C. a reference to the Hindi service, which said:
"Technical developments made it possible to expand the Hindi service so that by October, 1972, five News Bulletins could be broadcast daily. At the same time the service has been able to improve its coverage of Indian affairs as a result of the restoration of harmonious relations with India. Letters to the Hindi service went up from about 5,500 in 1971 to an all-time record of 19,000 in 1972, and a further 16,000 arrived in October, 1973, as a result of a Press campaign advertising publicity material linked to the increased transmission time."
Is it seriously intended that a service of this nature is to be curtailed, whereas, of course, it should be expanded? There is one technical point to which I wish to draw attention. The extract I have just read refers to technical improvements and curiously enough the point I now wish to raise comes from Spain. It concerns the service to the Costa del Sol, where there is a large British community, both permanent and British holidaymakers all the year round. The power of the Service in technical terms is inadequate. Admittedly the mountainous terrain of the hinterland must present problems but I think I am right in saying that these problems can be overcome, although they can only be overcome by greater power. Such improved power will not be possible if cuts like these are introduced.

817
I will not do more than refer briefly to the speech made by my noble friend Lord Ballantrae. I do not think he has put the case too strongly and we can accept that the service they render is as described by the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick—accurate information with no reference to political bias and it is absolutely unparalleled in any arrangement that we have. I put it in that way because I sincerely trust that any cuts that may be contemplated will not extend to undertakings such as the Overseas Service College at Farnham Castle, of which I was the governor for a number of years. To my mind its work is of very great value to the problem of maintaining contacts with overseas countries who desire to understand our way of life.
7.8 p.m.
LORD HILL OF LUTON: My Lords, the House is indeed indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, for tabling this Un-starred Question and for the admirable speech with which he introduced the subject. I am glad, too, that he put it on a non-Party basis, although perhaps that was inevitable, bearing in mind the cuts in the current year of some £400,000 that were ordered by a Conservative Government—cuts that have involved the loss of the Caribbean service and damage to other services. We are now considering further cuts to operate in 1975–76. I suspect that the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, is not in any defence that he may put up, and I hope that this debate will supply him with additional material with which to resist the suggestions that may come from the Foreign Office, or perhaps ultimately from the Treasury.
It is useful to remind ourselves that at the end of the War the British Overseas Services were broadcasting in more languages and for more hours than any other external service in the world. This lasted until the early 1950s, but today we lie sixth in the table. The Soviet Union transmits four times as much; the United States nearly three times as much; China nearly twice as much. Between them Russia, China and Egypt broadcast in 48 languages, while Britain and the United States do absolutely nothing. Those 48 languages are spoken by 500 million people. That is a measure of the steady contraction that has gone on since the
818
early 'fifties, against which this suggested further cut for 1975–76 is proposed.
My Lords, if one needs an index of the growing appetite for radio in a world in which we sometimes believe television to have acquired a dominant position, we can find that index in the figures for radio and set ownership between 1955 and 1972. In that period of 17 years, in Black Africa set ownership rose from 360,000 to nearly 14 million; in the Middle East, set ownership rose from two million to 21 million; in Russia and Eastern Europe, set ownership rose from 20 million to 80 million. Those figures suggest that the apparatus is there, and that the appetite is there. There is justification for real satisfaction, as has been expressed, for even at to-day's reduced levels, audiences are higher than ever before. Fifty million to 60 million people listen regularly at least once a week. There may be from time to time criticisms of quality and content but overall the standards are very high. The kind of broadcasting in which the B.B.C. believes, its independence, its professionalism, the objectivity of its news and comment on world affairs—perhaps its greatest achievement—have never been more important than they are to-day. As has just been said, in many parts of the world the B.B.C. is relied upon by political leaders, diplomats and newspaper editors. In some countries the only untainted information is provided by the B.B.C.
My Lords, I want to deal briefly with a few points of criticism and suggestion which have been made. Some critics, while recognising that this provision of accurate, objective and comprehensive world news is good, ask why the United Kingdom should have to bear the financial burden. The answer must be in part that the External Services are an historical legacy. We cannot retreat from the broadcasting past without harming the image of Britain. Indeed, it would be said that Britain had lost interest in disseminating values for which she is admired and envied—and she is admired and envied overseas, however much we may enjoy belittling ourselves at home. Another suggestion, and I believe this is argued from within the Foreign Office, is that the Services should be cut where British interests are thought to be minimal, a tempting argument for the Treasury, but the trouble is that nowadays minimal

819
areas of interest are liable at any moment to become maximum areas of interest. Up to 1971, the Bengali service might have seemed to be expendable. Yet by the end of 1971, the B.B.C. had a vast audience in that country and through it, I suspect, gained a huge fund of goodwill. There is another argument. Why not concentrate, it is suggested, on certain obvious target areas like Russia? I believe that would be a mistake. We thrive on our reputation as worldwide broadcasters with no propaganda intentions and no obvious political motives. I think the more comprehensive we are, the more effective we are likely to be.
My Lords, I would say that the External Services are like a tree—the more one cuts off, the more one affects the viability of the tree. To express this in practical terms, our language services provide a reservoir of expertise which affect programming as a whole. The most sought-after man in the B.B.C. in the last few weeks has been the Bush House Portuguese Programme Organiser. Whenever economy is in the air, why is it that people always seek to cut the information services? This applies to all Governments. The Overseas Services are regarded as freely expendable. This has gone on for years. There may not be so much that we can offer the world to-day, or so many people think. But the world thinks otherwise. I do not want to exaggerate, but the toleration, the fairness and the serenity of this country, the capacity to make democracy work, British calm and courtesy (it is difficult to find the right word)—these are some of the things the world knows about and admires in us. I do not find this easy to say, but it has to be said. These are very real qualities in the world to-day. We want people to know more of these things, not less.
My Lords, finally, as has been hinted already, our military power has steeply declined. Our economic strength, to say the least, is not what it was. These are arguments for strengthening the presentation of this country, its mood, its attitudes and values to the world. I can say this from the personal experience of studying the effect of our information services overseas. I can say that the world wants to know about us, about our books and culture, and about our way of life. It would be a nonsense further to cut one
820
of the few effective ways we have left to us of presenting this country as it really is to a world that wants to know. It is good for them and for us that they should know more about us.
7.18 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, may I say what a pleasure it is to find myself following my noble and old friend and colleague Lord Hill of Luton who, in the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae's terminology, has just addressed us from my port beam. In a very general way I should like to support the case put with his usual cogency by my noble friend Lord Alport. My noble friend Lord Ferrier has said how much he wished his noble friend Lord Alport, had spoken longer, and I am sure we all do. But may I say to my noble friend Lord Ferrier, with the greatest possible respect, that that is a deadly dangerous thing to say to any noble Lord.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I knew that when I said it, but I meant it.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, I have known many humane and public-spirited noblemen who, once that has been said, have lost no time in putting the matter right on the next occasion by not only doubling but quadrupling the length of their speeches. I am sure that will not be the case with my noble friend Lord Alport.
My Lords, no one knows better than I the need to keep a stern control over public overseas expenditure. Nor does anyone know better than I that when economies become unavoidable, the tendency is, as my noble friend Lord Hill of Luton said, to seek them at the expense of the kind of services we are discussing to-day. I cannot think back, but I may have been guilty of this myself; I do not know. Traditionally I think the diplomatic services themselves come off relatively lightly, but the axe is directed with a degree of real severity against what are considered the fringe or marginal services. I have seen the same thing happen on several occasions.
I should like to cross swords with the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, over one thing, but I am not sure technically whether one can cross swords with someone in his absence. May I observe in a very good-natured way that when the noble Lord referred to the clerks in the

