Lords Sitting of 14 December 1977

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Worcester):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Earl Baldwin of Bewdley—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

CONTINENTAL SHELF: DRILLING RIGS
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: 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 how many exploration rigs were operating in the United Kingdom sector of the continental shelf up to the end of September 1977, and are operating at present.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, there were 30 mobile drilling rigs operating at the end of September 1977. On 5th December, 21 mobile rigs were operating.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that information, may I ask him this further question: Is it the case that at least 45 per cent. of the mobile rigs operating are in fact employed by the "majors" on "farm-ins" for the minor companies?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, of the 21 mobile rigs now operating, four are British owned.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord did not quite get the point of my question. Might I ask him—and, if he would prefer it, I will put down a further Question—whether these rigs operating are being employed by major companies to explore
2108
licensed areas held by the minor companies on what are called in the oil business "a farm-in"? If the noble Lord wishes me to do so, I will put down another Question about this.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I realise that "farm-in" means "assignment". I think it is a different matter. I may say that there is a review of Government policy on assignments in general. If the noble Earl wants me to answer a complicated question about assignment activity in the North Sea that is not on the Order Paper, I think he should put down a different Question.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, could the noble Lord look into the future and say whether the Government are expecting more or fewer rigs to be operating during the summer of 1978?
Lord STRABOLGI: Certainly, my Lords; because during last August and September there were 31 in operation. The lowest number was, of course, in January—the most difficult month, weather-wise—and at the moment there are 21. There have been 37 operating altogether.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am afraid the noble Lord did not follow my point. I was asking whether he could estimate whether there would be more or fewer next summer, that is, in 1978.
Lord STRABOLGI: It is difficult, my Lords. Though I think the major part of the activity in the future will be on production, there are, as I said, 21 mobile rigs now drilling for exploration wells. With regard to production, there are 20 development wells now being drilled from fixed platforms.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, could the noble Lord just answer this further question: How many of the exploration rigs now operating are in fact operated by BNOC?
Lord STRABOLGI: No, my Lords, I do not think I can. There are five United Kingdom-owned rigs, of which four are operating at the moment and one is laid up.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, is it not the case that in fact none is hired by BNOC? The question I should like to ask is: What is BNOC doing?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I think that is quite a different matter. As the noble Earl knows full well, BNOC has participation agreements with a 51 per cent. holding in all the companies operating at the moment and with others who are negotiating contracts for the fifth round.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, after all those questions, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware of the enormous contribution that North Sea oil is making to the growing prosperity of this nation?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords, certainly; that is why this Government are resolute that it should be British-owned.

AIRCRAFT: DRINK REGULATIONS
2.35 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: 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 amend the Customs and Excise regulations so that drinks may be served on aircraft at international airports once the aircraft doors have been shut.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): No, my Lords; the prohibition on the issue of duty-free stores to passengers while an aircraft is on the ground in the United Kingdom is essential for effective and economic revenue control.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that reply, may I ask whether she could be a little more yielding on this matter? Is she aware that, during the air traffic
2110
controllers' strike, many thousands of British and overseas visitors were incarcerated in sealed aircraft for hours on end? The cost in lost revenue must be minute compared with the loss of good will. It does not make sense that, in such instances, perhaps after a given period, drinks should not be served to so many of these people who are coming from overseas? Could she not be a little more forthcoming?
Baroness BIRK: Yes, certainly, my Lords. In certain circumstances the Customs do exercise their discretion in allowing free drinks to be served before take-off in order to reduce the hardship to passengers. That is exactly what has happened when there have been long delays because of the air traffic control difficulties. In fact, I myself have been the recipient of a drink while the plane was waiting on the runway; so it is possible. But there has to be a certain control here, otherwise one would have one large duty-free bar all over the tarmac.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, while the noble Baroness might have been specially favoured because of her good looks and ministerial rank, many of us and our friends found ourselves sitting for hours without any amelioration of that rule. Perhaps she could be a little more forthcoming and say what percentage of aircraft were allowed to open their bars, because I know of very few instances where it was done, and I think the House would be interested to know.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, it is left entirely to the captain to signal the control tower and to get a concession from Customs. One of the problems is that, if it is likely that a plane could suddenly be given the all-clear to take off, both on the aircraft and within the company—for safety and other reasons—they dislike very much having stewards and stewardesses going along the aisles, and tins or bottles being around. So the concession is asked for where the captain knows that the delay will last for quite a long time. May I say to the noble Lord that there have been no appeals to us, or to Customs and Excise, from any air companies asking for this concession to be extended permanently.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, is it not the fact that soft drinks are served in aircraft before they are airborne without any restriction at all? Could not passengers be urged to wait for their alcohol until the aircraft become airborne?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, they generally have to.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, may I support the Government in this matter and ask a question as one who has great experience of this matter from the point of view of boats. The Customs and Excise licence does grant one permission to serve alcoholic drinks as soon as one is on a genuine voyage—which means starting. As the noble Baroness has so eloquently expressed it, is it not right that, in these cases where starting is delayed, the matter is up to the captain of the aircraft, with people moving about in the aircraft? Would she not agree that surely her position is entirely correct?
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords. I certainly agree that I am right. The noble Viscount is absolutely correct, and if a further concession were given on equity grounds this would really have to apply to vessels as well. In answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, to which I did not reply, the estimated amount of potential revenue which would be lost if there were a duty-free bar would be in the region of £200 million. So that any concession means an extension of this loss, and we have to remember that.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm or deny that, when the message sent from the control tower to the captains is a favourable one, it is "Splice the mainbrace"?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I do not know. I think that the noble Lord has an advantage over me.

TAXATION OF AIRCREW EXPENSES
2.40 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: 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 licence renewal fees and associated medical costs paid by British Airways on behalf of their aircrew are regarded as taxable emoluments, and whether these payments are taken into consideration when determining compliance with Government incomes policy.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, British Airways inform me that the question of taxation has yet to be finalised. The cost of payments will be included as part of the general negotiations on pay and conditions under the current phase of the Government's pay policy.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, and admitting to being somewhat perplexed by the last part of it, may I ask him on the question of taxation whether it would not have been wiser to resolve that matter immediately the concession was agreed, or at least soon after? Reverting to the other question of the pay policy, ought not that, too, to be resolved with the greatest expedition?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I agree that speed is desirable in these matters, but I think that the tax position, though perhaps not highly important, is a little complex. So far, £27 of a tax allowance for pilots has been negotiated with the Inland Revenue, and that obviously needs to be adjusted now that these expenses are paid by British Airways. I agree with the noble Lord that the question of aligning these payments with the pay policy is a matter to which urgent attention should be given.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, though I thank the noble Lord for that further clarification, may I ask him one more question: Should pilots working for companies other than British Airways now claim a tax allowance against these costs, which they have to meet from their own pockets?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, this is a matter for the other airlines to take up separately. But I agree that the precedent established by British Airways will be an important factor in this consideration.

AID TO EGYPT
2.42 p.m.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what economic and technological aid they have rendered to Egypt since the cessation of that country's aid from Soviet Russia, and what assistance Her Majesty's Government propose to render Egypt in the future.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, bilateral aid to Egypt—that is, capital aid and technical co-operation—has increased from £2·2 million in the financial year 1973–1974 to an estimated £3.5 million in 1977–1978. Additionally, our contribution to the Food and Agriculture Organisation fertiliser aid in 1976–1977 amounted to nearly £1 million, and our share of EEC food aid expenditure amounted to a little over £1 million. Future expenditure on the bilateral aid programme will be maintained at the current level in real terms.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for that reply. But would he not agree that, since unilaterally breaking off trade relations with Russia, Egypt has become a potential ally of the West? Should not our aid to Egypt have been increased a great deal more generously than hitherto?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, agree that the rapprochement between us and Egypt, and indeed between the West and Egypt, has been most marked in the period following their abrogation of the Russian connection. As to the amount and purpose of the aid, which is increasingly being devoted to technical assistance, or technical co-operation, as we now call it, I think that it is fairly substantial. It is part of the contribution that a number of countries make multilaterally through the EEC, and through the agencies of the United Nations, as well as fairly substantial bilateral means of aid that we make available year by year.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that relations with Egypt have been improving for some time, and that it is not only since the ending of the Soviet assistance that we have had good relations with Egypt? Secondly, can the Minister say what proposals have been made at the European Commission for increased commercial activity within the Mediterranean global policy both between the EEC and Egypt, and the United Kingdom and Egypt?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I should not wish at this stage to anticipate in any detail the progress of the EEC's consideration of a comprehensive Mediterranean policy. But I take fully into consideration the importance of what the noble Baroness has said. She knows that there is a good deal of discussion, and indeed very hard work, proceeding in that direction at the moment. As for the improvement in our relations with Egypt—an old friend, of course, over many centuries; a country and a people for whose culture and achievements we in this country have always had the highest respect — I am delighted to agree that this improvement has been going on for quite some time, Indeed, I had something to do with it in my former incarnation.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that our recent £40 million grant of military aid to Egypt could have provided nearly 1,000 badly needed new buses for Cairo, which city alone has a population larger than the whole of Mozambique? Could we not in the immediate future render more practical aid, in a visible and tangible form, to raise the standard of living of Egypt's growing population and make our contribution towards the cause of peace in the Middle East?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords. I can agree to a very large extent with what my noble friend has said, particularly the last part of his supplementary question. We feel that the improvement in relations between Egypt and the West, and now between Egypt and Israel, offers great hope for the future. The operation of aid on the lines I have described, particularly in technical assistance, will prove increasingly helpful to Egypt and, we hope, to the Middle East

2115
generally in the future. As to the nature of the aid, I shall not go into detail to redefine what my noble friend has said about the nature of the aid, except to say this: we negotiate our bilateral aid—and indeed, with others, our multilateral aid—through very close consultation with the Egyptian authorities themselves. They tell us what they want and how they want it.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, can the noble Lord give us any figures for the amount of aid which is now going from the West to Egypt, as compared with that which previously came from the Soviet Union?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I could not, off-hand and at once, give the figures, but I am sure that, when we count the multilateral aid—that coming from the United States, the World Bank and the agencies of the UN—and add that to the bilateral sources of aid in the West (in Western Europe in particular, from us and our partners) it is greatly in excess of anything that flowed to Egypt in the period when they were much more close to the Soviet Union.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, in view of our traditional expertise in drains and trains, is there not a very wide field in which the Egyptians very badly need our assistance?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, that is very true. Indeed, precisely for those reasons, we have stressed—and the House will have noticed that I have stressed it this afternoon—a movement from capital aid, as such, to technical assistance. This is a big country with a large population, but with a very small proportion of its land usable, so far, or indeed developed. Something like 3 to 4 per cent. is of agricultural validity at the moment. This can undoubtedly be expanded, and so can the other types of industry in Egypt. What they mostly need now—this is what they tell us—is assistance on the technical side, on the infrastructure and in techniques, and this is what we are endeavouring to provide.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, will the Minister agree that owing to President Sadat's very courageous
2116
enterprise, this is a moment when we may well support any help that we can give to Egypt without antagonising her old enemy Israel, now that the two countries have shaken hands?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, indeed, my Lords. I wholeheartedly agree. I think that the tone and content of what has been said in all parts of the House will reinforce what the noble Baroness has said. It is not now a question of affronting old enmities but of encouraging new friendships.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether or not it is indicative of the extremely knowledgeable position of Israel with regard to agriculture that the meeting of President Sadat and the Prime Minister of Israel having now taken place, there is the prospect of an understanding that Israel will help in a very considerable way towards the development of Egypt's agriculture?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I have absolutely no doubt that that is true and will prove to be true once, by mutual agreement, a just and lasting peace has been achieved in that area.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
2.51 p.m.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move that the First Report from the Select Committee be agreed to. I think that I should draw your Lordships' attention to item No. 3. The Committee were informed that the Queen has approved the appointment of Lieutenant General Sir David House to succeed Sir Frank Twiss as Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod and Serjeant-at-Arms with effect from 10th January 1978. I understand that we shall have an opportunity when we reassemble after Christmas to express our thanks to Sir Frank Twiss for his outstanding services to this House. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for me to say any more this afternoon. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(Lord Aberdare.)
The Report was as follows:
1. APPOINTMENT OF SUB-COMMITTEES
The following members of the Committee were appointed to the Sub-Committees:—
(a) Administration Committee

L. Aberdare

L. Denham

V. Eccles

L. Greenwood of Rossendale

V. Hood

B. Hylton-Foster

L. Lee of Newton

B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe

L. Nugent of Guildford

E. St. Aldwyn

L. Wigoder

With the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.
With power to co-opt further Lords.
(b) Library Sub-Committee

L. Darling of Hillsborough

V. Eccles

L. Fraser of Tullybelton

B. Hylton-Foster

L. Lovell-Davis

L. Strabolgi

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords and to appoint their own Chairman.
(c) Refreshment Sub-Committee

L. Greenwood of Rossendale

B. Hylton-Foster

B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe

L. Nugent of Guildford

L. Sainsbury

E. St. Aldwyn

L. Westbury

L. Wigoder

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords and to appoint their own Chairman.
(d) Parliament Office Sub-Committee

L. Aberdare

B. White

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords.
(e) Finance Sub-Committee

L. Aberdare

V. Eccles

E. Ilchester

B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe

L. Nugent of Guildford

E. St. Aldwyn

L. Wigoder

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords.
(f) Works of Art Sub-Committee

M. Cholmondeley

V. Eccles

L. Henley

V. Hood

L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords and to appoint their own Chairman.
(g) Sub-Committee on Computers

L. Darling of Hillsborough

V. Eccles

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords and to appoint their own Chairman.
2 GIFT OF A PAINTING
The Committee accepted, on behalf of the House, the gift of a painting of the Silver Jubilee ceremony in Westminster Hall offered by the Lord Great Chamberlain.
3. BLACK ROD
The Committee were informed that the Queen has approved the appointment of Lieutenant General Sir David House to succeed Sir Frank Twiss as Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod and Serjeant-at-Arms with effect from 10th January 1978.
The Committee agreed that Sir David House be appointed additionally as Agent to the Administration Sub-Committee to carry out on their behalf the control of the accommodation and services in the House of Lords area of the Palace of Westminster.
The Committee authorised the salary and emoluments for the combined posts of Gentleman Usher, Serjeant-at-Arms and Secretary to the Lord Great Chamberlain which would now become pensionable.
The Committee wish to record, on the occasion of the retirement of Sir Frank Twiss, their gratitude for the assistance that they have received from him during the seven years he has served as Agent to the Administration Sub-Committee.
4. PARLIAMENT OFFICE
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee that he had promoted Mr. J. V. D. Webb to be Principal Clerk of the Judicial Office and Taxing Officer for Judicial Costs from 1st August 1977 and Mr. P. D. G. Hayter to be Chief Clerk from 4th November 1977 to fill the consequential vacancy resulting from the promotion of Mr. Webb.
The Committee were also informed of the secondment of Mr. C. H. Cumming-Bruce, a Senior Clerk, as Secretary to the Leader of the House and Government Chief Whip in the place of Mr. Hayter and of the appointments of Mr. Douglas Finlay Slater as Clerk from 1st October 1977 and Mr. Jonathan Christopher Morgan as Assistant Clerk of the Records (Sound Archives) from 1st November 1977.
The Committee approved provision for the payment of staff training and educational expenses.
5. REVISED SCALES OF PAY AND ALLOWANCES
The Committee confirmed the application of Civil Service Code Memorandum CM/262 dated 10th August 1977 introducing revised rates of meal allowances payable to applicable staff of the House of Lords.
6. SOCIETY OF CLERKS-AT-THE-TABLE IN
COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTS
The Committee approved an increase in the annual contribution towards the expenses of the Society.
7. ATTENDANTS
The Committee authorised the employment of an additional Attendant.
8. SOCIAL SECURITY PENSIONS ACT 1975
The Committee approved changes to be made to the House of Lords Pension Scheme to meet the requirements for contracting-out of the additional pension element of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975.
The Committee affirmed:—

(a) that the provisions of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme, laid before Parliament on 15th June 1972 under the Superannuation Act 1972 together with all changes and amendments to that Scheme, be applied to the staff of the House of Lords, and

(b) that the Chairman of Committees and the Clerk of the Parliaments be delegated the power to authorise the payment of any benefit that is calculated in accordance with such provisions and which falls due to a member of the House of Lords staff.

The Committee were informed that the staff of the House of Lords Refreshment Department were not to be contracted-out of the additional pension element of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975.
9. SUPERANNUATION
The Committee were notified of the following awards:—

(a) Revised pension and lump sum to Mr. H. A. M. Kemp, B.E.M., former Principal Doorkeeper, who retired after re-employed service as Clerical Officer on 31st August 1977.