821
Treasury, it is the duty and function of those splendid public servants to analyse and put forward every possible economy, but the responsibility for choosing and selecting them rests not on them but on their masters, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, really agrees with me about that.
I think it is important that we should check from time to time whether we have got our priorities right in the context of the kind of world we are living in and the limitation of our own national resources. I think it is easy to underestimate the value of accurate, honest information services, an objective B.B.C. and the British Council staffed by very experienced people. As always, the results depend on the quality of the services rendered. I cannot claim any up-to-date general experience here, but I feel assured that the average quality must be pretty high, or I am sure we should hear and read plenty of criticism in such an articulate field as this. I conclude with confidence that the international prestige of these services is unquestionably high.
It seems to me that there are two relevant questions we have to ask ourselves. The first is whether there is a nationally important and worthwhile work to be done in this field. I am sure the answer is that there is. Very few nations, whether friends or critics of Britain, are not interested in what is going on here, but as all noble Lords will agree, I think, when we pay visits to other countries we often find quite natural illusions and misunderstandings about our modern institutions, our current social situation, our educational system and our politics. These often seem to others perplexing and full of contradictions; and by some people, of course, all British are regarded as slightly mad. But because of the mark these small islands have made in the world over the years and the centuries we are regarded with curiosity, and, in spite of some apparent defects in our current performance, not only with curiosity but with a basic admiration which is seldom given in quite the same way to any other nation.
There is one aspect in our national character which leads us to habitual self-criticism and denigration. I am not complaining of it, because I think on balance it is good. But this often leads foreigners
822
who may not know us well to reach dangerously wrong appraisals. For example, because of certain currently divisive manifestations, such as the industrial disputes we have and the Government-union conflicts, it is widely assumed that this nation as a whole is bitterly divided and at sixes and sevens. I personally believe the truth is quite different. In spite of sectional conflicts and selfishnesses, I believe it is true in fact that socially we are more one nation to-day than we have ever been before. It is vitally important, if we are to exercise useful and effective influence in the world, that our actual way of life, warts and all—that is not quite a correct metaphor, I know—should be well understood.
The second question I would pose stems from the answer to the first. If there is really important work to be done in this field, how high a priority should it have? I suggest the answer should be, a sufficiently high priority to make sure that what is done is done efficiently and well. Stop-go, for instance, is always inefficient and must make it impossible for Lord Ballantrae, for instance, to retain the right quality of staff which of all factors must be the most important of all. Years ago, when for a short term I was a High Commissioner, I know I valued tremendously the work of these three services, and they were more subtly effective I think than direct diplomatic services, which by their nature generally make a relatively small impact on the man in the street. Now I only have one contact with the British Council, which acts as the overseas arm of Voluntary Service Overseas, an organisation of which I have the honour to be Chairman, and I must acknowledge that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for our volunteers to perform their service without the invaluable help and advice we get from the British Council posts scattered all over the world. I should like to take this opportunity of telling the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, how much we appreciate that help.
I would say only one word about the B.B.C. Overseas Services, which without any question at all have built up over the years a unique reputation for objectivity and fairness, the sort of thing if once lost it would be impossible over a short period to restore. If our days of

823
direct power have passed our opportunities for influence have not. We are capable of exercising an influence in the world out of all proportion to our population. The B.B.C. Overseas Services have been a success story and if cut,—here I agree with what my noble friend Lord Gowrie said—many people overseas would think we had ceased to believe in ourselves. Their cost is extremely modest when their scope and reach is appraised. To curtail them on grounds of economy would seem rather like a commercial firm, when faced with the need for economy, choosing advertising as the item to be cut, which is generally very wrong indeed.
I do not feel justified in detaining your Lordships any longer, but I urge on Ministers that very careful consideration indeed should be given before damaging the present level of activities in these three fields. It would be easy, I think, to make a very strong case for increasing them because of many other things that are happening. But were they to be cut to their damage, then I believe that would prove a disastrously short-sighted and ill-chosen measure of economy in our national interests.
7.29 p.m.
LORD BETHELL: My Lords, we have before us this afternoon that strange contradiction in terms, a unanimous controversy. Nearly two months have passed since reports, which I am sure are well founded, began to appear, that the Treasury were proposing to cut the Foreign Office budget to the tune of 10 per cent. in the External Services of the B.B.C. An immediate outcry ensued in the Press, in another place and in your Lordships' House, but it is one in which, so far as I am aware, not one single voice has been raised in support of the proposed cut-back.
On April 4, at col. 1025 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said in the course of a Starred Question:
"… this is a matter on which quite clearly the whole of your Lordships' House feels strongly."
There are few such matters where the whole of the House is apparently united. In answering that Question the Minister the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, gave us assurances that our words would
824
be taken into account. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a somewhat more definite assurance this evening. A month has passed since then and the controversy is continuing, in spite of no arguments being advanced in favour of what is proposed, and it is a little difficult to continue conducting the argument and maintaining the battle when one apparently has nothing to fight against. Nevertheless, we shall see.
There are clearly many difficulties in the face of those who support external broadcasting, the British Council and the providing of information for overseas. Money which is provided for the B.B.C. external services literally vanishes into the air. What is it worth? It is impossible to say. In certain cases, one can get some indication that something has achieved some monetary reward. The noble Lord, Lord Alport, mentioned the effect of the B.B.C. external services on our exports. He mentioned the good results that have come from broadcasts to Turkey and Brazil. Clearly, this matter can be presented in a a bureaucratic way. It can be put up in a case, and will no doubt be considered. The problem is that it is so difficult to get the realm of ideas across in discussions among Government Departments. What is the worth in pounds and new pence if millions of Russians listen to the Russian Service of the B.B.C.? We cannot say how many millions of Russians listen, but I can assure your Lordships that in my several visits to the Soviet Union I have met many hundreds of Russians and I have never met an educated one who did not tell me that he listened regularly to the B.B.C. in Russian. That is very often the first thing they tell me. Having ascertained that I come from this country, the first thing that they say is, "Ah, yes. You are British. I listen to the B.B.C." This is the one thing that they associate with "Britishness". I imagine that this applies to countries other than the Soviet Union, and particularly to countries where freedom of speech is restricted.
What financial gain can we put on the fact that one of the greatest living writers and men, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, winner of the Nobel Prize, declared his admiration for the B.B.C. within minutes of his arrival in the West, and that he gave his first interview, after that extraordinary episode when he suddenly found