(b) Revised pension and lump suns to Mr. C. D. Maxted, M.M., who retired after re-employed service as Doorkeeper on 5th October 1977.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE FORESTRY INDUSTRY
2.52 p.m.
Lord TAYLOR of GRYFE Lord TAYLOR of GRYFE rose to call attention to the state of the forestry industry; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in introducing this debate I have to declare an interest. I am chairman of a forestry company and was, until 18 months ago, chairman of the Forestry Commission. Through several debates on this subject I have sat with the sealed lips that are laid down by the Addison rules for Members of this House who hold public office, but today I am happy to be able to shed these inhibitions and to speak freely about a subject for which I have a deep concern. At the end of this debate I hope to have your Lordships' acceptance of three propositions: First, that an expansionist forestry policy is good for Britain; second, that since forestry investment is long term, confidence and continuity
2120
of policy can come only from all-Party commitment; finally, that private and State forestry should work together in a healthy partnership which accepts that both sectors have a rôle to play in achieving the first objective.
I have said that there have been many debates on this theme in this House, and, as so often occurs, there is a great deal of knowledge and experience available. I am delighted that a number of distinguished foresters will follow me in this debate. However, going back over the records of the House, so far as I can discover this is the first occasion when a debate on forestry has been initiated from these Benches. Yet members of the Labour Party should be concerned about this subject and, indeed, should be very proud of what is probably the least publicised and certainly one of the most successful of our State enterprises. I refer, of course, to the Forestry Commission which is the largest landowner in this country, with its 3 million acres.
Sometimes when land nationalisation is being debated in this country it is forgotten that this vast estate of 3 million acres is already in public hands. The Forestry Commission's research establishment has an international reputation and its advice is freely available to all private growers. It has taken the lead in directing EEC combined research on the blight of Dutch elm disease. The Commission provides substantial opportunities for rural employment. Its forest trails and picnic sites open up the countryside for millions of people to escape from the noise and squalor of large cities.
The Forestry Commission was the pioneer of national parks. Last year, 1½million camper nights were spent in the State forests and over 15 million day visitors were welcomed to this national estate. There were 17,000 night occupancies in the newly-developed family log cabins, and one of the last refuges for the country walker and hiker is provided in the 10,000 miles of forest roads from which the motor car is banned. The Commission controls the inevitable pressures of the mass invaders to areas like the New Forest with a sensible concern for wildlife conservation and amenity. It protects the remnants of the ancient Caledonian Forest in the great valley of Glen Affric. It has planted up the slag

2121
heaps of the Rhondda and brought back green vegetation to the valleys which Richard Llewellyn assumed had gone for ever. It protects the flora and fauna of the Lake District, with its millions of visitors every year. All of this adds up to a very substantial social contribution to the quality of life in these islands.
In all of these ways the Forestry Commission, a State enterprise, has been the pacemaker, but enlightened private owners and forestry companies have been quick to follow. Public access agreements, wildlife conservation, camp sites and forest trails are now common features of private estate management, but these social benefits are peripheral to the main objective of forestry which is to grow more trees. We are virtually the least afforested nation in Europe, with only 8 per cent. of our land surface under trees. That statistic should be kept in mind by those people who are afraid of forestry's encroachment on agriculture or on our protected wilderness areas. Only 8 per cent. of the land area of the United Kingdom is under trees. At the same time, of course, we are one of the largest importers of wood and wood products, for 92 per cent. of our needs are met from abroad. The import bill for timber and timber products last year was £2,154 million. The EEC imports only around 50 per cent. of its consumption. In this country we concentrate a good deal of attention on export performance—we make awards regularly for contributions in that area—but we sometimes neglect the equally important business of import saving. Timber production must be a priority in these terms.
For too long we have assumed that other countries will be prepared to export to Britain their logs for processing here in our wood using industries. Indeed, a number of industries exist on that assumption. But as happens with other raw materials, every exporting country wishes to add value to improve its exports and to create jobs at home, and the failure to secure an indigenous supply of timber can endanger our pulp mills and our saw-milling industries, with serious consequences for employment. There are already warning signs in this regard.
Yet strangely enough we are good at growing trees in Britain. In fact, modern
2122
technology can create, very efficiently, man-made forests, and in Scotland—and particularly in West Scotland—we grow conifers twice as fast as they grow in Scandinavia. So there is nothing foreign to our growing trees in the United Kingdom. We are good at it. I have always believed that a healthy society requires a balance which provides opportunities for rural employment. I believe that many of our social problems arise from too great concentrations of people in large conurbations, and I thank God that there will always be people who prefer the satisfactions which come from living and working in the countryside.
Forestry can be a major agent in creating employment in the villages. There are at the moment 23,000 people employed in forestry and 14,000 in related industries. Perhaps these are not large figures by British Leyland standards but they are significant in terms of creating a living countryside. At a time when we are crying out to put more people into production, forestry should not be overlooked in these terms. I hope these facts may convince your Lordships of the first proposition, that forestry is a good thing for Britain.
This has been common ground in this country since 1919 when the Forestry Commission was established to restore the woodlands of this country which had been devastated by three centuries of warfare. In these 58 years from 1919, which is a comparatively short time in tree-growing terms, the State has acquired 3 million acres and matched the private sector in size and in annual planting programmes of around 45,000 acres a year. But they have never regarded themselves as competitors in any ideological sense. They were partners, respecting each other's achievements with a mutual desire to help in attaining targets which were obviously in the national interest. Indeed, forestry is the perfect example of a mixed economy in action; an example which might be copied in some other sectors of British industry.
We have on the one hand a large nationalised sector in the Commission's forestry enterprise, but as forest authority it has the responsibility also for good management of private woodlands. It provides advice and approves planting programmes in the private sector within

2123
the dedication schemes which are the basis for paying grants. This dual role, the responsibility of a State sector and responsibility for the private sector, is a difficult one and the Commission itself must always be reminded of its responsibilities as forest authority to speak for forestry as a whole, State and private, particularly when advising Governments.
Governments have not always been wise, and particularly in recent years. First, in 1972 we had the Conservative Government's consultative document. This was followed by a now somewhat discredited cost benefit study from the Treasury. The next blow was the Labour Government's capital transfer tax legislation in 1975, which seemed to have forgotten the special situation of forestry. Then we had the subsequent Green Paper on wealth tax, which I gather is still hovering around. Forestry is a long-term investment and private owners who dedicate their land in perpetuity assume some continuity of policy. If the fiscal rules are changed or uncertain there will be few investors—that is natural—-and the uncertainty created by these events has had disastrous consequences.
In Scotland, where most of the new planting takes place, in 1976 the figure of planting trees fell to one-third of the 1973–74 total. In the United Kingdom as a whole the reduction was 57 per cent. These cut-backs in the private sector coincided with reductions in the Forestry Commission planting because at that time there was a reduction in public spending, so its planting programme fell by 19 per cent.
There are no votes in forestry. Its constituency is nationwide and its electors are scattered. The result of these events will not be felt for 20 or 30 years—beyond the lifetime of any Government which may have been responsible. Yet we as a nation frequently get concerned about planting trees, and I see the columns of The Times carry a great deal of correspondence on the subject of replanting in order to offset the tragedy of the Dutch elm disease which is so far beyond our control. Yet at the same time as we get excited about this matter which is beyond our control at the moment, during these first two years millions of young trees died unplanted in the nurseries when they should now be cladding our
2124
hills. This was done by man-made decisions and not by the effect of some disease over which so far we have no control.
These two years meant that the confidence which had been built up over half a century had been undermined, and I am delighted that the situation has been retrieved to a large extent by the new grants scheme of October 1977 with the capital transfer tax amendments which recognised the special nature of forestry with its long growing cycle of a tree crop which can span several generations. All this is good news and I get the impression that there is a restoration of some of the confidence which existed prior to 1975. But I wonder whether the Government could go one stage further and look at the possibility of CTT being levied on the crop value at date of death. That might be a more sensible treatment for taxation purposes. For anyone who invests in an industry with an anticipated return of 3 per cent. per annum—that is the Treasury assessment of the return on forestry investment—and gets his first revenues after 20 years when he takes his first thinnings out of the forest, some incentives are required in the form of appropriate tax treatment, in order to induce people to invest in that kind of industry when they might earn 12 or 15 per cent. in gilts.
I have sought to establish the case for expanding forestry. But at the moment there are two limiting factors: one is the availability of land and the second is delays and frustrations in approving planting programmes. Inflation, taxation and improved returns on sheep farming have reduced the flow of land quite substantially. Even the Forestry Commission confess that their reserves may imperil their future planting programme. Strangely enough, at this time a large company with a healthy cash flow from North Sea oil approached me the other day. They said, "We want to replace a depleting asset (North Sea oil) with a growing asset by planting trees which, unlike oil, is a renewable resource.- Very large sums were available for the purpose but I had to tell the company that there was little or no land on the market to satisfy their needs.
Pension funds and institutions also are anxious and interested to invest in

2125
forestry. It is surely much more in the national interest that they should invest in making land productive instead of, say, purchasing works of art or expanding their American property portfolios, but again land is not being released. I would welcome the Minister's comment on this situation.
What forestry needs is marginal land. It is not a competitor with good agricultural land; it could not afford to buy good agricultural land. Indeed, studies carried out by the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton—who, I see, will speak today—indicate that a closer integration of agriculture and forestry can provide for an increased sheep stock alongside production of timber. I think what we need is a closer integration of forestry and agriculture, rather than regarding them as competitors. It is, therefore, a matter of urgency that land use studies should be encouraged so that appropriate areas for forestry could be clearly identified. Land which is not productive—through lack of interest or cash flow on the part of the owner—should be released so that the funds which are available can be employed in turning Highland deserts into estates which will increase the national wealth and provide employment.
I turn now to planning constraints. The requirement for consultation with local authorities over plans of operations where Forestry Commission staff have to prepare for every conceivable view of landscaping requirements is time-consuming and causes inordinate delays. The built-in prejudice against conifers and the assumption that only broad-leaves are beautiful is neither true nor silviculturally sound, since it takes no account of soil types and appropriate species for certain upland areas. The district councils, who are now the planning authorities, have seldom trained staff or councillors knowledgeable in these matters. The inevitable delays cause frustration and lack of interest on the part of the people who are prepared to sell, and land is frequently lost because of these delays.
In the early days of the Forestry Commission it is true that it planted trees furiously without adequate regard for their effect on the landscape. It was simply asked to produce timber. But today foresters are a new breed who are very sensitive indeed to their environmental
2126
responsibilities. They are guided by internationally respected landscape architects. I recall the noble Lord the Leader of the House, Lord Peart, when Minister of Agriculture, standing with me on a hilltop overlooking Haresceugh Fell in Cumbria and agreeing with me that it was ideal for forestry. But the so-called environmentalists of the area frustrated our intentions and the area still carries a few sheep, with practically no employment, when it might have been brought into useful production.
I think we have to get rid of a lot of the prejudices about growing trees on our landscape. This country used to be covered with trees. As I say, the planning authorities are not always without prejudices in these matters. Today in forestry there are no square blocks of dark sitka being planted. Planting follows the contours of the hills and dark plantations are frequently relieved by a sprinkling of larch, while roadsides are often edged by the brightness of beech. The forest authorities should be trusted more; they should be trusted to do the right thing by the Department of Agriculture and the local planning authorities. Unless this is done more and more, land will remain idle in private ownership. I am not asking for complete freedom. But I am asking for more understanding and more expeditious handling of plans.
My Lords, this is the year of the tree, and I saw recently on my TV screen the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition symbolically and actually planting trees in London parks. That is a pleasant gesture, but what is required is their support for the planting of many trees in suitable sites with continuity over many years, as part of a continuing and expanding forestry policy. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.15 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, it has been a treat to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, this afternoon. Over the past few years we have been accustomed to having the noble Lord being involved with our debates on forestry, but, regrettably, from a sedentary position. The cares of office of chairman of the Forestry Commission effectively gagged him from participation in our

2127
debates, although, of course, it did not prevent him from benefiting, were that possible, from the knowledge which your Lordships placed at his disposal. I often wondered then what he thought of our debates and what he thought of the views which were expressed. Today we have had the pleasure of hearing him, and we in turn can only have benefited from the robust and informed speech which he has just made, and from the experience which he has had in that office which he held. He said that it was an unique occasion because it was the first time that a Member from the Benches on which he sits had introduced a debate on forestry. I think that is a credit which he could justly take. Whether or not it is a credit which his own Party could take, I am not quite certain.
I ought to declare an interest, but only a small one. I am not a forester as such; nor am I an owner of vast woodlands. But I have an interest in some woodland and have undertaken a very modest—a peculiarly modest—amount of planting. As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said, forestry is an important subject; it is far more important than people or public opinion usually care to admit. But it is not a politically sensitive subject. As the noble Lord said, there are no votes in it. He is quite right. The effects on forestry of Government action are not immediately visible, and politics is too often nowadays about immediacies. Those with an interest in or a knowledge of forestry are considered to be, as the Chancellor might put it, at the "pip-squeaking" end of the socio-economic scale, and their interest might, therefore, be considered to be self-interest.
But, my Lords, this is not so. Forestry is hugely important to Britain, as a money saver and as a money spinner, as a job producer, and as a conserver and indeed promoter of both our heritage and our environment. It affects us all and so does its prosperity. If we could put the matter into perspective, a week ago today we had a debate on defence, where the Government were invited to restore defence cuts of £267 million, which they said was impossible. Yet we spend annually not £267 million but over £2,000 million on imports of timber and
2128
timber products alone—nearly one-third of what we spend on the whole of the defence of the United Kingdom. I do not draw any conclusion from that; I merely state it as a comparison. This is in a time of recession. If one considers the joint effect of inflation and a return to normal economic activity, it does not require a great genius to realise that forestry could have a substantial part to play, on an import-saving basis alone, in the years to come.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said he wanted agreement on three points: first, there should be a flourishing forestry industry; secondly, he wanted confidence and continuity; and, thirdly, he wanted to see a healthy private and State partnership. I would agree with all three of those points. But are we really achieving at least the first point, which is to have a flourishing forestry industry? The future crop of timber which will be available to the country depends entirely on the number of trees being planted. In 1972 plantings in the United Kingdom totalled 24,000 hectares, and in 1977 they were only 9,000. According to my calculation, that is a drop of about 62 per cent.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, referred to Scotland and said that the crop was 57 per cent. No doubt many noble Lords will ascribe various reasons for this, but I should like to put forward two: first, a general lack of certainty and confidence in the future; secondly, the effects of CTT, which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, mentioned. I recognise and welcome the concessions made in this connection, but I venture to suggest that we should not under-estimate the effect which CTT has had on the confidence of the industry, for one simple reason: its philosophy is that private enterprise, where it is found, must be on a small scale. That, of course, runs directly counter to the facts of forestry life.
I should like to make a plea to Government in general, whether it be to the last few weeks of the present Government or to the successor Government, because I think that probably both Parties are to blame. My plea is to think big enough about forestry; think long term. I accept the difficulties of any Government to think 50 or 100 years ahead. Life is not long enough for that, and politics certainly

2129
is not long enough. However, it takes 35 years before a trend in planting has a noticeable effect on output. One cannot afford to put the machine in and out of gear to suit short-term economical or political considerations.
A proper forestry policy must be reasonably consistent because it is a unique industry. It is unique because anyone who lays the foundation for the next crop knows full well that he will receive probably no financial return from it whatever. He has to be quite a public-spirited person to do that sort of thing. If one asks any industrialist or business person to invest in a business from which he will get nothing during his lifetime I think that most such people would send one off to the doctor with the instruction "Get your head examined", unless, of course, they happen to be an institution: like an insurance company, pension fund or, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe said, even an oil company, where their motivations are entirely fiscal and where they are not subjected to the same system of taxation as the private forester. Silviculture can, by no stretch of the imagination, be considered to be their prime interest. It would be detrimental if the system of taxation were to encourage the large institutions to march into the market at the expense of the private forester. A little mix is probably a good thing, but it is a question of degree. I suggest that the trend should be watched.
Oddly enough, the traditional foresters are, in the main, prepared to invest in the future with no return from their investment for themselves, provided that there is at least a sporting chance of there being a future for a successor generation to enjoy. That is the simple message which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Peart, will try to get over to those who advise on forestry. It is so utterly obvious and so entirely elementary that it might not seem worth saying, but it is because it is so utterly obvious and so entirely elementary that it requires to be said.
I should like to refer to three other matters. First, I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, as regards the dual role of the Forestry Commission. Is it fair to ask it to be responsible for the management of the State's forestry affairs and at the same time to make it responsible for administering
2130
Government policy over private forestry, which may well be in direct competition with and competing for the same funds and land as their own State affairs? Many would say, and with justification, that this has worked well in the past and therefore why alter it. It has worked well; but whether it does or does not work well is, I suggest, largely dependent on the calibre of the chairmen and senior executives of the Forestry Commission. I would merely question the wisdom of such a structure.
Secondly, I question the sense of permitting into forestry affairs the gradual but substantial seepage of the influence of the chairman and senior executives or those who feel that the afforestation of large tracts of land, or even small ones, affects the lives and interests of others, apart from those doing the afforestation, and therefore some element of constraint or discussion should be imposed on their complete freedom of action. However, I do not think that the fact of being a planner accords to anyone, still less to a body of planners, a superiority of knowledge, wisdom or even common sense.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, has referred to the difficulties sometimes encountered when planners demand one species. I, in turn, think that it seems to be relegating the purpose of planning to the area almost of farce when one has to obtain—as in a case in which I happen to be involved—planning permission to replant the interior of a part of a wood which was blown down in a gale. The intrusion of planners necessarily involves delay, frustration and bureacracy. That is a price which we all have to pay where the interests of the community as a whole are possibly concerned and where the interests of other people are affected. However, the trouble with all bureaucratic involvement is that there is no limit set on the degree of its interference. The Government could do worse than to address their minds to redressing that imbalance a little.
Thirdly, I should like to refer briefly to the problems caused or about to be caused by devolution. As I understand the situation—the noble Lord, Lord Peart, will tell me if I am wrong—the Forestry Commission in both its roles of enterprise and authority is to retain its unified