825
himself bundled out of his country, presumably for good, to a representative of the B.B.C.'s Russian section, when the great organs of the world were clamouring around him in a little farmhouse in Germany begging for one word? Out of all these hundreds of people, he selected the B.B.C.'s Russian section. Of what worth is it to us? Of course, it is worth nothing in pounds and new pence, but I suggest it is worth an untold amount in terms of the value in which we hold the good name of this country, and this country's general prestige.
It is no wonder that the information services continue to suffer whenever there is a bureaucratic conflict. Those who benefit from the information services are foreign; they have no access to the British Civil Service or to the British Parliament—or, if they do, it is extremely indirect. It is difficult for us to understand exactly how many listen, and to work out what is gained. Alexander Solzhenitsyn said in his Nobel Prize lecture:
"One word of truth is of more weight than all the rest of the world."
We may, or may not, accept that, but certainly no one can possibly put a price on the friendship that we gain from our information broadcasts. No one can examine and weigh up the value to this country of the 300,000 letters (which my noble friend Lord Gowrie mentioned) which arrive annually at Bush House from listeners all over the world.
It must indeed be hard for the Treasury—and one must sympathise with them—in their impossible task of trying to weigh up the value of this great asset and trying to put a price on it, when clearly they cannot do so within the terms of reference to which they are used. It is equally appropriate that in such a case Parliament has to intervene because, if the terms of reference are impossible for a bureaucracy to fathom, it is all the more right that Parliament, which deals not only in facts, not only in clear-cut decisions, but also in ideas and emotions, should have its say. It is extremely encouraging that both Houses have spoken about this matter quite frequently in the last two months.
Declaring an interest is extremely fashionable at the moment, so I must hasten to add that in the last five years
826
I have spoken on the B.B.C.'s external services perhaps 20 times, and received fees which average perhaps £7 or £8. I say this not in order to rebut any serious suggestion that I may be speaking in this debate out of some corrupt motive, but in order to demonstrate the puny nature of the sums we are discussing. In the financial year 1972–73, some £14 million was made available for broadcasting to foreign countries. This must be seen in terms of a total Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget for that year of £179 million and a Defence budget of £3,216 million. This leaves us with a situation where the External Service of the B.B.C. comprises some 7 per cent. of the general Foreign Office budget, and 0·4 per cent. of the Defence budget.
I suggest that the achievement of these broadcasts is way out of proportion to the sums we are discussing. The gain to this country, to its prestige and good name, is way out of proportion. Indeed—I hesitate to say this in times of national stringency, when we are in some financial difficulty—at the first opportunity I shall be suggesting to your Lordships and the Government that we should increase the amount of broadcasting that we do to foreign countries. There are many reasons why we can do this, and why we are unique in being able to broadcast really effectively to so many countries in the world. I shall only mention two of these reasons.
The first, a purely practical one, is that because of our imperial past we have in our possession certain dots in the ocean, and it takes only a small dot to accommodate a transmitting station. Many of these transmitting stations exist on some of our dots and for this reason our broadcasts are more audible than those of many other countries. Also, because of our imperial past we have been able to make certain agreements and arrangements with Commonwealth countries, and have established transmitting stations on their territory with their agreement. There seems to be very little resistance to this—such is the reputation of the B.B.C. Through this great proliferation of stations, we are able to get our message heard by many more millions of people than would otherwise be the case.

827
The other reason why we are uniquely qualified to fulfil this role is the reputation of fairness that the B.B.C. enjoys that was built up during the Second World War when the B.B.C. carried the brunt of the provision of information to the enslaved countries of Europe, the occupied countries, and to the neutral countries who were hesitating about which side they should throw their weight on at the time of the Nazi menace to the world. And that reputation has been enhanced—whatever the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, may have said—by the maintenance of objectivity in B.B.C. external broadcasts. I am thinking particularly of the performance of the B.B.C. in 1956 during the Suez crisis when, in spite of severe pressure by the then Government, the B.B.C. maintained a balanced record of the events that were then taking place in the Middle East and presented the facts on both sides to the people of the world in the Arabic language as well as in others, and gained tremendous reputation by so doing.
It is true that in certain respects the influence of this country has declined in recent decades. Our Navy no longer matches the navies of any two European Powers. But I would join with other noble Lords in suggesting that our influence has not declined in respect of the admiration of other countries for British institutions, culture and national heritage. There may be noble Lords who, when they hear the word "culture", reach for their revolvers. I hasten to add that I realise that we do not live by culture alone; that if we are to offer our ideas we must also offer the hard things that we make and we must live, earn and produce. Our ideas are only the gloss on the firm foundation on which we live. But equally we do not live by bread alone and it is clear that ideas have a very great value which must continue to be put out to the rest of the world in spite of the difficulties at the moment.
It was Joseph Stalin who asked the rhetorical question, "How many divisions does the Pope have?" One cannot work out how many divisions he has, but in terms of world power and influence it is obviously quite a few. The B.B.C., in projecting this country, does not have the benefit of Holy Writ in order to inspire it to provide the truth. It does
828
not have a worldwide religion to back its moral power, but I suggest that it has the value of several divisions in terms of Britain's defence and foreign policy, and the value of several divisions is certainly greater than £14 million per annum. One cannot compute it exactly but I challenge anyone to say that this was not so. Solzhenitsyn, as an illustration of what I have just said, for many years was able to defy the whole might of the Soviet Government and the Soviet security service, armed only with his pen; to survive and in the end to come out with some success, having achieved an immense amount for his country and for the world. I suggest that in the same way the B.B.C., armed with ideas in which this country still abounds, and ready to present the facts—not Government propaganda but simple facts, without fear or favour—can achieve great results, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, will be able to assure us this evening that the B.B.C. will be allowed to continue to do so.
7.45 p.m.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, I think we all join in congratulating and in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Alport, for providing the noble Lord who will wind up this debate with such a splendid brief with which to approach his colleagues. I intervene in this debate for one particular reason, and that is that I cannot be accused of being a totally uncritical observer of or listener to the B.B.C., and if on this particular question I am strongly in support of what they do, perhaps that counts for a little more than if I had been notorious for supporting the B.B.C. on all possible points.
But before I get to that matter, may I say a word about the British Council and about the Information Services. On the British Council I should like to thank and to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, on what he has said. I myself did my first job with the British Council by helping with the Reading Room in Vienna in 1936 and my last job when I left India 30 years later having witnessed, and I hope helped, the spendid job done by the Council in India. The noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, was quite right and very reassuring when he said that there are times when the British Council can keep some kind of nonmilitary flag flying when, for reasons

829
which I always consider to be diplomatically futile, diplomatic relations are broken off.
I refer to the British Information Services for a moment because they usually get left out of a debate of this kind, and that is very wrong. In these modern days an information service covering the kind of material we are talking about does not need to be large, but it needs to be good and it needs to be there. The reason it needs to be there is that Sir Val Duncan's invaluable Report in 1969 on our overseas representation went a little wrong on that point in the sense that there are countries in which it is necessary to let the media know—not the man in the street, because you cannot reach 500 million men in the street through one man—but to let the people who matter know what our policy is, so that at least to the people who are in touch with the local media there may be proper guidance. You cannot always achieve that so quickly or so accurately through the means of broadcasting as you can straight from the official source. So do not let us forget the official Information Services when we are, quite rightly, on this occasion, specifically talking about the B.B.C.
Now if I may go over to the B.B.C. External Services, I claim a similar interest to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and to the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick. Indeed I had a very thrilling affair with the B.B.C. Overseas Services once in protecting my interest, and at the end of a long argument they gave me £2 more, thereby rocking the taxpayer. Why does one want this service at all?—a question which several noble Lords have asked. The answer is a very straightforward one, that unless you belong to the minority, intellectualist, defeatist movement in this country you know that essentially this country has something to give. Although it is becoming rather unfashionable to say so, we should continue to give where we can, in the psychology of giving to the world, even if we have less in the material way to give than we had before. After all, the giving that we do under broadcasting is not all foreign exchange.
My Lords, let us now consider for a moment the machinery. What happens in these cases of suggested economy is that not only the Treasury but sometimes a Minister suddenly says, "Cut everything
830
20 per cent.", or whatever you like. One cannot always blame the Treasury who may be the instruments rather than the originators. One may then have—and this is perhaps what is left out of the argument—a great battle inside Whitehall, and the battle, as one noble Lord has said, is about priorities. What are you going to spend your money on? The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, has spoken about the proportion of our money which goes on the B.B.C. Overseas Services. It is such an infinitesimal part of our overseas effort that the damage in a 10 per cent. cut is out of all proportion to the money that is likely to be saved by the United Kingdom Exchequer.
Now a word on the actual reception. I am an inveterate twiddler and when I go, as I did for three weeks this spring, to Northern Italy—and it is here that I must differ with the noble Lord, Lord Bethell—I find that over there you get the B.B.C. Overseas Service all right, although it is an intricate business. As many noble Lords will be aware, the chart shows the necessary technical adjustment of wavelengths that one has to do, and the accurate tuning that is necessary if you have an ordinary short-wave service. But what I can assure your Lordships of is that, if you sit there in Northern Italy, you will be overwhelmed by air swamped by material from Moscow—material in Russian, in Spanish, in other Slav languages as well as in Portuguese and Italian. You name it, you get it.
There is this overwhelming screed of stuff which comes at you every day. It is not cost-effective, obviously—that would be ridiculous—but it hits these audiences all the time, with abuse of our institutions, disparagement of our policy in Ireland and so on. The B.B.C., with the great wisdom which it has always shown in this matter, does not wage political warfare against this; instead it makes the voice of clearness and steadiness heard. But, none the less, this screed exists and I am sure that the British public would be horrified if it were able to move itself to some part of Europe like that and hear what goes on. The still small voice of the B.B.C. is at least there to calm people's nerves and, indeed, attract people's attention, precisely because it does not do these things which are, I can assure your Lordships, pretty overwhelming on the ears.

831
What this causes me to ask the Minister to say a word on if he will—and I have given him advance notice—is: Do the Government feel assured that in our international negotiations, however they are done, we really have our fair share of the spectrum of frequencies? Sometimes one worries about this. It may be all right, but I hope that the noble Lord will be able to assure us about it. Apart from that, I repeat that it is a great comfort both to our own citizens abroad and around the world, and to many people in foreign countries, to hear—in the open or in the dark, or in secret, as in so many countries—the voice of the B.B.C.
My Lords, let me turn for a moment to a point which has not been completely dealt with, and which I think formed the issue of a slight misunderstanding between the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, and the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie. I am sorry that Lord George-Brown is not here to hear me explain what I think he meant. The point is that the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, wrote in his book the following sentences, which I have contracted a little:
"Every Foreign Secretary comes up against the B.B.C.'s refusal even to listen, or let alone take guidance, on some matter that causes concern. But there are occasions when the Foreign Office may in fact know more about the subject than the B.B.C.'s reporters and communications".
This can happen in the Home Service, because at one time there was a trend of this kind, which I am happy to say has somewhat decreased. But there were certainly times when it seemed as if the Government said something about foreign affairs, and not only the B.B.C. but others rushed off and stated the opposite—because that was somehow the fashion of the moment.
That has never been the case with the B.B.C.'s Overseas Service. One of the reasons for that is that the Overseas Service can get rid of a great deal of triviality, of haste, of all the things which sometimes make home broadcasting more jittery and more competitive than the Overseas Service needs to be. Anyone who has sat and twiddled and listened to the Overseas Service knows that if you want to get a little more time for your interpretations and your descriptions of events, not only in Britain but around the world, it has a mark, a merit and a quality of its own,
832
and it is that which tells in the overseas broadcasts; and, indeed, which not only causes many foreigners to listen but even causes some of us to make arrangements to tune in to particular World Service broadcasts, when we want a somewhat longer analysis by qualified people of a certain difficult situation. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, was absolutely right in saying that the Overseas Service is not a promotional effort in any way. It simply tells the story, analyses it and leaves you to make up your mind. But at least, as noble Lords have said, it gives a clear and, as near as possible, well-informed, unbiased and, I repeat, unhurried interpretation of what goes on.
My Lords, I come finally to a point of some controversy—but perhaps it should be said: that is, the question of substance. No Government information service and an impartial system of broadcasting will give a good picture of this country when we are doing reasonably well—we as people, we as Government, we as Parliament. You cannot fake the score either way. Therefore, the success in the way we all want and in the way we all know of the B.B.C.'s Overseas Service in the national interest will depend finally on us. So I think, in the spirit that the noble Viscount. Lord Amory, has just expressed, it is in the interests, not only of the nation but of our instruments of information, that they should have something to say, something that is comforting and constructive, and that means we must somehow get over this present hump in our self-dissatisfaction.
We need consistently a foreign policy with continuity, with not too much posture, with enough ambition, but not beyond our capabilities and not a timidity or a looking inwardness towards a past isolation. In the end, the success of our information efforts will depend on our performance. And because I am quite sure that our nation is capable of recovering that performance, or indeed of going on to a better performance because of reforms that have been made over the last quarter of a century, so I hope that at the end of this debate the Answer to the first part of the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, about cuts in the Overseas Service will be, "None, Sir", and that encouragement will also be given to those who labour in the information services and in the British Council.
7.58 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, the subject which we are discussing now could hardly be more timely, and I add to those already expressed my thanks and gratitude to my noble friend Lord Alport for having initiated the debate. These are the days, to use rather a colloquial expression, of media bashing. We attack the B.B.C., the Press and television, not only in this country but throughout the world, to some extent perhaps with justification. But one of the problems with which I think we are faced in this country—I speak as the director of a small company of management consultants which does business with a number of overseas countries, in Europe and elsewhere—is that we are in danger of selling ourselves short by all too often portraying our shortcomings. My noble friend Lord Ferrier brought this out admirably during his speech.
Surely the Overseas Services of the B.B.C. are quite the best way of correcting this? If I may give an example, my Lords, a young physiotherapist in the local hospital near where I live in Surrey has a mother who is currently living in America. She had heard at the time of the coal dispute in this country that everybody was without fires, that there was a food shortage and that people were practically homeless. Some really horrifying portrayals were made. Naturally, her mother flew home to see what had happened to her daughter and found that, in fact, conditions were practically normal. The weather, thank heavens! was mild and she had been at least reasonably well fed—and on a physiotherapist's pay that is not so easy these days. Despite serious industrial unrest, the country was in fact reacting almost normally and in the three-day week unions and management were pulling together better than they normally do. The corollary of that was that the mother stayed on for a few weeks because her daughter had some holiday time owing to her. They went to Cornwall and had a very nice holiday in a reasonable hotel.
I am prompted to ask what kind of information had been portrayed to America at that time, because I received, as I am sure did many noble Lords, letters from America which were not dissimilar to this. I say "thank heavens" for somebody like Alistair Cook, whose
834
Friday evening broadcasts are a consistent delight and who really gives a balanced view of what happens both in this country and in the United States of America. I think that we have a great deal for which to thank men like him, who, when there are problems, not only in this country but in America and else where, put matters into proportion.
In his absence, I should like to extend my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Ballantrae on his chairmanship of the British Council. Having had a spell in New Zealand myself shortly after he left at the end of a distinguished career as Governor General, I know how highly he was thought of there. The British Council, again, has at times received some very unfair knocks, and it will undoubtedly benefit enormously from the chairmanship of a person as dynamic as he. The only experience which I have had of the British Council took place in Finland, where I went with a Parliamentary delegation about seven years ago. I met there a British Council representative, and certainly British culture, books, textbooks and other educational matters were available in abundance. There is a country where English is very widely spoken and where the work of the British Council is vital.
I have made only one broadcast in the Overseas Service. That was about three years ago, and I must declare an interest because I too received a modest fee. The broadcast was to Roumania where my wife and I and a number of other people paid a visit of a private nature arranged by British European Airways and the Roumanian State Airways. I was asked to do this broadcast, and I hope that it contributed something to the good commercial relations which we and Roumania and some other Eastern European countries have at the present time. I think that these broadcasts to such countries are important. We must remember that they have a political philosophy which is different from our own; but I do not think that they are intractable, and there is much that the B.B.C., with its innate fairness, can do—and I believe that the B.B.C., both here and abroad, has on the whole an image of fairness. Of course there are times when it is possible for the Left or the Right to accuse the B.B.C. of being I partial; but it is very difficult these days