2131
structure, while the private sector is to be split into three, and responsibility for private forestry in Scotland and Wales is to be devolved to those Assemblies. If that is so, it seems to me to be a perfectly crazy idea. I cannot think of one advantage to be derived from it. The industry is small but it must work in harmony. There is an obvious requirement for bodies involved with forestry to work together. If I am right, here we have the Government deliberately splitting the industry into pieces: State forestry not devolved; private forestry devolved. Private forestry devolved; agriculture—with which forestry is so involved—not devolved. I do not wish to comment any further on that other than to say that it shows the absurd mess and bureaucratic muddles into which these Bills will get us. I hope that the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal will be able to explain very clearly the situation with regard to forestry and devolution. I had given him notice, albeit short notice, of this matter.
As a country we are living, as regards forestry, on the foresight of our forefathers. Future generations will be living on our foresight as regards the quantity of afforestation, the availability and the value of timber, landscaping, the type of environment and even the conservation of wildlife.
I believe it was my noble friend Lord Dulverton who once said that what may be termed the practicalities of our generation will become the treasured heritage of another. I hope that we shall ensure that by not constraining the practice and art of forestry by inevitable short-term considerations, future generations will have a heritage which will be a valued and valuable adornment to their culture. If the debate on the Motion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, contributes even a little to that, or even a little to the recognition of that fact, then it will have achieved quite something.
3.30 p.m.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, like the two previous speakers, I must declare a slight interest. Like the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, I plant one or two trees and I have a slight connection with the chairman of the Forestry Commission who succeeded the noble Lord,
2132
who happens to be my brother; but no brotherly interest, in fact, comes into my speech. I greatly enjoyed listening to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, who put the case absolutely clearly and said a great many things extraordinarily well, which everyone really believes.
We all know that the planting of more trees is greatly in the interests of the nation. It is good for the nation to spend its money on planting trees and good for private individuals to do so as well, because it means that they cannot spend their money on diversions of the rich, which might do great harm. To spend money on trees does nothing but good because it preserves our forests for a future generation, and they can either waste them or use them wisely.
However, I want to talk on something about which I know a little and which is very closely integrated with forestry and the future of planting in this country. I refer, of course, to the integration of farming or agriculture with forestry. It is not at all integrated at the moment. A great many farmers are still very much anti-tree. For example, I have a neighbour who bought his farm from an old estate and the first thing he did was to cut down all those trees he was allowed to cut down and to turn the land over to arable farming. Of course we need arable land, but most farmers—and I include myself because at one time I farmed—do not really appreciate the value of the mixed countryside of trees and, indeed, of hedges in, for example, East Anglia and elsewhere. I think that much education is needed in the highlands, the hills and the lowlands on integration of forestry with agriculture. Certainly where sheep farming is carried out on the hills a great deal of ill-will has been engendered especially by private forestry companies coming in, buying estates and planting them holus-bolus, and at the same time leaving a great deal of highland, which was useful as summer grazing for sheep, totally inaccessible; the whole area of ground that would grow trees was planted and the highland was wasted, even for grass, sheep or anything else.
That lack of integration is common throughout hill farming today. There are examples which could be followed. One was the East Area Conservancy of Scotland where the Conservator in

2133
Aberdeen was very anxious to obtain the co-operation of the farmers on the former Richmond Gordon estates—the Crown lands—in Glenlivet. He held a public meeting in Tomintoul, which was an absolute disaster and ended in a total breakdown. He returned to his hotel in despair and went into the bar for a large whisky, where he met the farmers. He came out with agreement to plant something like 1,000 acres in blocks so that one or two roads could be provided. I understand that from this evolved a great deal of co-operation in that area, which is of immense value. That example could be followed in the hill areas of England and Scotland.
I suggest that much more could be done with a little more money. If we provide a hill farmer with roads to remote parts of his grazings, then without doubt he will be more than willing to sacrifice some land, which will really benefit him because the shelter will more than make up for the lack of grazing area for his sheep and cattle. A great many other factors could be taken into account. For example, the opening of mature woods as shelters for cattle in winter. Shelter for cattle is worth quite a lot of food; it has a very high economic value. Anyone who has suddenly gone into a wood from a bare hillside will realise that the temperature rises a great deal. Obviously, I shall not go into great detail on the co-operation necessary, but it involves the Forestry Commission spending rather more money on fencing. I do not think that they could spend it on anything better. I also think that the Forestry Commission should be allowed some more money in order to make the roads—which take quite a high proportion of their budget—useful for hill agriculture as well as for the extraction and maintenance of trees.
The position in the lowlands is sometimes even worse. I have already referred to people who cut down plantations and turn them back into arable land. I have also mentioned hedges. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, referred to planners, but he forgot that we had some extremely good country planners on a great many of the old estates; and the larger the estate, very often the better the planners. Those planners laid down rules and produced landscapes and a total environment which was to the benefit of the country as a whole.
2134
We should look at the cost of this. Figures have already been mentioned, and a very significant one is that of 92 per cent. for our imports. But no one has mentioned the actual cost of the Forestry Commission. The total cost is £50 million and they take in £26 million. Many people—for example, the Crown Agents and others—regard £26 million as pure sweeties. We could spend an enormous amount more—I mean an enormous amount—on forestry, with great benefit to our country and people. We have fewer trees than any other Continental country, even including Belgium. We should do something about that. We have 1½ million people unemployed; we have to keep them. We should be planting a great many more trees. We should be planting trees in urban areas. When I go about the country I see a great deal of wasteland which could well be planted. We should plant more oaks—they grow—and we may need them for naval planting yet; you never know. Desiduous trees of all sorts should be planted to beautify our countryside. It would be money enormously well spent. This is a subject on which I think all Parties can agree, whether in the short or long term. In the long term it is absolutely essential, and I am delighted to support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe.
3.37 p.m.
Viscount HAMPDEN: My Lords, some 25 years ago my grandfather made one of his rare appearances in your Lordships' House. The House having divided at the end of the debate, he went through the appropriate Lobby. He then received a communication asking him to visit the Lord Chancellor the following morning to explain why he had voted without having taken the Oath. I believe that the Lord Chancellor was very gracious to him—I am sure that all Lord Chancellors are very gracious. Having read my Standing Orders, I only hope that I shall not have to tread the same penitential path tomorrow morning.
I very much welcome the action of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, in initiating this debate, and the few minutes of your Lordships' time which I shall take up I do so in order to explain what is going on in the woods and woodlands in the part of the world where I live,

2135
because it is quite an instructive story. I am fortunate enough to live below the Downs in East Sussex, a beautiful part of the world whose beauty has not exactly gone unnoticed by many distinguished members of the present Government and, indeed, previous Labour Administrations. Unfortunately, a great part of that beauty very much depends on the elm tree.
As noble Lords are aware, elms have been a disaster area for a number of years. Indeed, I have a very beautiful landscaped park of elms—it was landscaped some 200 years ago by a previous Bishop of Durham—and in the last four or five years I have watched it virtually disappear completely. This has been happening throughout the country and I am sure in other parts as well. However, I am lucky to come under the East Sussex County Council. Here I must declare a non-interest in that the only relationship I have with that county council is that I am a rather reluctant ratepayer. Some five years ago, the county council took the decision that, notwithstanding whatever Government laws were, or were not, or what powers they have or might not have, they would try to defend the elm and treat it, cut out the dead ones and try to keep as many elms as possible in the area. Luckily, it was quite a suitable topographic area because to the South there is the sea, to the East there is a treeless marsh and to the North the Weald which mainly comprises oak, not elm. So the area was quite suitable for this scheme, which has now been going on for four or five years.
The county council, together with the Countryside Commission, took complete charge of the programme. Naturally, to co-operate did not cost them anything. For the last three or four years they have been trying to stop the disease. Whether they will be successful or not no one will be able to tell for some years, but nature plays one or two dirty tricks, like blowing a North-East wind throughout last summer instead of the normal prevailing South-West wind. But more important than the programme for the elm disease is the replanting programme which has been going on in the area. The authorities have taken two very beautiful river valleys: the Cuckmere valley, which is totally unspoiled countryside, and the
2136
Ouse valley which runs down to the important port of Newhaven, where so many tourists come when they visit the country for the first time. I believe that a first impression is important to visitors to this country. There has been a scheme—this is its first year and there will be another year of it—for replanting these two valleys, not only replacing the elm trees but planting something more suitable, highlighting other features and hiding the less attractive ones. None of us will see the benefits of this programme, but our grandchildren will. On the whole, it has been an encouraging sign of what one authority in this part of the world has been doing.
Can I throw a couple of points into the discussion? First, I wonder whether the Government can help in encouraging the keeping down of rodents. The planting of trees is a very expensive business but trying to stop them being eaten is even more expensive. I know that, with the terrorist situation, there is a problem over firearms, but can there be some encouragement for keeping down rodents? Secondly, I know that the Historic Houses Association have talks with the Government on houses and so on, but can the Government look at the question of landscaped parks? They are extremely attractive things, and, while one needs a certain amount of education and knowledge to appreciate other beauties, no one really needs any education to enjoy beautiful woodland. Can that be put into the plate, so to speak? My Lords, thank you very much.
3.42 p.m.
The Earl of BRADFORD: My Lords, it is very pleasant to be able to welcome a notable addition to the ranks of the protagonists of forestry in your Lordships' House in the person of the noble Viscount, Lord Hampden, and to congratulate him on a most excellent maiden speech. It was pleasant for me in addition to find him next to me on the same Bench—especially as my hearing aid has indulged in one of its periodic fits of non-co-operation—so that I was able to hear a good deal of what he said to your Lord-ships. It was also good to see him put away his notes and speak from the heart. He showed great knowledge and

2137
enthusiasm, and I am sure that your Lordships will be glad to hear him when he speaks to us again on other subjects.
Your Lordships' House has always provided a good forum for subjects like forestry. It would be one of the great tragedies if abolition were to come about as advocated by some circles close to the present Government, because the other place has never really shown the same enthusiasm for this subject. It is most important that forestry and allied subjects should have a good forum of this kind. I think that the last full debate in the other place was some 30 years ago.
It was pleasant too to hear my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe—if I may call him that across the Chamber; that is the way I look upon him, as a personal friend and a great friend of forestry, and private forestry in particular—and I should like to congratulate him on the excellent work he did during his years as chairman of the Forestry Commission, and on the great help he gave to all of us who work in private forestry. I should like to wish him equal success now that he is carving out a new career on the private side as chairman of the Economic Forestry Group. I heartily support him in all the sentiments he expressed, which will help me to cut down my own remarks, as I was going to mention some of them myself.
Forestry, and particularly private forestry, has suffered five years of being battered and clobbered, and the cause is the lack of understanding of the real nature of forestry among politicians, civil servants, and particularly Her Majesty's Treasury. Before 1972, private forestry in particular pursued the even tenor of its way. It was administered under a tax system which was specially devised for the peculiar circumstances of forestry. It had special treatment for estate duty, which was of considerable advantage in perpetuating fine woods, and surely this is a case where inheritance must be right.
I think I know no one who has become wealthy through forestry operations. This, I am sure, is backed up by the surveys conducted by Oxford and Aberdeen Universities, which showed that very few estates actually operated profitably in their forestry operations. The motivation of most of those who plant trees is purely
2138
and simply a love of trees and a wish to build up an asset which is of national importance and which can preferably be handed over to successors in the family.
For the last five years, forestry has been treated as a kind of political shuttlecock, with a battledore wielded alternately by both Parties. The Conservative Government started it, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, told us, through the consultative document and its supporting document of ill-fame, the cost benefit study. In these, some extraordinarily obtuse proposals were made and decisions taken, such as the abolition of the dedication scheme. These have fortunately fallen to the ground. But the battle has continued under the present Government, with a mass of legislation. Much of it has been extremely well-intentioned but it has placed many new burdens on the private employer, particularly in industries such as forestry, with its long term programmes and, in particular, its reliance on a very high intensity of labour. But the real disaster came with the subjection of forestry to the capital transfer tax and the threat of the wealth tax.
Here I should like to support the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in expressing a wish that private forestry should have a reasonable crack of the whip as against the Forestry Commission and the institutions, which are favoured by being supposedly immortal as against the mortal estate owners. Admittedly, there has been some alleviation of the initial burden, but it is still doubtful whether private forestry can continue for another generation under the present burdens that have been placed on it.
The case for forestry has been argued long and often, and has been argued again this afternoon. It is based on a vast and growing import bill and the impending world shortage of timber; on the suitability of our climate for growing trees; on the fact that timber is our only self-renewing raw material, and a material of infinite utility and flexibility. But there is much further potential, particularly in the energy field, where fuel wood alone could be immensely expanded. There is also the use by trees of solar energy through transpiration and photosynthesis, which could provide us with a source of energy which has so far not been explored, or not to any great extent.

2139
Also, through timber, we have a source of chemicals which will continue to be with us long after our oil has been finished. Nearly all countries are wisely building up their forest resources, but the United Kingdom is the main exception, and I feel that we ought to learn a lesson from that fact.
In addition, as we have heard, forestry is a special case. We hear a good deal about special cases, but surely the length of the time scale and the high labour element make it a special case. This is a small industry but one of vital importance for its raw material, its landscape value and its place in the national economy. It is easy to speak of a long time-scale but I think it is difficult of comprehension, especially by civil servants and Her Majesty's Treasury. It is perhaps best illustrated by an actual example. Most owners have saleable timber which they can reinvest in new planting. It is, however, a very expensive and lengthy task building from scratch, as I have found to my cost.
I acquired a small estate in the Highlands, which I believe is the loveliest country in the world, in 1952 with a very nice house and nearly 8,000 acres of land, some improvable hill and some in-bye land, the only snag being that 420 acres of trees had been felled during the war. I am glad to see my noble friend Lord Lovat in his place because it originally belonged to his family, and I might mention that I was able to acquire that 8,000 acres for about the price of a cottage or bungalow built today. It presented me with a wonderful opportunity, as I thought, for the integration of hill farming and forestry and I considered that the vast plantings that were being, and have been, made in the Highlands would undoubtedly lead to processing plants in that part of the world and that therefore the thinnings which I anticipated in between 20 and 25 years would find a good market.
I started planting at about 80 acres a year. I had to fence against deer and, although I had much enthusiasm, I was short of cash and the bank had to provide it. I was, of course, able to get some tax relief, but not as much as I should have liked owing to the absence of other income. I had built houses for staff, roads for extraction and bought machinery,
2140
all second-hand, for that extraction. We were hit by every kind of plague, like a plague of voles in 1958 or 1959 when the whole hillside squeaked and rustled until a remarkable invasion of short eared owls appeared from Scandinavia, gobbled them all up and then disappeared. Serious frost damage ensued after an early spring in May 1961, further damage in the 1962–63 winter and still more from fires in the recent droughts, and some from deer as well. I started thinning in 1972, and that was when the clobbering started; confidence and markets alike dried up. In 1976 I resumed thinning and sales and for a while things seemed reasonable, but then unfortunately Scottish Timber Products, the main market and the biggest chipboard factory in the country, closed down. The Fort William pulp mill, in sympathy, lowered its prices.
In my view, the present outlook is gloomy. The banks are somewhat unforgiving, as my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe will be aware, being himself a merchant banker; the pound of flesh at compound interest soon becomes worth more than the forest on which it was initially secured. I can see no hope of recovering my costs after 25 years of work, my son will have to fell to pay the debt to the bank and capital transfer tax and the whole of the assets that have been built up will be destroyed. The forestry industry is not a goose laying golden eggs. There are no golden eggs in forestry. It is a very marginal industry and it is being destroyed.
This country is well-known for its skill in plantation forestry which, as I see it, is largely even-aged monoculture. But is this the only form of sylviculture that is practicable, especially in areas of high landscape value? I believe there is great interest at present in what is popularly called irregular forestry. In my case, I have experimented for 25 years in what I call continuous cover forestry, which could perhaps otherwise be called uneven-aged mixed selection forestry. This has many advantages in terms of the landscape, wild life, the prevention of erosion, from the point of view of frost damage and many others. I believe I can demonstrate that it can also be of economic advantage and I would express the hope that within the Forestry Commission some similar experiments might be started.