835
to be completely impartial, whether one is broadcasting in this country or in Scandinavia or in the Far East.
I think that the conviction which prompts my noble friend's Question is borne out by the B.B.C. publicity services 1974 external budget Press comment, which contains something like 50 pages of letters, almost all of which condemn the proposed, or what many of us have been led to believe are the proposed, cuts. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, will confirm or deny in the course of his speech whether cuts are proposed.
I quote here very briefly from just one letter from New Zealand, from Mr. David Speary, from Wellington:
"I wake and go to bed to New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation re-broadcasts of the B.B.C. News, and how many more millions around the world do the same? I do not think that my actions are blind prejudice, but just knowledge and thankfulness for one of the small mercies available in this noisy and very uncommunicative world."
When my wife and I were in New Zealand, we had very little time to enjoy any broadcasts on sound or on television, but it was always a great comfort to listen to the B.B.C. and I think that in countries where the same freedom is not enjoyed as we enjoy it, the B.B.C. External Services do an invaluable job.
While it may not be possible at this moment to increase their budget, I believe that in times when this country does not get enough credit for the good things which come out of it and the good deeds which are done by young, middle-aged and elderly alike, services of communication are more vital than ever.
8.8 p.m.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, at this time in a debate, I feel that I must be rather like the Book of the Bible which records matters which have been left out of other Books. I try to refrain from repeating what others have said. I begin by acknowledging that, whenever I had anything to do with economies—some of which were thrust upon me during my years at the War Office—I found that if one suggested not cutting somewhere, one should suggest a cut somewhere else so as to be fair. In my case, as I am on the side of every noble Lord who has spoken and in favour of these services
836
continuing and even expanding, I would suggest recommending that 15 miles of motorway be postponed sine die and that with the money thus saved you would be able to double the service of the B.B.C. with something to spare. If I am told that balance-of-payments money is not saved when you cut money spent on motorways, I am confident that in some cases, if you had to choose—and I do not suggest that we do—in certain countries the B.B.C. is decidedly more important than the Embassy.
I should like to dwell on the matter of what I believe is the independence of the B.B.C. I shared a certain amount of shock at the idea that it is an extension, in some ways, of our diplomatic activity; that its main task is the projection of our image to our own greater advantage; and that if the image is not a good one it will collapse. There, it may be, I will be crossing swords with the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, but I believe that if we were to founder as a nation and suffer some terrible disaster, the entire world would listen to the B.B.C. to get the truth about how it was happening—and to nobody else.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, may I reassure the noble Earl? We have had several swords crossed this afternoon, and this is not a real sword in this sense. What I was saying was that, supposing we had a national disaster, no matter how good our information services, B.B.C. or otherwise, were, it would be reported faithfully as a national disaster. That is all I was saying; not that they could improve it. On the other point—I hope I am not going on too long—as to whether the B.B.C. is more important than the Embassy, may I just say that if a British subject fell off a bicycle and injured a local person, would the B.B.C. then be able to do the consular business? They are working in different dimensions.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, the Consul would do it. I am suggesting that a Consul would be a less expensive way of doing the chap a good turn if he fell off his bike. Never mind; I appreciate what the noble Lord has said and thank him for having offered some correction to what I was saying.
My Lords, surely the B.B.C. is independent. It is told the number of hours it may transmit and the languages in

837
which it may transmit each set of hours; but nothing is proscribed (am I right? I hope I am), nothing is ever censored, nothing is ever vetoed. That is the essential part, because even truth, if it is purveyed in a certain way, will bore and defeat itself. Surely the French, under General de Gaulle, suffered from just that. They lost an enormous amount of ground because of the grandeur which was continually purveyed in a monotonous sense projecting the image of France. This attempt to project one's own image is surely self-defeating. To other people who like their own image better than anything else, it is an awful bore when countries plug their image too much; and that is not done. Surely the task of the B.B.C. is to present every item of world news, news that attracts people everywhere, and to present it as faithfully as they can, with different emphasis if there are important differences of view. That is not the object of some of the other services.
I really wanted to say that Bush House is surely the most apt place and name for what we are discussing to-day. This is the bush telegraph coming of age. We are on the threshold of an oral world society. There is nobody, under no bush, who cannot be reached if he has a shortwave transistor radio costing round about £20, or its equivalent; and many countries have a cheaper and more effective version of it than we have because, owing to their vast size and the distances involved, they have to have that sort of transistor radio in order to make their domestic broadcasts. But here we are, for the first time, engaging in an activity of world unity such as we all desire. We failed in war, we failed in economics; we are now having a struggle for truth through the spoken word, and the man in the bush is the man who is listening. I am told by the B.B.C. Controller that the Somali service in Africa is almost unparalleled in various ways. It is, I think, the only completely indigenous language, completely vernacular—I will come to an explanation later—used in all Africa, which must have something like 2,000 to 3,000 different lanuages. It is the only wholly vernacular language in which we broadcast. The President listens, the Ministers listen, the police listen, the governors listen, the businessmen listen to the B.B.C.
838
Recently, when a Briton visited the President he was told, "These Ugandans want me to protest about the B.B.C. I cannot do that. The B.B.C. are our friends. Half of the people listen to the B.B.C." As your Lordships probably know, the Somalis, the extroverts of Africa, wander everywhere; they always have done so. They are in this town, and all over. There are a couple of thousand of them in England. They are in many towns all over the world; and the B.B.C. gets letters in response to its Somali broadcasts from Somalis in 42 different countries. This is the beginning. They are an illiterate people. So are the people in most of Africa; indeed, in most of the world. They like being addressed, not in a lingua franca like Housa, Swahili, French or English: they like being addressed in their own language, about their own customs, their own songs, their own poems, done well by the B.B.C. That is what I regard as the threshold of a new world order, the oral society, from which nobody need escape and everybody can escape by twisting the knob when it is finished.
My Lords, I think one wants to go back to something which has not been dwelt on very much, and that is that the origins of our broadcasting overseas are, to the best of my belief, defensive responses to offensive and damaging untruths from other sources I think it started with the Axis in 1938, and developed from there. I think that the African services—the three I mentioned: Somali, which is in the vernacular, Swahili and Housa—came about as a result of the Suez crisis, and only as a result of that; and it is important to know what we have to defend ourselves against.
Before I leave Africa I must say that it is a vacant Continent as regards those to whom we talk. We do not speak to a single subject of Mr. Ian Smith in his own language or to a single subject of Dr. Vorster in his own language. And what about the Abyssinians—the independent people? They put on their notice board at the conferences of the O.A.U., "Date of Independence, 1000 B.C." Whether that is strictly true or not, it is difficult to disprove it, and it is certain that they were there before the year of Our Lord. We do not address a single word to them, and they are a great influence and of importance in the scheme

839
of things. We have had a great deal to do with them. Why do we say nothing? That is why I suggest that we shelve 15 miles of motorway and address more to these people. This is the way we are going to win society throughout the world—not by bombs and force of arms or by trade, or even by projecting our own image, but by being reliable purveyors of the truth, information.
I see that I have exceeded my allotted time, and I have whole sheaves of things which I had hoped to find time for—the evil untruth which is being broadcast by the Soviet Union day after day after day. I commend people to take for a time the Monitor. We are discussing also this part of the overseas service, the monitoring service. What is monitored of what our enemies—and they are only enemies because they make themselves so, not because we wish them to be so—say when they denigrate us with truth and falsehood mixed up in a quite abominable mixture? I have spoken for 12 minutes; it is too much. I am in support of everybody else who has spoken.
8.22 p.m.
LORD LYELL: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, for the opportunity of adding my support to his Question to-day because I believe it is one which concerns all of us here. I am also very grateful to the noble Earl who has just spoken so eloquently. During the last 12 months I have been personally involved with the North Atlantic Assembly. In particular I have had to consider the problem of broadcasting to and from Warsaw Pact countries and in the course of my researches time and again I came up with the dissident movement within the Soviet Union. We have already heard from the noble Lords, Lord Alport and Lord Bethel], about how much Alexander Solzhenitsyn is thought about and talked about on both sides, in the Warsaw Pact countries and in the Free World, and I seek to add my support to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, for all that Solzhenitsyn has done.
We have also heard so much about the B.B.C. External Service and how it broadcasts for over 100 hours every day in upwards of 40 languages. This does not cover Abyssinia, but I think it gives as broad a spread as possible in the world of
840
every language in which we could have influence. I often believe that it is very important that we should consider the External Services in the light of the Duncan Report in 1969. This was only five years ago but even then Sir Val pointed out how the money which was spent on the B.B.C. External Services was such extraordinarily good value. I understand that in this current financial year the sum is only of the order of £16 million. I say, "only" but this is quite a disproportionate amount for the value we receive from this money. It is these fringe services which are apparently vulnerable—to outer Asia, Vietnam and other outlying areas. These are the services which bring so much pleasure and truth to nations which otherwise have very little to keep them informed of developments in the Free World. In most cases there is no free Press or any free radio. If they have a radio it tends to project quite ruthlessly the line of the Government or the people who run the radio station. There is very little, if any, objectivity which can go to the inhabitants of these far off lands.
We have heard a great deal about the alarming number of transistors all over Africa. This is very fertile ground for all the propaganda and information that can come from places like Peking, Moscow and so on, and I believe that anything that the B.B.C. can do to keep its position in what has been called, "the league table" should be done.
Another wonderful point for the B.B.C. is that its experience goes back forty years in broadcasting all over the world. There are stations everywhere in the world run by controllers and other people who have had a vast amount of training and experience here in Bush House with the B.B.C. These friends of the B.B.C. and of Britain do so much in a constructive sense for the truth of the Free World. Also, the B.B.C. has a very large audience in this country and in Europe, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, and I could add my own experiences in the Mediterranean and in the Alps. One can gain knowledge of what is going on here in this country and elsewhere in the world 24 hours a day. One can consult the invaluable chart that comes from the External Services and every hour on the

841
hour one can have five or ten minutes of up to date, reliable and truthful news. I believe that this is one of the greatest benefits that comes from the B.B.C. or possibly anywhere else in the world.
Another aspect which I have not heard mentioned and which I believe could, with respect, be mentioned at this stage is that of the Royal Navy together with the Merchant Navy. All over the world the officers and men of these two Services, I believe, are largely dependent for news on the broadcasts of the B.B.C. Overseas Service which may be 10,000 or 12,000 miles away. They, too, can benefit from the External Services, and I believe that we should so far as possible keep up the Service so that they can be kept in touch with developments at home. I understand also that, among other listeners in Russia, there was a survey of Soviet Jews allowed to emigrate to Israel which showed that 75 per cent. of those questioned admitted that they listened regularly to the B.B.C. service in Russian. We have heard more concrete evidence from the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, when speaking about Alexander Solzhenitsyn. I believe that the Russian Service, as well as the Services to other members of the Warsaw Pact, does have an effect far beyond the financial investment we put in. Any reduction in this Service will bring down the Overseas Services into a position where the B.B.C. no longer reigns head and shoulders above its competitors. The extent of the proposed reductions which we are likely to hear about, I believe, will truncate not just one or two Services but apparently whole groups of language broadcasts. I think the B.B.C. will have to make disproportionate efforts to start these again in future and it may well be impossible. We may lose ground totally in the areas in which we decide to stop broadcasts.
The World Service provides in English this free gift of a 24-hour news service. It can at all times be relied upon, it is truthful and I believe it is much admired everywhere. When I was in Ankara for the North Atlantic Assembly in October, 1973, the only reliable news that anybody could get was through the B.B.C. External Services. We were receiving news of developments in the Middle East within minutes of it being broadcast on the B.B.C., and not only were British delegates glad to receive these news bulletins but
842
also the Americans, the Germans and the French. All the delegates to the North Atlantic Assembly were thrilled about the B.B.C. overseas broadcast in English. Many did not know about it. In conclusion, I hope the Minister can use his considerable influence to ensure that any possible prospective damage is not done to the B.B.C. Overseas Services and that the B.B.C. can continue this wonderful service to those who listen and leek after the truth all round the world.
8.30 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, at this late hour I do not intend to speak for more than three minutes, but there are two or three things which I should like to say. First, I should like to congratulate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Alport, for having introduced this debate. I had not intended to take part but have found it so fascinating that I have listened to every speech. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, for the tribute he paid to the British Council. One of my best friends has served in Burma, Japan and Sri Lanka in a top job in the British Council. I should like to say that he was not a "dead beat", because both he and his wife took the trouble to learn about the poetry, music and dancing, and the splendid culture and paintings of those countries, together with the different religions concerned. In my opinion, they were an asset to this country and to the British Council. I am sure there are many others like them. I should also like to say how much I agreed with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton: like him I, too, would willingly sacrifice 15 miles of motorway any day in order to keep this Service going.
As someone who for 20 years or more has appreciated the monitoring services of the B.B.C.— because I specialise, more or less, in the Far East and South-East Asia—I would say that the monitoring services are absolutely invaluable. I sincerely hope that the Government will see to it that these services are kept alive. We are becoming a nation which knows the price of everything, but the value of nothing—at least, this will be so unless we take great care. Consequently, as I said the other day, Parliament will gradually become "an echo machine". It has the power to legitimise, but is losing the power to legislate—if your Lordships can follow