2141
I very much agree with Lord Taylor in expressing the wish for a long-term policy for forestry. Surely it is possible to work one out, and how much better if it were an all-Party policy and perhaps even part of the general policy for land use in this country. Landowners and farmers of the past created the countryside as we know it now. Despite elm and beech disease, the grey squirrel and other pests, it could be done again, provided the circumstances are right. Capital taxation makes it extremely difficult for private forestry to operate. I have mentioned my disability in hearing; this makes it very difficult to hear the human voice. I can, however, still hear the song of the trees and I hope that I may continue to hear it for a long time, but as I hear it now that song has a very doleful note to it.
3.57 p.m.
Viscount INGLEBY: My Lords, I too wish to express my sincere thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for initiating this debate and for the telling speech he made. I also wish to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Hampden, on his maiden speech and to offer congratulations on the interesting speech which we have just had from the noble Earl, Lord Bradford. I have personal experience of some of his Chilean beech which are growing with remarkable vigour on the North Yorkshire moors.
As Lord Taylor told us at the beginning of his speech, the primary need at present is to restore confidence, and I wonder whether, even now, the Government realise the extent of the damage which was done by the introduction of capital transfer tax. Those who plant trees, in so far as they plant them for financial reasons, do not plant for themselves. As other speakers have said, nobody gets rich by planting trees. One plants them, in so far as one plants them for financial reasons, for one's children, grandchildren and even possibly for one's great-grand-children. So long-term confidence is an essential part of any forestry programme.
The evidence for the damage done by the introduction of capital transfer tax is still with us as we look around and see fewer people employed in private forestry, fewer acres planted and, this season, a distinct shortage of plants. This may
2142
indicate that we have reached the bottom and that things are moving up a little, and I very much hope this is the case. The present Government have done much and are to be congratulated for it. I am thinking of the improved grants and the changes in the capital transfer tax rules. With a little care the position regarding capital transfer tax could be got exactly right. I would ask the Government if they would give an assurance that the private sector will be consulted before the publication of the Finance Bill in the spring.
The other great need at the present time is for an improvement on the marketing side. There is a great need for a new market for small roundwood. After the war there was a big increase in planting both by the Commission and by the private sector, much of which is coming or indeed has already come to the thinning stage. But what is going to happen to this great production of small roundwood? A new chipboard and pulp mill in the North-East is a great need, and possibly with the forecast closure of the British Steel Works at Hartlepool this might provide a possible site. I realise that this is not an easy problem, bearing in mind the recent experience of Scottish Timber Products, and it would call for a co-operative effort by the Government in helping with money, and by the Forestry Commission and the private sector in ensuring a regular supply of timber. I would ask the Leader of the House, having in mind his sympathy for the North of England and his experience at Workington, whether he would take a personal interest in the possibility of a new pulp and board mill for the North-East.
The only other matter which I should like to mention briefly is the subject of public access. Almost every woodland owner would not regard his woods as being entirely his own. I do not regard mine in that sense. I regard them as belonging to the Creator, and I am reminded of the words of an Indian chief when he was asked by some settlers in America to sell some of the land occupied by his tribe. He replied with amazement:
"You might as well ask me to sell the sea or the sky or the air".
Indeed, I think in a sense our woods belong to everyone. They are part of our national heritage. I realise that

2143
public access is not always practicable and that there may be good reasons against it; but where it is practicable and where the public can be allowed free enjoyment and free access, I wonder whether such woods could not be exempted from capital transfer tax and from any possible wealth tax in the future? I would end by expressing my very real appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for introducing this debate.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me for intervening but I am required to remind your Lordships that this is a short debate, and that under our regulations the Minister replying is required to be on his feet at 5 o'clock. There are still six noble Lords who have put down their names to speak.
4.03 p.m.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, may I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for introducing this debate and also offer my congratulations to the noble Viscount, Lord Hampden, for his maiden speech? First, I must declare an interest. Since the war, I have been responsible for planting over 4,000 acres of trees—or, if I am to be up to date, perhaps I should say 2,000 hectares.
"Ye may be aye sticking in a tree; it will be growing when ye're sleeping". That is the motto of the Royal Scottish Forestry Society. But I should like to say, "Yes, it may be growing, but it has cost you money to stick it in; it is going to cost you money to look after it; it is going to take 20, 50 maybe 80 years before it is ready for selling, and you will be paying interest on your expenditure throughout that time." Then what are we going to get when we come to sell it, if we can sell it at all? Indeed, by the time we have to sell it, we may well have lost its total worth in taxation during its life-time, or, with a Scottish Parliament, we may have it confiscated altogether. There is already that threat upon us.
Twenty to 30 years ago we were given tax incentives, grants, encouragement and sweet words as to how profitable it would be to plant trees. We were told that we import such vast quantities of timber—well over 90 per cent. of our consumption—
2144
that forestry must be a good investment. But what happens now when we want to sell some of these trees? We are told that there is a timber recession. How long is this timber recession to last?—it seems to be interminable. Now that we have timber for sale we cannot sell it, and timber is still being imported in something like the same quantities as in the past. Indeed, the quantities may well have risen, because, at this moment, the Swedes are selling pulp into this country at prices lower than it has cost them to produce it. I believe they had a subsidy on their overdrafts or loans to hold this stock for a time and that that subsidy has now been removed so they must get rid of the stock.
Some of your Lordships may say that the fact that we cannot sell our trees is nonsense. May be. I can sell timber in the middle of England. I sold some rubbishy stuff recently in Staffordshire. That is near the market, but most of 'timber should be coming from the rough hills in the remoter areas where food production is either completely non-viable or only marginally viable. What has happened in the Highlands of late? At least two sawmills have closed down because they could not sell their timber. One of these is among the biggest and most modern of such mills. It is of course the mill at Sterling. I understand that the Forestry Commission has subsidised the Annan Mills by dropping the price of wood they are supplying below the price for which they contracted to sell it. Until recently, we were even exporting thinnings to Sweden—coals to Newcastle—presumably undercutting the Swedish market.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, has already mentioned that there are warning signs. Indeed, I would say there are very black clouds hanging over the industry. My noble friend Lord Bradford mentioned his problems in selling. I should like to emphasise this position because I think it is a very serious one. Maybe if we sent our timber to the south of Scotland or the north of England we could sell it, but the road haulier would charge us nearly as much as we should be getting for the timber. What incentive is there to grow trees if at the end of the day one gets only as much for them as it costs to drive them across Scotland? Something is fundamentally wrong with marketing in this country. Take one

2145
small example: the women folk complain that they can no longer get wooden clothes pegs for their washing and have to make do with inferior plastic ones; we should be delighted to supply wood for pegs but no one seems to make them. Another example—I recently went into the pet shop in Inverness to find a big bale of sawdust. I inquired where it came from and I was told it had been sent all the way from Holland. I do not know why we cannot supply it. I did contemplate getting in a baler—because of course it was baled—but then I wondered how much I should get out of it. This is one of the problems which could perhaps be sorted out but it is difficult for the small individual to sort it out for himself.
This malaise in the forestry industry does not affect only the owner of trees, whether it be the State or a private owner. It affects all those who work in the woods, most of them now being skilled men. Wages have recently risen and I may not be quite up to date, but I would hazard a guess that the average wage for a labourer in the woods does not exceed £50. If you go to the pulp mill, you will find that the chap who sweeps the floor is getting £60 and the chap who rolls up the paper £70. The man who hammers in the nails later on—the carpenter—will probably get 50 per cent. more than the man who is working in the woods, yet the man working outside in the woods is the one who has all the dirty work to do in the wet and the cold while the others sit in the warm though he is getting far lower wages. How can the lot of the woodworkers be improved if timber does not fetch a higher or more reasonable price?
In Austria or Switzerland, where the trees have to be brought in off the steep mountainsides, the producers seem to fare far better than we do. The steepness of the terrain makes their harvesting far less efficient than is possible in this country. Why, therefore I wonder, can they do better? I suggest that this is a problem which must be dealt with urgently. Our agriculturists still look to the planting and growing side of forestry, and there is a tendency to look for incentives to plant trees. I suggest that the biggest incentive to plant would be a good return on the product which we produce. Indeed, the biggest deterrent
2146
to investment in forestry at this moment is the very poor return available. One's investment should be shown to be growing while one sleeps, and not only the trees.
4.10 p.m.
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, Dr. Johnson said,
"When a man grows old he begins to plant trees."
I started growing old 30 years ago, in that I started planting trees 30 years ago, and to that extent I declare an interest. All I would say to your Lordships is that it is a most satisfying thing to do; and to those who are young I would say, "Do not wait until you grow old; start now".
My Lords, I should like to congratulate Lord Taylor of Gryfe, not only on his speech and the three principles which he enunciated, with which I am in entire agreement, but also on his good fortune in winning the ballot so that this subject could be debated. But, having said that, I think it is disgraceful that this should be the subject of only a mini-debate. I blame the Whips, the Government and the Opposition. There is no excuse, particularly, I think, for the Opposition, who have had more opportunity with (as is generally the rule) Wednesdays at their disposal. Instead, we have had to wait five years, which is when we had our last full debate on forestry. Believe me, my Lords, that has not been for the want of many of us pressing that we should have had a debate a long time ago—and a full-blooded debate, not this mini-debate. What is the result? Several of the most eminent foresters who are to speak after me are limited to a few minutes in giving us their immensely valuable views, and I am equally sure that there are others who have refrained from speaking just because they realise the problems that a mini-debate brings. So, well done Lord Taylor; badly done the Whips and the Government and Opposition Benches! Then, my Lords, this debate is memorable because we have had a maiden speech from Lord Hampden. All I would say about that is that his father, his uncle and his grandfather were all friends of mine, and I know they would have been proud to hear what he said.
My Lords, the fact that we have not had a debate on forestry for five years would

2147
not have mattered, perhaps, if during those five years things had been going smoothly; but they have not. We have heard already of all the upset of the last five years—changes in taxation, and the drop in forestry planting to a third, or perhaps between a third and a half, of what it used to be. Not only that, but, as Lord Taylor said, we have also lost millions and millions of young trees because the growers of young trees in the nurseries just had nobody to buy them, and they had to be dug up and burned. What a shameful story! All right; things are looking a bit better. The Government have at last listened, not to the blandishments or the criticisms of the Treasury but to common sense and to the representations, be they of the Forestry Commission or others.
But there is still one point, as Lord Taylor brought out, which would make a great deal of difference; namely, that the cost value should be at the date of death for the purposes of capital transfer tax. I hope the noble Lord the Leader of the House will think about this and will make representations that we should get it changed. I recognise that, if we get it changed, the private forester will do somewhat better, but he will still be at a disadvantage probably. If he is not, do not be afraid if he is planting a lot. That is just what we are aiming for. What happened before? The private forester was really going places, and the upturn in planting was steady. Who got cold feet? The Treasury said, "This will not do", and the Government said, "This will not do; we must 'clobber' the private forester". Let us net be afraid; let us do the thing right and let us have continuity.
The other day the Minister for Energy told us how he was going to use some of the oil revenues for house insulation purposes. That is splendid. But also, surely, it would be a very wise thing for some of the oil revenues to be used to encourage forestry. At this moment we are suffering from unemployment. Doing this would provide employment. About 30 years' time, when the oil runs out, will just be the time when the trees are requiring either to be thinned or something even further than that. In other words, in every way it is the right thing that we should plant now, and in 30 years there
2148
will be an outcome which will give employment just when it is needed.
The problem if that course were followed would be, perhaps, the problem of finding land. Of course, one way is to pay a lot for it, but that is not very satisfactory, not beyond a point. I think that it would be a very wise thing if the Government, the landowners and the Forestry Commission put their heads together to consider the best way to get more land for forestry purposes. Perhaps there should be some small inducement. That is not a principle which has not already been accepted in other respects. We have seen it in the case of works of art, particularly if it involved public access. Perhaps those owners who can make land available and plant, and who can allow public access, should get some special encouragement. I think the thing which often makes them very frightened is the risk of fire. Perhaps the Government can help them on the insurance side of that. Then, I am sure, many landlords would feel much more ready to open their woods to the public. My Lords, I must sit down. All I want to say in ending is that the aim of all Governments should be to get us up from the present level of only 8 per cent. of our land to double that in the next 10 years.
4.18 p.m.
Earl BATHURST: My Lords, I too, must declare an interest as a forester and sawmill owner, and also as president of the Royal Forestry Society. We have, I suppose, some 4,000 members in all branches of the forestry industry, and also many outside the industry who just have a lot of trees. I join with all your Lordships in thanking Lord Taylor for initiating this debate, and especially for the delightful way, which is entirely fitting to him, in which he brought this subject before your Lordships' House. We must deplore, as Lord Perth has done, the fact that this is the subject of (is it?) a guillotine come 5 o'clock. I think there are Members of your Lordships' House who have come a very long way, at great inconvenience to themselves, to discuss this industry—a small industry but, I believe, a vital industry in national affairs. They have come a long way, and they will probably not be able, in the interests of the industry, to express their views. Nor,

2149
indeed, probably, will the Minister or Lord Taylor, at the most vital point, at the end of the debate, be able to wind it up satisfactorily.
On behalf of the industry—and I believe I can fairly say that—I want to say "Thank you" to Lord Taylor for everything that he did as chairman of the Forestry Commission. He was at one time during his chairmanship really the only friend of the forestry industry in any Government Department. Could I, too, now that Lord Mackie is back in his seat, say that his brother (and here, again, I feel I may fairly say so on behalf of the forestry industry) is treading the very same path that Lord Taylor trod with such care on behalf of the industry. Whether or not in the eyes of the Minister they were good chairmen of the Forestry Commission, I do not know, but they were good friends of the forestry industry and we owe both of them a great debt of gratitude.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said that we import £2,000 million of timber. I think he did not say that we ourselves produce 8 per cent. of that sum; and that that is extra. My pocket calculator will not go that far and I did not have the chance to borrow my son's, but I think I am right in saying that that is £160 million of home-produced timber—a large amount; and one that I believe could be improved upon. It could be increased if there was a Government forestry policy. We have seen it advertised widely. M. Giscard d'Estaing has been over here and has agreed a policy with the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Prime Minister that we are short of power and that a new cable will go down between Dungeness and Calais. That is policy to get over the shortage of power. If we are short of timber, and I believe that we are, and every expert in the business, world-wide, maintains that there will be a shortage of timber, we must have a policy laid down to get over that shortage.
My Lords, I beg to draw to your attention three reports. In view of the shortage of time, I am not going to quote from them. But I hope the noble Lord and his advisers will take these reports out of their mothballs or from their shelves or from where-ever they may be. A Shropshire member of the Royal Forestry Society, on his initiative, produced a booklet entitled
2150
The Forestry Strategy of Great Britain and sent it to all the members. The name of the member who produced the booklet was Mr. Norman Forbes. The first report that he mentioned was the Acland Report of 1917.
I shall have to go back on what I have said about not quoting because the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lovat, is in the House and this report refers to a reservation by his noble and gallant father, who was the father of modern forestry in this country and of the Forestry Commission which is renowned throughout the world. The reservation the noble and gallant Lord's father made to that Acland Report in 1917, shortly, was this:
"Enquiries and reports have been made, Royal Commissions and Departmental committees have sat, money has been voted … yet Great Britain remains the only country in Europe without a forest policy."
It goes on to add:
"… without a State forest and, above all, without a forest authority."
Through his foresight, that has been remedied and, for that reason, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is initiating this debate. The next report referred to by Mr. Forbes is the Robinson Report of 1943, and the next report is that of the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman—he was not so then—in 1957.
I would only suggest that those three reports should be looked at by all concerned with the forestry industry, for every word written therein is as if written yesterday. May I keep your Lordships for one moment on the people who wrote those reports. Sir Francis Acland, Parliamentary Secretary of the Treasury, in 1915, Privy Counsellor in 1915, Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries 1915–1916, and one of the first Forestry Commissioners. The late Lord Lovat, I have already referred to as the first Director General and then chairman of the Forestry Commission from 1919 to 1927. Mr. R. L. Robinson, inspector of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in 1910, and inspector throughout the first World War for the Ministry of Agriculture and then Ministry of Munitions, one of the first Forestry Commissioners on the technical side in 1919, and then director and chairman, from 1932 to 1952, throughout the last war.

2151
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman. If your Lordships will direct yourselves to the 1977 Kelly's in the Library and look at the last entry but three, you will see that Lord Zuckerman is credited with being Professor Emeritus in 1974 of the East Anglia University. There are not many trees in East Anglia, noble Lords might say; but if you direct yourselves to the 1971 Who's Who? on the last page and trouble to read the full half page, I think it would be agreed that there could be no better person in this country, if not in the whole world, to insist upon a forest policy to be put into operation by the Government today and to go on for many years in the future.
My Lords, right through it is policy; it is a forest policy and that is what all bodies of the industry require. This has been put forward by the Royal Forestry Society, by the Forestry Liaison Committee; and the noble Lord has written a letter to that Committee stating that he appreciates the lack of confidence within the industry. That was in 1976. I will not weary you with the contents of that letter; they are well known and referred to by the Forestry Society of Great Britain in their evidence to the Committee looking into forestry taxation. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to look at that letter and that he will be able to draw the attention of his right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture to that letter to see if something can be done to put right the matters which his letter acknowledged are wrong with the forestry industry.
My Lords, in the time available I can only plead, on behalf of all in the industry, that a forest policy is what is needed, that such people as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and the brother of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, Mr. John Mackie, Lord Taylor's successor, are the people to help the industry to design a real policy, outside politics, which will last for the next 200 years. That is what is required.
4.28 p.m.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, time is short and there is certainly none for any long arguments. I shall restrict myself to making one point and one only. Before doing so, I must congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Hampden, who set
2152
us an example not just of clarity but also of brevity, which is so important in these short debates.
My point is fiscal and I have declared my interest many times in your Lordships' House. I am a woodland owner, not on the scale of several others who have declared very large interests; but, if we foresters must admit that the greatest quantities of timber must be looked for in the large woods, I would also claim that some of the best quality hardwoods are found in the smaller woods. They are a very valuable national asset.
Because forestry is a long-term industry, it has been accepted as needing special treatment. Little by little, a code was built up which recognised that character. Taxation, I submit, should discourage early felling and the quick exploitation of immature woods. Instead, it should encourage owners, in the national interest, to take the long view and encourage them to achieve maximum stocking and an ever-improving average quality of their growing stock. All of that leads towards the most valuable yield at the end of the day—and a yield in perpetuity, which no North Sea oilfield or any other oilfield can rival.
Until recently, the taxation of woodlands in this country pointed that way, but then decisions were taken which put matters into reverse. The Conservative Government are certainly not free from blame. I know that the Treasury has always disliked special rules and has been unsuccessful in trying to get a number of different Chancellors since the war to iron out what it would call "anomalies". But, if the Conservative Government are not free from blame, their successors, the Labour Government, took the decisions which undermined the confidence of woodland owners in this country and brought about the halving of the planting rate. I think that I am right in saying that the noble Lord, whom we all respect as Leader of the House, was Minister of Agriculture during that time. I hope that when he replies he will tell us what reasons he had for coming to those decisions which I am sure he deplores just as much as the rest of us.
I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and not just thank him, for the admirable speech in which he put so clearly the point that forestry

2153
is an example of an industry and a mixed economy where the State and the private sectors ought to be able to work in complete harmony and set an example to many other industries in this country where labour relations, economic difficulties and so on are plaguing our lives.
4.32 p.m.
Lord DULVERTON: My Lords, it is less than two years ago since your Lordships had a forestry debate. That was also a short debate on a Motion by my noble friend Lord Lovat. On that occasion, the purpose was to examine the drastic effects on private forestry activity occasioned by the Government's taxation policy and the fall-off in planting which resulted. At that time I had to tell your Lordships that the fall-off in private planting since 1972 (that was four years before) had indicated a decline of 46 per cent. The figure has been referred to again today, showing that in Scotland and Wales, where most of the new planting was taking place, that was an underestimate and it had fallen by 60 per cent. Today, thoughts are running rather wider than the fiscal considerations, although that comes into it.
During that debate in 1976 the voice of one who could have thrown light on the whole situation and its causes had, perforce, to remain silent. Today, the noble Lord who moved this motion must surely be heard with very special attention. As he has reminded us, he was then chairman of the Forestry Commission. In the course of my many contacts and discussions with him over some eventful and worrying years with foresters, I developed the very highest regard—which I know many of your Lordships share—for Lord Taylor's wisdom, fairness and courage. As President of the Timber Growers Organisation, I must declare an interest in this debate. I also have other involvements, and I welcome the noble Lord's initiative and the forthright statements which he can make with so much more authority than I can hope to command.
My colleagues and I have experienced and known the truth of what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, has told the House. I hope and pray that this House and those in another place will heed what
2154
he said, and that appropriate action may be taken as and where this is needed. I could easily fall into the mistake on this occasion of pouring out to your Lordships a whole list of forestry problems and discourse upon them. I will certainly avoid doing so. I am grateful to so many noble Lords who have made the points that I might otherwise have felt necessary to make in this debate, and among them were those raised by my noble friend Lord Hampden. I join others in congratulating him on his fresh and interesting maiden speech and welcome him to the brotherhood of foresters in your Lordships' House.
Some of the subjects that I should like to touch upon which are of concern to us timber growers are as follows. First, I can report to your Lordships that, step by step, the Government have made a number of alterations to the CTT rules in ways that are of practical application to forestry. We are grateful for that. They still need to be further amended, and private forestry will not quickly regain, if it ever does, the lost momentum. The top rate of tax is still terribly high. But we have this matter still under discussion at high level.
But enough about that. There are other matters of which your Lordships should know. Devolution is one of them. Noble Lords have explained that point very clearly. Because it is so important, I should like to add a word. The British forestry industry is very small by European, let alone world standards, and to divide it into three would be something like a disaster, especially as, at this very moment, English, Scots and Welsh foresters are working on plans to draw even closer together. I know Members of another place are aware of the danger and I hope that your Lordships will give thought to this important matter. The present depressed state of the home timber trade is another matter for very serious concern. Over-production, particularly of pulp, paper and chipboard in Europe and Scandinavia is causing a flooding on the market. At the moment the recession in trade and devaluation of foreign currencies has had something to do with it. Our own modern timber processing plants, saw mills, pulp-mills and chipboard manufacturers, comprising a very young industry, one which is seeking to establish itself on what might be termed the fringe

2155
of the world market, is in real danger. It could collapse. One could truthfully say that it will collapse unless there is some form of protection at this stage from cheap imported products.
Now I should like to look to the future. Forestry has gone, as noble Lords have said, through some years of choppy seas which hit it just as it had set its sails as preceding Governments had encouraged and even chided it for years to do. The choppy seas, though somewhat abated, have not subsided, and the ship which almost hove to will not quickly take out the reefs (to continue the nautical metaphor) in its sails and regain its course or its lost momentum. Politics are influenced so often by immediate or short-term desiderata. They chop and change. Forestry cannot conform with such meterology. It is such a long-term consideration and, as other noble Lords have said, forestry is for the next generation of Britons for whom all indications point to a growing shortage of ever more expensive timber.
So I enter the plea that the long-term and stable policy that forestry needs should be worked out for 50 years ahead. My noble friend Lord Bathurst wanted it for longer than that. It should be a long-term policy. Figures have been mentioned: £2,000 million is the bill for our timber imports. We only supply 8 per cent. of our present requirements from home-grown sources. The Forestry Commission think that will rise fairly soon to 12 per cent. On the other hand, production will double so I am not sure where that fits in. However, I do not want to confuse your Lordships with figures; but it could go up. Could the figure be pushed up to 20 per cent. or even 25 per cent.? If so, how? As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said, it will need full partnership between public and private sectors if these higher figures are to be achieved. They can be achieved without impairing agriculture production, and I hope they will.
I am told that the Centre for Agriculture Strategy at Reading University, which is the agricultural arm of the Think Tank, is undertaking a look in depth at the forestry scene in the coming year. My Lords, let us wait for their report, which I am told may be out in September, and by then
2156
let us be ready to work out together a stable course on which the State enterprise and the private sectors may sail together with better defined goals than we have today. Dare I also suggest that a very modest investment of the oil money in the primary products of the land, of which we have so limited a resource, could be one of the best things we ever did?
4.41 p.m.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My Lords, other noble speakers have taken to heart so much the advice and warnings of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that I can hardly do anything else than to prune—or perhaps I should say in the context of this particular debate to brash up—the remarks that I was about to make. So I shall not take up your Lordships' time for any longer than is necessary.
I have listened very carefully to this debate but have heard very little, if any, mention of the problems of the nursery industry. That is obviously quite a point to be considered in the whole context of this very long-lived crop. I venture to suggest that it has the longest production line of any of the industries that we have, and indeed of any in the world. I must first make it clear that I have no interest to declare, unless it be right to declare that I am, by training and profession, a nurseryman. But I must confess that it is a very long way from the bulbs, by which I make my living, to the trees that we are discussing today. I wish to report to your Lordships the situation on the nurseries which I have discovered from a certain amount of correspondence I have received since I expressed an interest in this debate.
As has been said already, there was relative stability between 1950 and 1970. The nurseryman sees himself still as providing the raw material for the forestry industry—the very beginning of the 60-odd year chain from seed to useable timber. In his contention, instability means upset throughout the life of the forest and ultimately, of course, an irregular supply of mature timber: nobody wants that. At the moment there is no stability. The nurserymen's problems are very real, and my correspondents have detailed them much more fully than I am going to expound them today to your Lordships.

2157
We have heard of the drop in plantable trees between 1972 and 1976. I do not know what the figure of saleable trees will be next spring, but I know that the Forestry Commission are placing vast orders for transplants on the Continent because the few that were available from private nurseries this winter have already been contracted for. I should like to look at this and find out the reason for it.
The nurseryman has problems common to any small business and added to those are the difficulties of perishability of the crop and the vagaries of the weather. The selling price of their trees averages four times—and I would ask your Lordships to think of that—what it was 20 years ago. Therefore it has only just kept up with the rate of inflation. However, they are not allowed to trade off the profits of the good years against the lower yields or even the losses of other years. With fiscal drag in the form of income tax, it is becoming increasingly difficult to service the capital required for expansion and replacement of equipment. What they want is exactly the same as the agricultural industry—and reference has been made to this today—has been crying out for: that is, the facility of averaging out their profits over three years. There are other factors which I contend are at least as important.
We debated the Employment Protection Act for many weeks over the last Session and your Lordships no doubt understand its provisions much better than I do; but all of us, I am sure, who work on the land contend that 12 weeks is insufficient for a man to find out whether he has a liking for the work, or for an employer to find out whether a man has an aptitude for it or the necessary sticking power during unpleasant weather conditions. Six months before the provisions of the Act come into force is the least that is required in the agricultural and sylvi-cultural industries. As it is, there is a strong temptation to employ old-age pensioners part-time rather than to employ new full-time labour. I am convinced that this militates against the successful working of this Act.
The impoverished state of sterling has enabled our nurseries to compete with continental suppliers and supply plants to the home market when they were previously bought on the Continent.
2158
They can, and do, export to the Continent on competitive terms, but they have a hidden and ever-increasing cost which will soon make them uncompetitive again whatever the rate of the pound. That is the apparently ever increasing burden of National Insurance contributions—an area where stability is badly needed throughout all our industries and not just in the one we are discussing today.
Another thing which militates against exports has been mentioned time and time again during the European Community debates in your Lordships' House. The marketing regulations for forestry seeds and plants are applied to the letter here by the Ministry of Agriculture but are used only as guidelines, it would appear, by continental Ministries. It is the feeling of our nurserymen that on the Continent this provision is largely ignored and therefore makes the competition unequal. As I said, not only does this militate against exports but it has an effect which is directly opposite to the stated intention of the Treaty of Rome: that is to equalise trade among all nations in the Common Market.
To go back to the situation this winter, as I have said, there are not enough transplants coming from the nurseries. I am told that that is because the nurserymen are being very cautious about sowing more seed. They do not want a repetition of the 1972–73 wholesale bonfire "epidemic" when so many transplants were unsold and therefore had to be burned to make room for the following year's crops. Last summer, 1976, saw decreased germination due to the drought. There were also large losses of mature and semi-mature trees in forests and parks, due partly to the drought, partly to Dutch elm disease and partly to the noticeable increase in pests, especially rabbits and deer.
I have an unconfirmed report of a revived interest in forestry. If that is so—and I have certainly heard nothing to confirm it from the speakers in this debate—I believe it can only be a flash in the pan. But I accept that the reintroduction of the small woodland grant, ungenerous though it is, has something to do with it.
I should like to make one further point. There is one area in which I feel successve Governments have failed. The original dedication scheme stated as its object, if

2159
I understand it correctly, the reinstating of woodlands after the depredations of the two world wars; but that does not appear to have happened, as is seen by the large number of old, unproductive, semi-scrub woodlands, vis-à-vis the large new plantations which have in part been encouraged by the dedication schemes. What is wanted is a grant specifically for clearing unproductive woodlands and also for felling dead trees in hedgerows. However, I expect it is too much to ask the Government at this late stage to do anything about reversing their policy and to give financial help to landowners over the felling of dead elms. But I do call on the Government for a long-term stable policy, like all others who have spoken in this debate, and I would urge them to start at the beginning of the chain rather than part of the way through. Planting, I contend, is not the beginning.
4.49 p.m.
Lord LOVAT: My Lords, I shall not waste very much of your time but I should like to bring out three points on which other speakers have touched but possibly not faced up to entirely. They are three points which I think could draw answers from the Minister, on one of which he could be helped out by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, himself, who made such an admirable speech this afternoon. The first concerns home-grown timber and the marketing thereof. Several speakers have pointed out that the price of timber has not moved with the times. Has anybody sufficiently emphasised the balance of payments in this country, which are surely creating a problem? I do not think that the Government are giving their full support to home-grown timber.
Perhaps they do not know the problems involved. Having been a county councillor for many years, I know what their answer will be; that is, that local builders and anybody in local government who is connected with the building trade—certainly, in the North of Scotland—say that timber is too green, and is therefore unsuitable for housing and all the other things for which it could well be required. Our traditional markets are shrinking all the time. The railway sleeper trade was of immense importance for mature Scots fir, and we now find that, even in the
2160
mines, pit props are no longer serviceable. I suggest to the Government that they think seriously of kiln drying, which would obviate this danger. It is something which must be thought about very seriously, if home-grown timber is to be seen at its best and profitably used by public bodies.
May I illustrate the situation in the North of Scotland, where most timber is available and should be grown in greater quantities? My estate is only 70 miles from the pulp mill in Fort William, but, owing to the difficult nature of the terrain, the cost of transport to get my pulped wood 70 miles down the Great Glen, on what is a very good road, is prohibitive, and to sell at a profit I have to send it to Gothenberg in Sweden. There it makes a very small amount of money, which pays for the thinning of large woods which would otherwise be left lying on the ground. This can hardly be right, and I beg the Government to consider that timber is one of our greatest imports. I do not think that they fully understand this, although I made the point two years ago when I inaugurated a debate.
On the second point that I want to make, I cross swords with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. He rightly said that there are vast areas of desert in the Highlands. That may be true, but two years ago I asked for guidance on a grant for getting timber to grow in those desert areas. There was a very generous grant on Caldedonian pine—that comprised the ancient forest which covered the whole of the North, in which only wolves and bad men lived—but in 18 months I have had no reply on how to get that grant, although I can buy the plants which constitute Caledonian forest fir. This is an example of the topsy-turvy and uncoordinated state of the timber industry in this country.
My third point was made by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie. He made a very good speech and told of how cattle and sheep depend on warmth and shelter belts, which put up their temperature and help them through a severe winter, especially when there is wet weather and sleet, which are worse for cattle and sheep than snow or hard frost. The Forestry Commission are very grudging about this. Private landowners accept the fact that when trees reach a certain

2161
stage they can be opened. At 40 years old, after the second thinning, it is perfectly safe to put cattle and sheep under trees even if the natural regeneration may to some extent suffer. To a forester, natural regeneration means too slow a growth in this competitive age of timber growing. You have to make a clean fell and plant again.
The last days of thinning are in sight; it is clean felling now and a fresh crop. When you have trees which are 40 years old, and you cut them at 60 when they should be reasonably mature, I see no reason why the Forestry Commission should not open their fences and let in cattle and sheep, and red deer as well. I do not mention red deer because of any sporting interest, but because they are now more profitable than sheep farming. The fat stag shipped to the Continent in September is worth £250, if it weighs more than 15 stones, and that is almost as much as 20 sheep in the same market. The deer have suffered from the work of the Forestry Commission. They are kept out and live on the hill in the summer, and they have nowhere to go in the winter, so they become nomads and thereby destroy farming, which illustrates that farming and forestry must go closely together. I hope that the Government will consider those three points, because they are all important.
4.55 p.m.
Lord ENERGLYN: My Lords, I shall occupy your Lordships' time for precisely two minutes. I must first declare an interest. I have been working for the last four years with Hungarians who have been processing materials which some would call coal, others would call brown coal and the Scots would call peat. We are now able to show that, by certain processes utilising these materials, we can control the pests that are wiping out many of our trees; in particular, the Dutch elm.
But of greater significance is the fact that we have now had our tests going sufficiently long to be able to claim—and I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, who has just sat down—that the growth rate of conifers can be accelerated three times by the use of this fertiliser. This could create in this country, particularly in the Highlands, a new way of processing peat and low-grade coal to accelerate the growth rate of trees, and,
2162
at the same time, to have trees which are not subjected to pathogenic fungi.
4.56 p.m.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I think that this has been a good debate, despite what the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said, if he will forgive my saying so. Even though the debate has been short, we have had some fine speeches, I think because there are so many noble Lords in your Lordships' House who know the industry and speak with authority. If the noble Earl wishes to have a larger debate, then it is up to him to put his name down and speak to some of his colleagues. Naturally, I shall then look at the matter and see whether we can find time. But, at least, your Lordships have had one debate in my time.
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, if I may just comment on that, many people have tried—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and various others have tried—with no result. The only debate that we have had in the five years was a short debate which paid particular attention to taxation. There is no doubt in my mind that, if we had been able to have a full debate today, we should have been able to get very much greater advantage out of it.
Lord PEART: My Lords, that is problematic. Sometimes, short debates can be extremely effective, and this has been an effective debate. I wish to thank my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe for giving us the opportunity to discuss forestry. I believe I am right in saying that this was a maiden speech on forestry for him, who, when Chairman of the Forestry Commission, was precluded under the Addison Rules from speaking on this subject. Therefore, I am grateful that we should have had the benefit of his experience not only in the public sector, but also, more recently, in the private sector. He certainly served the nation well, and under his leadership the Forestry Commission did some splendid things, despite criticism.
I should also like to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Hampden, on a delightful maiden speech. We wish him well. I hope that he will continue to participate in our debates on agriculture