843
what I mean. We are losing the power to legislate and are becoming just "an echo machine", legitimising what comes forth from the Executive. This debate is of great importance and I hope that the Government and both Houses of Parliament will take note of it.
Lastly, it seems to me that we denigrate ourselves in several ways, and it is difficult to understand why this should be so. This week-end I had the pleasure of opening an exhibition of water colours—I myself dabble a little in oils and water colours, though I am not very good—and it suddenly dawned on me that we pay great tribute to overseas artists while perhaps not valuing sufficiently the great painters who have come from this country. We have many splendid English water colour artists and we have had many artists in poetry, art, and sculpture—take, for example, my Lords, Salisbury Cathedral which is a poem in stone, or music in stone, if you like. Nevertheless, we often seem to idealise people who come from overseas. I was in Switzerland the other day and the Swiss listen to our B.B.C. services. They also said what has been said to-day: that we may have lost our power, but it is not forgotten in Europe that for 12 months we stood alone, with no America and no Russia. We had the courage then to stand for something in the world which was not merely money but the destiny of mankind.
Finally, let us remember in this debate that, "First there was the Word" and this global village that we call the Earth is being made more of a village by the power of the "bush telegraph". Do not let us lose it, because if we do we shall be giving up a place of leadership in the world which I believe the British spirit is destined still to keep alive.
8.34 p.m.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we have had a most interesting and very useful debate. Your Lordships, I am sure, will join with me, as so many have said already, in expressing our gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, for having made our discussion to-day possible. We are particularly grateful for the admirable way in which he introduced the debate. His cogent speech showed his concern about the future of British policy on overseas information and cultural exchange, and specifically
844
about the future of the B.B.C.'s External Services. A number of speakers have also drawn attention to the equal excellence of other branches of the agency of information and cultural exchange; and I think it would be well to remind ourselves of the range of activity and of the agencies involved in this effort.
The British information and cultural services operating overseas falls into four broad groups. There are, of course, the B.B.C. External Services, which are concerned with radio, broadcasting, monitoring (as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, reminded us), transcription and tape services. They provide a unique, truthful and objective news service which is of international value and therefore of very great service to this country. They effectively promote a better understanding of Britain and of British views and policies, and a knowledge of British products, expertise, technology and development. The estimate for that group of information services is £18·8 million for the current year.
Then there is a group of which the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, appropriately reminded us: the official information services and the fine work which is done by diplomatic posts and the overseas side of the activities of the Central Office of Information. These carry out information activity under the direction mainly of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the British Overseas Trade Board and the Department of Trade. They do this for all media overseas. The estimate for this in the current year is £12·5 million and two-thirds of the cost is spent on direct or indirect export promotion. This is supplemented by the work done by the Press Departments of Whitehall Ministries, who work with visiting and foreign correspondents.
Then there is the third arm of the Information Services—the British Council—to which the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, drew attention in his admirable speech. This is concerned with English language teaching and other educational work, which many of us have seen for ourselves in various parts of the world—with publications, with the development of two-way personal contacts and the presentation abroad of the British contributions to the Arts and Sciences. The Estimates for this year allow for £12·4 million, and thus a total

845
(with other lesser contributions) for all information agencies of something between £43 million and £44 million. We must not forget, however, the other official and non-official bodies such as the British Tourist Board, the overseas contracts and work of the T.U.C. and C.B.I.; and the work of chambers of commerce and analogous organisations in this country which have wide international contracts and valuable ones.
The official information and cultural services can never claim entire credit, nor take the entire blame for our good or bad image abroad. They must always take into account these other sources of news, views and impressions. It is true that the B.B.C., British Council and the official services operate selectively, but they always endeavour to effect a close liaison among themselves and also with the other non-official bodies and individuals who do magnificent work for this country in this field in every part of the world. The purpose of these services is to present abroad a comprehensive picture of Britain and the British way of life, our achievements and objectives. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, towards the end of his speech, put this very eloquently. His whole speech will repay reading to-morrow. I thought that that passage summed up in a very inspiring way what the purpose of these services is in a world which is sometimes dominated by the abominations of totalitarianism. It is not a propagandist exercise; that would be self-defeating, and we are a little wiser than that in Britain. As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, it is the weapon of truth and tolerance that these services use in putting to the rest of the world most credibly what Britain is about.
Of course in properly highlighting our successes we do not ignore our defeats. I sometimes think we are more ready to propagate our defeats than advertise our successes. Through these services we attempt, quite rightly, to place our defeats, our shortcomings, in perspective. The services try to correct the often distorted image of this country which is presented abroad. I deeply believe that this second function is right and necessary. London's position as a centre of world communications and of the media, the status of English as the leading world language, and the wide resonance of our
846
domestic Press, television and radio is always going to ensure that our bad news, as well as our good news, is trumpeted abroad.
There is a constant need to try to counter this and ensure that bad news is not exaggerated and good news not ignored. Equally, as has been very well said, as our comparative economic and political power in the world has diminished, so we should try all the more to make use of major assets such as the established reputation and audience of the B.B.C. External Services and the acknowledged excellence of the other services we have been discussing. It may well be that Britannia no longer rules the waves, but that is no reason why she should not have a go at the wave-lengths. Power is one thing; influence, as we have heard, can be as great as power. There is no argument about the value of these agencies. They are the best and most honourably conducted in the world. The argument is about money, resources. I was very glad to see how this debate revealed a consensus of view that the information and cultural services that I have described, generally speaking, do a very good job for Britain in these directions. I want to repeat that this is certainly the view of Her Majesty's Government and, addressing myself to one segment of the Question which the noble Lord, Lord Alport, put down in order to bring about this debate, the segment that referred to future policy, our policy can be simply stated as the fullest possible support for these services and the objectives they serve so well within the limits of available resources.
I was much attracted by the speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie. I am quite sure that, on reflection, my noble friend Lord George-Brown will agree with all of us that the intentions of the noble Earl, very cogently and clearly stated, were exactly what my noble friend was so concerned about. I thought, however, that the noble Earl tended to preach a counsel of perfection to the present Government a little early after the cuts imposed by the last Government. If I may turn now to the other point—
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I made as forceful a claim as I could that we had initiated cuts. The best was able to do