2163
and forestry. I was pleased that he raised some important points in relation to the replanting programme, as a result of elm disease, and also in relation to the control of pests. Only the other day I was down at Chequers looking at some of the woodlands there, and I could see where pest control was needed in certain parts. It is a problem for many foresters. The noble Viscount also put forward the interesting idea that we should think about landscaping our parks, and should include this in our education system. The noble Viscount showed that he has new ideas, and I hope that he will pursue these with the Forestry Commission. I shall inform not only the Forestry Commission of this debate—they are represented here and are watching—but also the Ministers concerned in the different Ministries; for example, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Secretary of State for Wales, and the English Minister of Agriculture as well.
At the outset, I should like to stress that both private and public sector forestry have an important part to play in the economy of the country. We have seen a steady expansion and the establishment of forestry since the war. There have, of course, been peaks and troughs but British forestry is now firmly based and can, I think, look forward to the future with optimism.
The Forestry Commission has been working steadily to fulfil the objectives set for it by successive Governments. Since 1972, it has been given as its commercial aim a target rate of return of 3 per cent. in real terms, after taking subsidies into account. I am happy to say that in their next annual report, the Commissioners will be reporting that this target has been marginally exceeded over the last five years. Harvesting revenue has, of course, made a most important contribution, mainly due to increased prices in the world wood market; this has compared with the relatively lower increases in the cost of forestry operations.
The Commission works to an annual programme set by the previous Administration and endorsed by this Government of up to 55,000 acres of planting and restocking combined. It has achieved an average of 53,200 acres a year over the
2164
past five years, of which more than three-quarters has been in Scotland. The noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, raised with me the question of reports. His speech was, I found, extremely interesting and effective. The Acland Report of 1918, the White Paper on Post-War Forest Policy of 1943 and the 1957 Zuckerman Report, to which the noble Earl referred, were important milestones in the development of British forestry policy. Indeed, the Government's present policy relates to the past but rests on the foundations laid by those earlier reports. The target of 5 million acres of woodland by the end of the century set by Acland and endorsed in the Forestry Commission's 1943 White Paper, although never officially adopted by the Government, is likely to be achieved well before that date. In earlier days, areas were expressed in acres, but as forestry is now metricated, from here onwards I shall refer to hectares.
The level of new planting by the private sector has fluctuated more widely, and although the Government do not attempt to set targets for private planting—this would not be appropriate as it is the accumulation of many individual management and financial decisions—they carefully watch the position. I know that over the past five years the trend has been downwards, with a very sharp fall in 1974–75 and 1975–76. But the Government are alive to the implications and are anxious that the private sector should play its proper part in the production of timber for industry.
Certain questions were raised about taxation by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and, indeed, by the spokesman for the Opposition, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. The Government have tackled this problem, and noble Lords have paid tribute to what they have done, but it will be against the background of the important changes that have been made that my right honourable friend will have to consider whether any further relief of the kind suggested by noble Lords is justified. I think that the points which have been raised on taxation should be carefully and sympathetically considered by the Government, and I shall certainly make the necessary representations. In this connection, I understand that the Forestry Commission of Great Britain have written

2165
to my right honourable friend welcoming the changes he announced in October but asking for further modifications.
The interdepartmental review of forestry taxation and grants set up by my right honourable friend the Minister of State at the Treasury, led to a decision being taken, and the Government's announcement, to which I have referred, has helped. This will be welcomed by all involved in forestry. The changes that were made then have already had a beneficial effect on confidence and I think that confidence should be further increased by the substantial improvement in the Schedule 9 arrangements announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his October Statement. He stated that the CFI business relief should in future apply to deferred charges under Schedule 9. This means that in most cases the eventual charge on disposals of timber will be reduced by 50 per cent. or more. This radical improvement should remove any justification for fears that CTT will have an adverse effect in the future.
Forestry programmes depend at the end of the day on suitable land becoming available for planting, and this rough grazing land is in the hills and uplands, especially of Scotland. I have noted carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, has said, and I shall take up his point with the Minister. I thought that the noble Lord made a very constructive contribution to the debate; he knows the industry so well. I was intrigued by the noble Lord's export of timber to Gothenburg in Sweden. We shall have to look at that. If an export of that kind is profitable, why should it not take place? However, I shall not develop that argument.
Lord BURTON: My Lords—
Lord PEART: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, my reply to the debate must be kept short.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say that I gather that the market has now dried up.
Lord PEART: My Lords, then I shall have to speak to the noble Lord, Lord Lovat. There is scope for the further expansion of forestry in England and Wales, although it is much more limited.
2166
The Forestry Commission is currently studying future planting prospects in these countries and trying to form an estimate of the proportion of land which might be transferred to forestry over the years ahead. Until these studies are complete, one can only speculate that visual amenity considerations and the agricultural requirements, together with such problems as those of common land, are likely to restrict the land available to a small fraction of that which might become available in Scotland.
In Scotland, the Forestry Commission has made an assessment of the extent of the land which is technically suitable for planting. At present, much of it is used for upland grazing and there has been a great deal of discussion about the desirable total forest area, the likely future new planting rate needed to achieve it and its impact upon agricultural production from the hills. Some of the calls for very large total forest estates, involving forestry programmes of hundreds of thousands of hectares a year, are clearly far too grandiose and, on examination, prove to be unrealistic on almost every count.
On the other hand, prophets of doom about the future of forestry are likely to be proved wrong by the resilience of the forestry industry and the flexibility of our Government's policies towards their needs. I shall not put forward estimates of my own, because public discussion of this matter by experts is still continuing. As all foresters know, we are dealing with very long time-scales, in which circumstances and economic forces, as we have seen in the last few years, can rapidly change.
It is vital, however, that forestry expansion takes account both of the agricultural circumstances and the environmental needs, and it is most important that the procedures which have been carefully formulated for transferring land from agriculture to forestry are given a chance to work. Your Lordships will perhaps forgive me for stressing what is perhaps an obvious point; namely, that good land use must be the main aim in determining the allocation of land between forestry and agriculture.
Arguments have been put forward for expanding forestry in this country so as to reduce our dependence on imported

2167
timber and timber products for which we are paying some £2,000 million a year. Within the constraints of land availability and the need to maintain food production, it is the Government's policy that forestry should continue to expand at a reasonable rate. Such an expansion will, in due course, help to reduce imports, but new planting now will not affect production until the beginning of the next century.
Until that time, output will be determined by production goals from our existing forests. Hardwood production is expected to remain at about 1 million cubic metres a year for the rest of the century, and although the value of this production is by no means negligible the expansion will be in softwoods. Latest forecasts show that output capacity of softwoods will more than double by the turn of the century, by which time the Forestry Commission itself will be producing nearly 75 per cent. of British softwood. Expansion will be so rapid that both the public and private sectors will face a major challenge to harvest and market this timber.
To achieve the full potential production will require the close co-operation of the Commission, private growers and trade and industry which I know the Forestry Commission will be encouraging to the fullest extent. This is important if we are to achieve the maximum possible increase in timber production to feed the wood using industries. In this context I welcome the recent decision by the Government to support the expansion of the Workington mill of the Thames Board Mills Company. I know that it is in my old constituency but I did not influence the decision. It was an honourable decision taken by the Department.
In view of my interest in the Thames Board Mills Company at Workington, the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, asked me whether I would use my influence to secure a mill in County Durham, and especially at Hartlepool, which he mentioned. I used to go to school at Hartlepool and I saw the area quite recently when I was looking into another matter regarding the use of dispersal policy to provide work for people on Teesside. I will take note of what the noble Viscount has said, but he must realise that large quantities of wood are required to make a pulp-mill
2168
viable, and I am advised by the Forestry Commission that we shall not be in a position yet to establish any new ones, perhaps even for a decade or so. For the present, increasing timber supplies can best be utilised in extension of existing mills. I mentioned one in Cumberland, but nevertheless I will bring to the attention of the Ministers the point raised by the noble Viscount.
No debate on forestry would be complete without a reference to the wood market, with which the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, dealt, and to recent developments which have affected United Kingdom processors. The duration and intensity of the recent recession has presented problems not experienced previously and many wood processing industries have been forced to reduce their production level and their wood intake. The Government are concerned to reverse this trend and the measures announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in October included special emphasis on increasing activity in the building and construction industry. I hope that these measures will help to increase the demand for wood and wood products.
I have concentrated up to now on forestry's role as a producer of timber, which is, of course, its ultimate objective, but it also has an important part to play in the rural economy. In national terms forestry's contribution to employment in rural areas, while comparatively modest is nevertheless significant. There are some 21,000 jobs in forestry in Great Britain (split almost evenly between the public and private sectors) and over 14,000 jobs in industries using homegrown timber. While increasing mechanisation decreases labour demand, forestry is still relatively labour intensive and can increase local employment with advantage to the local economy. In addition the creation of new forests and, later, harvesting the timber, often bring to rural areas with extensive pastoral farming, a diversification of the local economy in which a number of families become dependent on an altogether different industry from agriculture.
Another contribution to the rural scene is the development of the Forestry Commission's recreation schemes on which the Government places special emphasis. These provide employment and

2169
other benefits to the local communities and also afford new opportunities for the millions who each year visit the Commission's forests, often staying at its camping and caravan or cabin sites.
I know that the subject of devolution is one that is very much in your Lordships' mind and I know that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, warned me that he was going to raise this matter. We shall shortly be considering the Government's proposals for the devolution of certain matters, including forestry, after they have been considered in another place. Under the proposals contained in the two devolution Bills, forestry and afforestation, both public and private, are devolved subjects. I know that the House will understand that it will not be appropriate for me to enter into a debate at this stage on the details of these proposals or how they affect forestry.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, may I just ask the noble Lord whether he can say whether or not my interpretation of this is correct, because the forestry industry is very concerned about it.
Lord PEART: I know, my Lords; that is why I thought the reply I gave would satisfy the noble Earl. I understand that he thinks it is crazy, but I cannot go beyond that.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, it is only crazy if what I thought was correct. What I want to know is whether what I thought was correct.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am sorry, but I cannot go further than what I have said, much as I would like to. I know that the private forestry sector is very interested in possible developments in the EEC. We had a slight reference to this. The House will be aware, however, that there is no common EEC forestry policy, and one could not be introduced without an amendment to the Treaty of Rome. I do not think I need go into detail about that. But a number of our colleagues are interested in this matter, and, of course, your Lordships' Scrutiny Committee had a report which was debated in this House on 6th February 1975 when the Government took a view on the special Directive which came out of Brussels. That is all I can say on that aspect.
2170
Finally, I might perhaps answer calls which have been made for a definitive statement of long-term forestry policy by the Government. Naturally, we recognise that there is a need for long-term confidence as the basis of investment by the private woodland owners. The nature and time-scale of forestry activity form a unique combination and although much of Great Britain is specially favoured for growing trees in the temperate zone we are talking about a crop rotation of about 50 years for softwood. The time-scale for broad leaved trees is considerably longer.
Any change in policy therefore takes several years to produce any perceptible effect and this is why full-scale reviews for forestry have occurred and should occur only infrequently. It is however accepted that within the framework established by the major reviews there is a need to consider at suitable intervals and in the light of development the emphasis given to various aspects of the task.
The Interdepartmental Review of Forestry Taxation and Grants was such an examination, and as the Government said in announcing the outcome of that review these measures should provide a suitable framework within which the industry can operate and we shall want to see how they work out before contemplating any further changes or any further reviews of policy. The purpose of the new measures which we have introduced is to restore a measure of confidence to the private forestry sector. This, I am sure, is already happening.
The Forestry Commissioners are about to report on their first five years of operation since the review in 1972 and I believe that the results are likely to suggest that the policies set out for the public sector are workable and effective. As I said in my opening remarks, I think that British forestry can look to the future with a good deal of optimism.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, referred to delays in clearing the land for forestry. The Government rightly attach great importance to the need to examine carefully the impact of forestry proposals on agriculture and the environment. The procedures therefore involve consultation with the agricultural Departments and local authorities. The conditions of entry

2171
to the dedication scheme recognise that assessments cannot be made overnight by allowing up to three months in normal cases for consultation with local authorities. In the vast majority of cases, clearance can be given within that time limit. My Lords, I am afraid my time is up. I cannot reply to every point, but I promise noble Lords who raised valid points, like the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, that I will take note and will write to them.
5.20 p.m.
Lord TAYLOR of GRYFE: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken I should like to pay tribute to the noble Viscount, Lord Hampden, for his maiden speech and particularly his encouraging references to the work being done by his local authority in conservation and replanting. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, indicated that growing trees tended to be the pursuit of old men, and I think he must have been encouraged by the presence of the noble Viscount, Lord Hampden, and the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who are the younger Members of this House who have spoken this afternoon. I should like to say thank you again to noble Lords who have made kindly references to myself and to my work with the Forestry Commission, and to say that I very much enjoyed everything I did and was grateful for the opportunity of doing something so worth while and so rewarding in its effect.
We were fortunate to have in the House today the experience and knowledge of practising foresters, and I am quite sure that the debate we have had will contribute greatly to the wisdom of the Government in looking at forestry in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, and the noble Earls, Lord Bradford and Lord Bathurst, are not only active practising foresters in their own right, but they also daily engage in the politics of forestry, if you like, and I wish them well in the structuring of the private forestry sector so that their voices may be more effectively heard. The noble Lord the Leader of the House may not welcome reference to the fact that I would hope that forestry one of these days will become as effective a lobby as is the NFU, and I wish them well in their efforts towards that end.
2172
May I also wish well my successor, John Mackie, who has all the qualities, and has already gained tremendous respect in the industry as leader of the Forestry Commission. Finally, may I say that when chairman of the Forestry Commission I always had support and encouragement from the noble Lord, Lord Peart, when he was Minister of Agriculture. He had some decisions to take during his period of office which were perhaps not the most acceptable decisions for the forestry industry, but I can speak personally in saying that my relations with him as Minister were always on a very happy, friendly and encouraging basis. I am quite sure that the House will very much welcome the assurance he gave this afternoon to the effect that forestry can look forward to the future with a good deal of confidence. In so far as the debate this afternoon has contributed towards that end, I am happy now to beg leave to withdraw the Motion standing in my name.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

DOGS AND PUBLIC HEALTH
5.23 p.m.
Lord DE CLIFFORD Lord DE CLIFFORD rose to call attention to the increasing prohibition by local authorities of the use of parks and open spaces for the exercising of dogs by their owners on the grounds of risk to public health which cannot be justified on the known facts; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I bring this matter before the House because after the mass banning of dogs in parks in Burnley a flood of protests came to my attention, and subsequently it was drawn to my attention that there were some 30 other councils who intended to do, or were going to try to do, the same thing. The problem which has brought about this intensive effort to ban dogs from public parks in towns appears to have arisen originally over a report by a Professor Woodruff which indicated that there was a considerable degree of risk to health from a worm called toxicara canis
My Lords, this is a most emotive subject. In this country, I suppose, about one in every three families owns a dog, and a large number of them live in very close

2173
urban populations. In discussing this matter I should like to draw a very clear division between the reason for banning dogs which is the question of fouling and the reason for banning dogs which is the question of health. I do not propose to discuss at any great length the fouling of footways by dogs; I should like to concentrate more on health, because at the moment whenever this matter is discussed it may be said that the health side gets submerged in the fouling side.
When we discuss the health hazard I think we must recognise, first, that dogs have been with us for many years; secondly, we should also recognise that it is now known that one can suffer health hazards from dogs. In the way of worms we have toxicara canis, we have the hookworm and the whipworm. We can go further than that; we can find ourselves under hazard from five types of salmonella. We can go even further than that; we can get ringworm and other forms of disease which I need not go into. But if you look at it in that way it astonishes me that there are many of us who are walking about healthy today.
If all these hazards are there and we can get these diseases, have we any estimates as to what additional burden on the National Health Service is caused by the breeders of dogs, the keepers of kennels, hound kennels—bassett, fox or any others—the greyhound fraternity, the keepers of gun dogs, or, if you like to go to the largest area of owners of dogs in this country, the farmers. If the propaganda which is put across by people who dislike dogs is correct, the burden on the National Health Service from all this large ownership of dogs, quite apart from the private owners of dogs, should be a tremendous one, but I have as yet to discover that this complaint has ever been made.
The original report on which all this business of health hazard was built up was really a very moderate report. If read in what I call a rather clinical way, it was most interesting; unfortunately, it was seized on by a number of people who transmitted it to the media and it made a very good story. From that moment onwards the people who dislike dogs—and I must admit there are a large number, but I myself am not among them—have used every opportunity to hamper and denigrate the value of dogs. Dogs have an enormous amount
2174
of value. Not only are they useful at work, they are also great companions; they give a sense of protection to elderly people who live by themselves. They are of assistance to health in a large number of cases. One of the greatest causes of deaths in this country is heart disease, and the regular exercise which the ownership of a dog entails, if it is to be looked after properly, is of great value. There are a large number of people who, where dogs are banned, find themselves in very great difficulties because they are not in a position, being rather elderly, to take regular exercise.
When we think about it, there are also a great number of people who suffer from the attempts to ban dogs in parks and public places. Many of us remember that not so long ago we fought a war for freedom. The banning of the use of public parks by a third of the population at any one time seems a gross interference with the freedom of the individual. Moreover, it is a source of great feeling and works up in local towns situations where law suits and goodness knows what else are pending. No one says that councils do not have the power to ban dogs for health reasons. However, if one looks through all the statistics on health, nowhere can one find that there are any facts which support that allegation.
The biggest health menace, if we can call it a health menace, is the toxicara canis. Unless we are to do away with the dog population altogether, that will never be eliminated. We must reduce the possibility of passing the infection, especially to children who are most vulnerable. No one would object to dogs being banned from playgrounds where children have a right, and a priority, to go. The Working Party on Dogs set up by the Department of the Environment specifically said that it had not been able to discover any risk from the ownership of dogs. However, it recommended that they should be kept away from children's playgrounds. This is one recommendation with which I entirely agree. I think that we can discount all the minor ailments which are caused by dogs. Recently there have been many surveys on dog ownership and whether people have been made ill through handling and owning dogs. The result appears to be that there are a very small number of such cases. Far more cases of

2175
illness are caused from human to human contact than there have been, or can be contemplated, from the ownership of a dog.
There is another side to the picture. One must admit that there are a number of people who do not like dogs. I know quite a few such people, and I would never dream of taking a dog of mine to the home of someone who I know dislikes dogs. I would not take my dog to where such a person was exercising and so on. However, all dog owners must realise that the dog population has, at times, become completely out of control. We have for many years had over-breeding of dogs. The production of dogs has become a commercial business and the sales pressure on the population has been very high. The dog breeders have been greatly responsible for creating a standard whereby it is socially acceptable in one year to keep an Afghan hound and a couple of years later a beagle, and so on. That is one of the worst sides of the dog population.
We cannot do without dogs. However, we must see that elementary precautions are taken to ensure that we do not expose children or the population to health hazards. I have been into this matter extremely carefully. Dealing with toxicara canis, which is the worst hazard, I feel that everyone who owns a bitch which is going to have a litter of puppies must be absolutely certain that they know the correct drill. The people who like dogs, who are members of dogs societies, dog clubs, dog training and obedience classes, and clubs which hold shows—indeed, people who have anything to do with places where dogs are organised—must concentrate on conveying to everyone that the main source of infection is from the suckling bitch.
The veterinary profession is there to help. There must be regular worming of dogs. Once that is done the reduction of the risk will be enormous. It might well be contemplated by the Government that if, by any chance, they do take some action on the recommendations of the Working Party on Dogs, they might consider including in that action a requirement that before the issue of a licence, when puppies are sold, there should be a certificate from a veterinary surgeon stating that those puppies have been wormed.
It must be brought to the attention of all dog-owning and dog-caring people that there are people who do not like dogs and who do not wish the dog population to grow. Dog owners must not allow other people to suffer from their own thoughtless actions. If that is accomplished we shall reach a situation where the basic ownership of dogs is by people who love their dogs, care for their dogs and who will ensure that they do not become the casual stray, fouling the streets and generally disrupting the traffic and the life of an urban population. When the owners do that we shall be a long way towards solving the situation.
Meanwhile, there must be give and take. Let the local authorities join in with everyone who is trying to educate dog owners as regards how to behave and look after their dogs, and not impose these bans which affect the elderly whose life companion is probably their dog. If such bans are imposed, as in Burnley, many of those elderly people will be put in a position where they cannot exercise their dogs, due to their age, infirmities and other local hazards. Please, let us ask the Government to make quite sure, before they approve any further local orders allowing the banning of dogs, that, first, the whole of the local town clearly knows that this ban has been imposed—which was not the case, in fact, in Burnley—and, secondly, that they can make out an absolutely iron case before the Minister confirms such an order. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.40 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I am sure that the House is very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, for having raised this subject. One can talk about dogs lightheartedly, passionately, full of affection or with deep prejudice. It is a subject on which apparently there is now a pro and an anti lobby, both expressing themselves in strong language.
I think that I should explain my credentials for having trespassed on the time of the House on this subject when I am already allotted further time later on another subject affecting animals; namely, horses. At the conclusion of our proceedings before the Christmas Recess we seem to be going through an animal

2177
phase. We have discussed otters; yesterday it was sheep, today it is dogs and a little later on today it will be horses; in between we have discussed trees.
About two years ago the British Small Animals Veterinary Association brought together all the voluntary bodies who had an interest in dogs—especially the aspect of dogs in society as part of our domestic scenery and our social life—in order to study the problems that seem to be arising from our very large dog population and the strong feelings that were developing about the nuisance and health hazards of some aspects of dog behaviour. They asked me whether I would become chairman and I consented.
For the first time, almost by a miracle, all the voluntary bodies of any substance in the area of canine welfare came together. Noble Lords will know that in the sphere of voluntary service, whether it is in human or animal welfare, one encounters the most dedicated and the most difficult people it is possible to meet. But we held together with a common purpose to try to work out some scheme which might solve the problems that we had to consider.
We were encouraged in our work because we had hardly begun when the Secretary of State for the Environment appointed an inter-departmental committee—the Working Party on Dogs—to traverse the same ground. So we then devoted ourselves to the preparation of evidence to be given to that working party, which was under the chairmanship of an official of the Department of the Environment by the name of Mr. Batho. Therefore, we really became a body representative of the canine world to give evidence to this working party. At the end of the day, when the report of the working party was completed, we were gratified to find that it had adopted many of our suggestions. Now we are awaiting Government action on the recommendations of the working party.
If anyone treats dogs lightheartedly, he or she has only to talk of the dog licence fee to realise that we are in politics in a very big way. When I was a member of the Government, the late Mr. Crossman brought forward a whole list of antiquated licence fees for various things which had been in existence for many years—for
2178
example, ferrymen, coachmen, and other historical survivals of the period when we taxed everything that we could lay our hands on, including windows. These licence fees—many of them only two shillings or two shillings and sixpence a year—were quite out of date and it was proposed that they should be substantially increased. I believe that we increased them right across the board with one exception—dogs. That was too hot a potato to touch at that time with a majority of three in the House of Commons, and with the RSPCA uttering, quite properly, the warning, "Who will deal with the consequences of any substantial increase in the dog licence fee? We are a Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, not a Royal society for the destruction of Britain's unwanted dogs". That caused us to pause and to consider whether, just like that, we had better touch the dog licence fee at all. We decided that we should not. It has remained untouched to this day.
One of the proposals of the working party is to link the dog licence fee with other proposals regarding dog and social welfare, so that the whole area can be dealt with as one. Dog owners will then understand why they are being asked to pay more, and for what. That is all very sensible and I thought that great wisdom was shown by the various departmental representatives on the working party.
What is proposed? Basically, it is a universal dog warden system in urban areas which are above a certain size. A duty would be imposed on local authorities to have such a service, and a substantial part of its cost would fall upon the dog licence fee. It would involve transferring to the local authority, with the dog warden scheme, a number of powers which are now in the hands of the police. The idea behind all this is that there would be a designated officer who could help the community to regulate the behaviour and the control of dogs.
The suggestion was also made that we should tighten up the payment of the licence fee. None of us really believes that the number of people paying the dog licence fee represents the total number of dog owners throughout the country. The fee seems to be too small for people to bother to pay, and there is no doubt

2179
that there is widespread evasion of it at present. Therefore, it may be that dogs should carry some evidence that they have been legitimised by the payment, on their behalf, of the dog licence fee. All this is in the report of the working party, and I have no doubt that noble Lords who are interested in this subject have already studied the proposals. The particular question is: Where do we go from here? When shall we embark on this new deal, as it were, this more civilised provision for dogs to live in close proximity with human beings in urban areas?—where there can be a good deal of quite proper objection to nuisance and possibly to health hazards caused by dogs.
The particular matter that the noble Lord has raised is one aspect of the whole problem. A local authority apparently has powers under a general provisions Act to introduce a by-law which excludes dogs from public places. In this case the statutory announcement was published in the local Press that the council had passed the necessary resolution and were applying to the Minister for the necessary sanction to the introduction of the by-law. But, of course, few people read the small print, and even if they read it they did not quite know what it meant. Then one day—all of a sudden, as it were—dogs found themselves excluded from public parks. Their owners were forbidden entry, and those who tried to go in were stopped. Then people began to demonstrate and lead their dogs into the park in protest. The local authority said, "We are not putting up with this. We are not having anarchy as well as dogs, and we really must bring law and order into the community, having fulfilled our statutory obligations."
There has been such a rumpus indeed that some people have been lying very low in this controversy in this particular area. But still it can happen elsewhere, and I understand that other Bills that will later come before your Lordships' House will contain powers to apply for by-laws of a similar kind. It may be that this exclusion of dogs from public places may spread like wildfire, and dogs will be protesting, as well as their owners, all over the country at being excluded from their playgrounds. But it is quite a serious matter. Elderly people in this particular
2180
area were complaining that they could not go into a park to which they could walk, but were told that they could exercise their dogs in another part of publicly-owned property that was almost a bus ride away. I need not dwell on the state of mind of a great many people in this particular area. It was mentioned a moment ago by the noble Lord, and it would be sad if that were repeated in other towns in the near future.
The dog warden system, while not solving all the problems, would at least be able to advise people on the care of dogs, responsible ownership, dogs on leads, how to behave with a dog, and also deal with this grievous problem of stray dogs, abandoned dogs, and other distressing aspects of dog ownership. There is an enormous area of consideration here: breeding; pet shops; puppies being sold we do not know what for. I have seen advertisements in papers in Wales, "Puppies bought. Any quantity. Best prices. Will come and look at them". You wonder what they are all being bought for and where they are going. In many cases they are hardly fit to be taken away from their mothers. The Kennel Club, the National Canine Defence League, and other bodies concerned with the welfare of dogs have put forward many proposals to reduce the abuses of animals which take place in this as well as in other fields.
We have had contact—and I shall not detain the House more than two minutes more—with the Minister. His difficulty at the moment is to find the necessary legislative time to introduce a Bill on this subject. We have been considering whether there is any interim step that could be taken that would at least meet some of the problems in the meantime. I would, however, urge that the Government should regard this as an important matter upon which large numbers of people are highly sensitive, and upon which something ought to be done rather urgently. Otherwise, the two sides of the co-called "dog lobby" will drift further apart. The sooner we can bring the dog into society on terms which are acceptable to the community, and endurable to the dog owner, and make for a better life for many dogs in the community at the present time, the better. So I hope that my noble

2181
friend who is to reply later will be able to give some reassurances on these points.
My final word is this: all Governments have tended to regard some subjects as unsuitable for Government legislation but very suitable for what is called the Private Member's Bill. My former colleagues in another place will know that if you wait for reforms first to go through the hazard of the ballot, you can ballot for 10 years for a Private Member's Bill in another place and not come out high enough in the list to get any effective consideration of your Bill.
Fancy important reforms having to depend on a ballot which is no better than a football pool! That is not the way to run a country. That is not the way to legislate. Many good Bills have fallen by the wayside because, even though you get them through, even though you get a Second Reading without a Division, and even though it goes to the Committee upstairs and the Bill is substantially unamended and comes back to the Floor of the House, you find yourself on the final Friday for Private Members' Bills and the "chopper" is going to fall at 4 o'clock; and it only requires one, two or three persons to get up and talk and talk just long enough to wait for the clock to strike four and that Bill is dead.
This is a reproach to Parliament. I hope that the Government will take on board as a Government responsibility, and not as a Private Member's responsibility, legislation dealing with important social questions. There are millions of dogs; millions of dog owners; and millions of people in retirement. Woe betide any Government who make it more difficult for lonely people to keep their companion dog. I believe that Governments must assume their responsibilities. I hope that they will have courage and not regard this as a sideshow. There are many matters, if I may say so with great respect to another place, that they are discussing at the present time which scarcely take precedence over an important social matter of this kind. I sincerely hope that this message will go through to Ministers, and that this House will show, by its interest in the debate now, that we are dealing with a serious matter that requires serious attention from Her Majesty's Government.
5.57 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, I too should like to thank my noble friend Lord de Clifford for having introduced this debate, and also for the detailed and interesting way in which he has introduced it. Let me say what a great pleasure it is to follow the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and be in total agreement with everything he has said. I think that this must be the first time that such a pleasure has come my way. Let me also say how thoroughly disgusted I am with both noble Lords who have spoken before me because they have taken from me almost every point that I was going to make. Nevertheless, I have my notes and I shall go on with some of them, just underlining what has already been said so eloquently and well by the two previous speakers.
As I have indicated, I am in total agreement with the Motion on the Order Paper. Having said that, I take the view completely that local authorities have the most important duty of ensuring that dogs are not allowed to become a nuisance to the public. I am not going to deal too much with this aspect because, with the owners' help, and reasonable by-laws, this I feel, can be contained. I should, however, like to see these by-laws very much strengthened. I could not agree more with what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said on that matter. I should like more action taken over the problem of the hundreds of dogs—some no doubt waifs and strays, but many with good homes—which are allowed to roam the streets unaccompanied, and therefore subject to no control whatsoever.
The Motion deals specifically with the public health aspect. Some two years ago I was an interested spectator and got slightly involved when the local residents' garden association of the square where I live when attending this House got themselves interested in this question. Despite the fact that Professor Woodruff of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine took tests and found that ova of the toxicara canis parasite were present in the garden, the majority of the garden committee took the view, I think correctly, that the banning of dogs would be far too drastic a step hearing in mind the minuteness of the health hazards to children. I

2183
should add that in this particular case dogs have never been allowed off the lead in these gardens and are not allowed on the made lawn in the centre of the gardens.
Since that time we have had the report of the Working Party set up by the Department of the Environment and which was issued in August, 1976. Much of the report dealt with by-laws and regulations on dog control and the fouling of pavements, about which I think we should all like to see tougher action taken. On the health side, the Working Party had the advantage of expert medical advice on the subject and in paragraph 2 of Section 14 they categorically said that they were convinced,
"… that while it is undesirable for people to be exposed to health risks, dogs which are correctly managed and cared for constitute only a small hazard to human health".
As noble Lords have heard and doubtless know, toxicara canis is a roundworm very common in dogs and is dealt with by regular de-worming; in particular, as has been pointed out, this should be done to suckling bitches. As the ova in the resulting faeces may remain alive for several months, it goes without saying that in designated children's playgrounds it is vitally important to have an absolute ban on dogs.
Here we are back to the problem of unaccompanied dogs, who do not understand the notices. Again, therefore, I emphasise the importance of some sort of concentrated effort against owners who cannot be bothered. I suggest that the main annoyance of the public who are worried about these inter-related problems should be directed against irresponsible dog owners, not against the innocent dogs themselves. Personally, I feel—I agree here with Lord Houghton and some of the societies—that there should be a higher licence fee for keeping dogs so as to discourage the irresponsible owner who casually, without thinking, takes on a dog. This fee, as Lord Houghton pointed out, could be used to bolster local authorities in the provision of other services. I would go along with the noble Lord to see whether it were possible to ensure that new owners were required to show a licence before buying. That might help. I would of course exempt from these or any fees, but not from registration, blind people and others who need dogs, including
2184
those who use them in the course of their work, such as shepherds and guard people.
It is worth considering whether the police and traffic wardens should be encouraged to report cases of dog owners who let their dogs misbehave and who make no effort whatever to do anything about it. I also believe that if local authorities were allowed or encouraged to have some form of dog wardens, as Lord Houghton pointed out, that would be a help; they could not only advise but help to take action and, if they were armed with a little brush, could they not help to keep the pavements clean? Dog wardens might also have access to a van for rounding up strays. Anything that might help to bring home to owners their duties to their pets and to the public is to be encouraged.
Because, as Lord Houghton said, there is probably widespread evasion of the licence fee, the figures are probably underestimated. However, it is believed that in Britain today there are about 5,830,000 dogs. Curiously, we do not have as many per head of the human population as either the United States or France, where the comparative figures of dogs to humans are 1 to 6·8 and 1 to 6·2 respectively, whereas in this country we have only one dog to 9·4 humans.
It is, of course, in the cities where our canine friends need protecting from their natural inclinations and where the arguments mainly rage. I deplore the example of Burnley, who in the main part of the centre of their city have banned dogs. As has been pointed out, this brings great hardship to people who live in the centre and, apart from defined playgrounds, it is not necessary on health grounds, which are the grounds on which local authorities act. In terms of the reason they are giving, this is not a reasonable action on their part. Let the blame lie squarely on bad owners, and let them be fined or even banned from keeping dogs.
Like small children, dogs need continual attention. I deplore the owner who is away at work all day and either leaves his dog locked up until he returns, when he shoves it out in the street, or who goes to work and leaves his dog sitting in a basket in an open garage or toolshed alongside the house so that the dog cannot get into the house until he returns from work.