847
in defence of my right honourable friend the then Foreign Secretary was to say that he had seen that they were not too bad.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure the noble Earl will be no less generous to my puny efforts in this direction. May I now turn to the other segment of the Question put down by the noble Lord—the question of resources to be devoted to these activities. He quite rightly was most concerned about one aspect of the services—the B.B.C. External Services. But the expenditure we can make on these services, like the others, turns on the general question of public expenditure. There is no escaping this fact. I listened with particular attention to what the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, had to say. As a former distinguished holder of the Office of Chancellor he will agree with me that when Governments, especially in-coming Governments, find it necessary to conduct a review of public expenditure—and this, in fact, is common form the—review must include a review of expenditure in all Departments, and on everything that concerns the public. It is a matter of priorities. The value of a debate such as this and, if I may say so very much as a newcomer, the great strength of this House, is that it can assemble on a given subject of great importance the results of informed experience so that public and Government can the more easily and the more justly arrive at the right order of priorities.
I make no Party political point when I remind your Lordships that when the present Government took office ten weeks ago we inherited an exceedingly difficult situation. We found that significant cuts in overseas information expenditure had already been decided upon by our predecessors, and that there was in addition a need for a review of all sectors of public expenditure. I shall come back to the review a little later. For the moment, let me turn briefly to the allocation of resources to the B.B.C. External Services and to the quite serious cuts which were imposed upon them at the beginning of this year. They involved the termination of several items: the weekly radio tape service of the African English service, the Caribbean English Service, the
848
English by Radio and T.V. Magazine, and the weekly orchestral programme in the World Service. The post of correspondent in Turkey, Iran and Pakistan was closed. Then there were the reductions: a reduction in the size of the Huna London Magazine in Arabic; in the level of activity in the transcription service; in the publicity budget, and in the monitoring services' coverage of Central African broadcasts. There were substantial postponements of capital works on the Caribbean and Cyprus relay stations, and on the modernisation of Bush House equipment and premises. The total saving from all these cuts, capital and recurrent, was £730,000.
I suppose it is not for me to defend the cuts decided upon by the last Government as lately as last January, but I think in fairness it should be said from this side of the House (in any event, I am going to say it) that the B.B.C., and indeed the other agencies of information, were fully and closely consulted when this list of sacrifice was drawn up; and the B.B.C. believed that, regrettable though the cuts were, they were probably the least damaging cuts which could be made within the total savings on broadcasting called for by the previous Government. Of course, the question of resources, financial and otherwise, is not the entire story. We must be careful to see that other resources, or, rather, facilities are available to us, without which all the money in the world would be quite useless. Here I would refer to the query of the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth. He asked whether we have our fair share of frequencies. The answer is, Yes. There is no great problem so far as the short wave is concerned; it is the medium wave which is crowded. But, in any case, the whole question is to be examined at an international conference under the auspices of the I.T.U. at official level next autumn, and at Ministerial level early next year.
The position of the British Council is not very different in relation to public expenditure and the incidence of cuts from that of the B.B.C. External Services. We all without exception in this House regret the reduction in the Council's grant-in-aid decided on at the beginning of the year. At this point perhaps I might refer to the suggestion made by the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, who said that possibly

849
there could be a sharing of the grant-in-aid between, let us say, more than two powerful Departments. I find that the position is this. The grant-in-aid used to be carried on the Vote of the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications, and will henceforward be carried on the Vote of the Home Office. In that sense two major and ancient Departments of State will, I hope, join hands in doing everything they can for these services.
I listened with great interest to the various tributes paid to the British Council's work by my noble colleagues. I can assure them that Her Majesty's Government share their view of the value of the Council's operations. Its work in furtherance of professional and academic exchange, in educational aid, and in particular in teaching and promoting the use of the English language, provides British influence of a kind which is, and will continue to be, needed. Once more I must not fail to mention the valuable work done in the overseas information field by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Central Office of Information, both of which suffered cuts in the economies made at the beginning of the year. I do not want to quarrel with the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, whose speech I so much admired, but perhaps I might offer a corrective to one thing he said about how things are done in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He suggested that there is an argument within the F.C.O. that some services in areas of minimal importance should be cut. The fact is we should like to retain every service. But an equal fact is that from time to time all Departments, including ours, are required to review their expenditure and to undertake the painful task of making choices. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, the noble Lord himself has been a distinguished member of more than one Government and in more than one Cabinet, and he will know that there is no escaping answering to a requirement that each Department should review its expenditure and address itself to this difficult and often painful question of choosing between one service and another.
I have been asked to indicate to the House what the level of resources is going to be. While the current review on public expenditure is proceeding—and it is proceeding—it is of course impossible
850
for me to give any figures to the House. What I can say is that the review is still in progress and no decisions affecting the allocation of resources to the B.B.C. External Services or any of the other overseas information services have been taken. I can also say to the House that your Lordships should not be led astray by the very large figures of alleged cuts which have been bandied about in some quarters, and even as lately as yesterday, by, if I may say so, people who ought to know a little better. This much I can say. The somewhat alarming rumours which, quite rightly, have prompted concern and agitation in the Press and have led to this debate are grossly exaggerated. We cannot escape the normal, periodic review of public expenditure but we shall do our best, knowing the value of these Services, to keep whatever cuts may emerge from this review as small as possible, and, certainly, as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, put it, avoid doing damage to them.
We expect—as we always have received—co-operation from the B.B.C., the British Council and the official services in this exercise. We, for our part, will closely consult them in reviewing expenditure; in fact, we are doing so now. They for their part, I am quite sure, will co-operate closely with us in conducting a review which will be the most acceptable possible under the circumstances. Indeed, to this end I can inform the House that the B.B.C. have invited the Civil Service Department's Management Services to examine and report to the B.B.C. on the efficiency with which the resources of the External Services are managed.
The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, introduced into his most valuable contribution to this debate a point which does need to be made; namely, that we must always be on the look-out to reduce, to minimise, waste. It is encouraging to find a service like the B.B.C. inviting the Civil Service Department's Management Services to examine and report to them on what can be done—perhaps to avoid and eliminate waste. It may be that there is nothing to report. My own impression is that the B.B.C.'s External Services are doing a magnificent job. It would be very difficult to indicate the point at which they were wasting resources, but they have

851
asked that this inquiry should be conducted and when the report is made to them—it will be confidential to the B.B.C., of course—I am quite sure, from what I know of them, that if action is necessary it will be taken by the B.B.C. and by its External Services.
There were a number of specific points raised during the debate, and I do not propose at this late hour to deal with them. I have made very careful notes of them. Some of them I have dealt with, but they will all be on the Record and that, as I have said, is the value of a debate like this. I can assure your Lordships that all the points about all the Services made to-day will be fully borne in mind when the time comes for the Government to take decisions on the review. My Lords, I began by describing this debate as useful. I conclude with the same remark. The discussion has been useful, because it has reasserted an informed consensus that these Services are of high quality and efficiency; and, indeed, necessary for this country's progress and standing in the world. I hope
852
that what I have said shows clearly that Her Majesty's Government share this view.