2185
My Lords, like the two previous speakers, I deprecate local authorities using the bogus excuse of danger to health to ban dogs. I recommend them to activate themselves to proper controls in the way that I and previous speakers have indicated. Above all, I should like to see local authorities encouraged to prosecute irresponsible owners. There are no bad dogs; there are only bad owners.
6.8 p.m.
Lord MAELOR: My Lords, my intervention will be very brief indeed. The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, expressed concern about local authorities which have restricted or regulated the admission of dogs into parks because of the danger to children from toxicara canis. However, I am concerned not just about the exclusion of dogs from parks because of this disease but, more especially, because of the general question of hygiene, particularly bearing in mind the many children who use confined parks in the middle of urban areas, and I was pleased to note Lord de Clifford's complete agreement with that concern.
The problem is not confined to children; it affects those who use parks for recreational purposes, and they are many. We must also bear in mind the employees of local authorities who work in parks such as gardeners. We must take an interest in their welfare, too. As a result of the by-laws introduced in the borough of Burnley, it is apparent from the inquiries of many local authorities throughout the country that great concern exists. I am afraid that the by-laws in Burnley have been unfairly and incorrectly represented as invoking a complete ban. This is not true, and the Press should endeavour to correct that impression. There is not a complete ban in Burnley. The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, apparently has been under that impression.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I said only in the centre of the city. Most of the places allowed to dogs are on the outer parts of Burnley.
Lord MAELOR: My Lords, I would very much doubt whether the Home Secretary would confirm by-laws where a complete ban is proposed, and the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, should be happy
2186
with that thought. Most local authorities would wish to give the public a choice between those areas where the public can go free of dogs and those where dog owners can exercise them. Your Lordships should note that in Burnley only 120 acres out of 600 acres are restricted. In the light of what I have said, I oppose this Motion.
6.12 p.m.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, this is not the first time that this subject has been discussed and it always seems to raise a certain amount of heat. In the light of Mr. Benn's energy conservation, I do not know whether we should do something to conserve it. Personally, I hope that it will be dispersed by the end of the debate. Local authorities' opposition to dogs is based on a threat to health, but they have produced no proved evidence whatsoever that dogs are anything more than a minimal or almost theoretical threat to health. There are health hazards all round us. I believe on medical authority that the very air we breathe is full of germs and viruses of one kind or another and it is only because we happen to be strong enough to resist them that we do not succumb to them.
I wonder why it is that local authorities always seem to attack the unfortunate dogs. I notice that they do not say anything about uncontrolled small children, of which there are many, who go into food shops sucking their fingers and then go round handling the food. I consider that to be far less hygienic than a dog just sniffing. However, that is presumably their opinion. So many people do not realise that the keeping of a dog is a responsible job. One has got to learn how to manage him, how to train him, and how to provide the proper conditions for him. To think of exercising a dog on the open streets is fantastic. For those who live in built-up areas, he has to have somewhere like a park where he can have his proper exercise. A dog that does not get exercise is not healthy. The trouble is that there are far too many irresponsible owners.
On the question of licence fees, I agree wholeheartedly with what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said. For many years I have held that the licence fee for a dog is absolutely absurd and that it should be

2187
far more difficult to own a dog. All the animal welfare societies are united in the realisation that the reason why there are so many stray dogs which have to be rescued by these kennels and given a pro tern. home is that so many owners buy a small puppy in a pet shop for their child. They think that will be very attractive, and no doubt it is. Until the puppy has reached a certain age they do not have to pay any licence fee. When the time comes that they have to pay a licence fee what do they do? The responsible ones will pay it, but I am sorry to say that there are only too many who take the dog out in the car and dump him miles away so that he will not know where he is and he is just left.
That situation could be avoided perfectly well by doing two things. First, it is not unreasonable to ask for a licence fee of £5. After all, if you are not willing to pay for your dog the same fee that you paid for your radio set, I do not think you are a fit person to keep a dog. Secondly, one should have to get that licence before buying the dog. You should produce it as evidence at the breeder's or the pet shop or wherever you are getting it from, and until then you should not be allowed to own him. Renewal of the licence could probably be shown by a coloured metal disc which the dog could wear on his collar. That question could be decided later.
Of course, there would have to be exemptions: working dogs have been referred to and guide dogs for the blind—the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Sourton, mentioned them. Those are essential exemptions which would have to be made. There are many shepherds or old blind people for whom a fee of £5 would be a heavy burden. That would be very simple to adjust.
Instead of constantly attacking the dog, who apparently is the cause of such frightful lack of hygiene and disease, let us for a change attack the irresponsible owner. He is the person who is really responsible for any risks to health there may be. I do not think there are any risks to health other than purely theoretical ones. But let us see to it that we do not have these enormous crowds of stray dogs in our streets. Incidentally, strays are a hazard in many ways other than
2188
health. They are terrible hazards to motorists. They are a great cause of accidents on the roads, and if we could do something to help that it would be a very good thing.
6.20 p.m.
Lord WILLIS: My Lords, I want to intervene in this debate only briefly, if I may, to speak, not so much on behalf of myself but on behalf of a golden retriever called Lucky, who happens to be a member of my household. It is a race between myself and Lucky every morning as to who opens the post. The other morning Lucky happened to open the post and discovered that your Lordships were debating this particular subject. His view on it was, I must say, rather dim. "How typical", he said, "of the House of Lords that, just before Christmas, they should be so un-Christian as to criticise dogs". His view can be summed up very simply. He believes that human beings are a health hazard to dogs. It has been mentioned, for example, that stray dogs are a danger to motorists. He points out, I think with some sense on his side, that motorists are a grave hazard to dogs. He would suggest to your Lordships' House—and I speak very sincerely on his behalf—that noble Lords should cease persecuting a creature that has been on this earth as long as we have and has given great love and service to mankind, but, rather, that we should look at the mote or beam in our own eye rather that at the mote or beam in the dog's eye. With those words, Lucky asked me also to wish your Lordships a very happy Christmas.
6.21 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Harris I am replying to Lord de Clifford's Motion. We are both of us grateful to the noble Lord for giving us the opportunity to discuss the questions of dogs in parks. Although this is only one aspect of the wider questions raised by pets in our society, the use of parks is an issue that affects us all, whether or not we are dog owners. There are very basic differences of attitude to dogs in public places, and some of these have obviously been aired here tonight. What I hope to do this evening is to explain the background and mechanism of those controls which

2189
exist at present. I should perhaps begin by explaining that, while my Department, the Department of the Environment, has a central interest in the issues raised by dogs in our society, the prime responsibility within the Government for control of dogs in parks lies within the purview of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, who is the confirming authority for local authority by-laws for parks, pleasure grounds and open spaces.
Under the Public Health Act 1875 and the Open Spaces Act 1906, local authorities have the power to make by-laws to regulate parks, pleasure grounds and open spaces under their control. Ever since the 1875 Act was passed, local authorities have used that power to make by-laws for a variety of purposes, including the control of dogs, The most common requirement is for dogs to be kept under proper control. I think it is self-evident that a by-law requiring a dog to be kept under proper control, and hence not to fight other dogs, worry children or chase other animals, is a useful and necessary one. But what concerns the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and other noble Lords, is not this by-law, which has proved very useful and is adopted by nearly all authorities, but the more controversial question of the exclusion of dogs from parks.
I think it is probably true that, with the increase in the dog population and in public awareness of certain medical hazards which are associated with a large dog population, there have been a number of moves to ban dogs from parks. As we have heard tonight, people complain of their children being covered in dog excrement when playing on the grass, and other people dislike having to look carefully where they walk. The Working Party on Dogs—and I shall refer to this in more detail later—said in its report that the largest volume of letters it received concerned the nuisance caused by dog fouling, both in parks and on footpaths. This is not simply a matter of whether or not you would like to share your parks with dogs, but involves much more fundamental issues. The making of a by-law creates a criminal offence which can, like every other offence, involve prosecution and, for those found guilty, a criminal record. The creation of a by-law such as this is a restriction upon the liberty of an individual to go where
2190
he wishes in the company he likes, which may well include his dog. This sort of restriction should not be imposed lightly, and I must say that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has to be convinced of very special circumstances before he will allow a complete ban on dogs from a park.
The problem is essentially that people like to own dogs, and, once they do, any responsible owner will tell you that a dog needs to be exercised. In towns and built-up areas the local park is often the best place for a dog to be taken for exercise; and, as dog owners include many families with children and old people living on their own, then a park is a pleasant place to go to with one's dog. In many cases, too, it provides a meeting place for friends. It would be unreasonable to deprive dog owners, who form a substantial part of the population, of the right to enter parks which are provided for public recreation with their animals. The resolution of the problem must lie in the prevention of fouling and other nuisances, where dogs can do most harm, while retaining the freedom of most of our parks for everyone, dog lovers and dog haters alike.
There are certain areas that I think we would all agree are in special need of protection. The most important of these are children's play areas, which are often laid out with play equipment. These areas obviously attract a very high population of children, older children often being accompanied by mothers with toddlers, and it is right that, as far as possible, these areas should be kept free of dog excrement. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will approve local authority by-laws to ban dogs from these areas provided that they are enclosed and that notices are erected to make it absolutely clear that dogs may not be admitted. Any area from which dogs are banned has to be enclosed, because without a perimeter fence it would be impossible to prevent dogs from just wandering in, which would defeat the object of the by-law. Other areas where special protection is needed are the highly ornamental gardens which are laid out in formal flower beds, or those areas which are devoted entirely to organised sports and are laid out as bowling greens,

2191
tennis courts, and so on; and many authorities have by-laws protecting such grounds.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and others, have referred to the inter-departmental Working Party on Dogs which was set up by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Sport and Recreation. They considered this problem in some detail. Indeed, we have had a long discussion on it within the last year in your Lordships' House. That working party took the view that the problem was not so much in the adequacy of existing legislation as in the difficulty in enforcing any legislation. They felt that the main prospect of improvement lay in educating the public in the care and control of their dogs, and in the care of parks and recreation grounds. The working party recommended that local authorities should be encouraged to make use of their existing powers, which I have already outlined.
The working party also considered the human health risk involved, and they emphasised that, particularly in the case of toxicara canis, although risks exist, infection with overt symptoms is rare. The working party recommended that, as small children were the section of the community most at risk, dogs should be excluded from children's play areas. This is, as I have already explained, done in many areas at the moment. Local authorities have taken the recommendations of the working party on dogs seriously, and have been approaching the Home Office for various by-laws controlling dogs in parks. I think it is probably true to say that, particularly in the light of the publicity given to the dangers of toxicara canis in the last few years, more authorities have wanted to ban dogs from parks than ever before. However, each case is considered on its merits, and in the light of the criteria which I have given the House. In general, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will confirm only by-laws banning dogs from those areas requiring the special protection that I outlined earlier, and in the absence of very special circumstances it would not be reasonable to ban dogs from the whole of a park.
The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, asked whether I had any idea as to the cost of the health hazards and what they have
2192
entailed the country in costs to the National Health Service, loss of work et cetera. I regret that I do not have that information available this evening. I will check for the noble Lord and if the information is available I will write to him; but I think it would be difficult to be able to formulate exactly what the costs are in pounds, shillings and pence.
I should like also to support the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, in his comments about the veterinary surgeons, and to reaffirm the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton on the Working Party's report. The public awareness of health hazards could mean greater co-operation between the veterinary surgeons, the parents and the pet shop owners in the management of dogs. The Health Education Council has already drawn up a leaflet which gives practical advice to parents in the everyday health and safety of young children with regard to their pets.
I particularly said that in the absence of very special circumstances, it would not be reasonable to ban dogs from the whole of a park. I am aware of the case that noble Lords have mentioned, of the by-laws made by Burnley council in banning dogs from some of the parks and pleasure grounds of the town. This matter has caused great controversy. All that I can say this evening is that a test case is now before the courts; therefore the matter is sub judice and we cannot discuss it further on the Floor of the House. I should like to point out, however, that these by-laws were not made under the general powers I mentioned but were made under the Burnley Borough Improvement Act 1971, which is a local Act and which gives the council specific powers to prevent or regulate the admission of dogs to their parks.
Noble Lords will be aware that under the Local Government Act 1972 all existing local Acts will fall in 1984. There is no question of a ban as extensive as Burnley's being approved without specific authority in legislation or the special circumstances that I have referred to. There is no index at all as to local legislation, so it is not possible to say how many other authorities have the same powers as Burnley; but it is just possible that other local Acts of the same vintage as Burnley's might contain like powers.

2193
All I can say is that we have not received any other proposals in similar terms in recent years. I think it may give some indication of the change in Parliament's consideration of such matters that when in recent years Private Members' Bills have sought to put similar powers to those in this local Act in general legislation, none of them has succeeded.
My Lords, there is one further point that I should like to make, arising out of Lord de Clifford's comments, which would apply to any by-laws made by a local authority. The existence of a new by-law is advertised in local newspapers and the by-laws themselves are held for inspection at council offices. Anyone who is affected by, or concerned about, a local authority's proposals can see exactly what is proposed and, if he or she wishes, can object to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will then consider very carefully all the objections against the by-law before reaching a decision whether or not to confirm the by-law. If there is irreconcilable dispute between the local authority and the objections the Secretary of State can order an inquiry into the bylaws. It is in everybody's interests to be aware of the by-laws that their local authority is making and to make their views known to that authority; or, once the by-laws are made, to the Secretary of State. The by-law-making process is a complex one but it does afford the opportunity for local opinion to be aired.
I do not wish now to enter into any discussion with my noble friend Lord Houghton on the merits or otherwise of Private Members' Bills or the hazards of getting into the ballot for such a Bill. The Working Party recommendations are now being considered by various organisations and individuals. My noble friend will know that some of the recommendations require legislation and that that means finding Parliamentary time, which is in short supply at present. I understand that a decision is likely to be made soon, and I can assure my noble friend that I will see that my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State in both the Department of the Environment and the Home Office are aware of the content of this debate.
I can assure your Lordships that very great care is taken both at local and central Government level in the making of by-
2194
laws and in the way controls are exercised in an effort to find ways in which people and dogs can share harmoniously the facilities that have been provided for the benefit of us all. In conclusion, may I reciprocate, on behalf of the House, the good wishes for a Happy Christmas from Lucky.
6.36 p.m.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, may I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and the noble Baroness who has just replied. We certainly do go backwards a little when we go back to 1871! It is a nice thought that we might be brought up to date in the foreseeable future, if some of us live that length of time. I am comforted by the noble Baroness's statement, which I must read with great care, on the confirmation of orders by the Home Secretary: that it will be in enclosed areas only that we may expect these bans in future. I do not think that any dog owner, unless we are going to enclose enormous areas, will possibly object to anything like children's areas and highly-cultivated areas.
I am not really asking the noble Baroness to expend a lot of time and energy on saying how much money these diseases of dogs have cost; I can tell her that from the word "Go" they are practically nil. I have specifically left out bites from dogs, which is a different matter altogether. May I thank noble Lords throughout the House for their support in this matter. I am delighted to find that I have had not one opponent who would disagree with the fact that the dog is not a health hazard to humans. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

HORSEMEAT TRADE WITH EEC COUNTRIES
6.38 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the growing volume of horsemeat trade with EEC countries and the unacceptable aspects of treating horses as food animals. The noble Lord said: My Lords I beg to ask the Unstarred Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I apologise for

2195
imposing myself again upon your Lordships' patience. Two speeches in one afternoon are not due to any malice aforethought on my part. It is purely coincidental that the two debates came close together. I can offer your Lordships this comfort: that you will not be hearing from me again until after January 17th.
In my original Unstarred Question, I did spell out in more detail what my purpose was in raising this matter; but I was advised that I could enlarge, within reason, upon the underlying purposes of my Unstarred Question and deal with it in the normal way. I ought to say before going further that I understand that the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, is going to make his début as a Front Bench spokesman on the Benches opposite in this debate and I welcome him to this subject. We are all aware of his considerable abilities in many other directions, and it is a welcome feature of this debate that he is going to join in the discussion.
I am sure that your Lordships have noticed that recently I have been asking many questions seeking information about what is happening to horses and, in particular, the trade in carcase meat to the European Economic Community countries. I find that the Government are surprisingly short on information about horses, and that may account for what is, I think, undue complacency on the part of the Government in the present situation. I ask a few rhetorical questions: how much do we know about our horse population? What do we know about its numbers and whether the numbers are rising or falling? Do we know whether there is a surplus of horses over the uses that we have for them? If so, what has brought this about, and what is being done about it? Is there any evidence of a new industry for the production of horsemeat for human consumption here or abroad or for pet food manufacture? In other words, are horses now being bred for slaughter? Are foals being produced for the continental delicacy which I have heard described as "foal veal"? What do we know of the facts about all this? The answer is, "Very little".
We know far less about horses than we do about cattle and sheep because horses are not farm animals. We also appear to give them considerably less protection.
2196
In asking this question, I am particularly concerned with the export traffic of carcase horsemeat of mares, foals, horses of all ages—many of whom were of very high quality and in the prime of life—to European countries. There is no information about the total number of horses being slaughtered either generally or in particular for the European trade, nor do we know how many horses are going through sales and auctions. All we know for certain is the weight and not the numbers of horse carcase meat being exported to EEC countries. This information becomes available because only four slaughterhouses—all in England—are licensed to kill horses for export of their meat to Europe: Huddersfield, Norwich, Bristol and Crawley, Sussex.
We also know of the growth in the trade. In the nine months January to September 1975 just about 1,000 tonnes were exported —"tonnes" being the decimal weight. In the corresponding period of 1976 this number has risen from 1,000 tonnes to just short of 2,900 tonnes, and in 1977 the figures for the same period have risen to 4,216 tonnes. That is a four-fold increase in two years. I estimate that on an annual basis our output from these four slaughterhouses is now approximately 5,500 tonnes in the year. A "tonne" is just short of a "ton".
I cannot convert this weight into carcases. Whether 5,500 tonnes represents 10,000 horses or what number obviously depends upon their size and weight, and I cannot give the answer. I am told that one of these four slaughterhouses alone kills 400 horses a week, but I cannot vouch for that figure. What we do know, as the figures illustrate, is that the traffic is increasing, and I understand that one of these licensed slaughterhouses is now busy building an extension for anticipated increased trade.
There are various aspects of this trade and one of them is the transportation of horses to the four licensed slaughterhouses. Just recently it came to my notice that the Secretary of State for Scotland was about to dispose of the Highland Pony Stud of the Department of Agriculture and Food for Scotland at Beechwood Farm, Inverness. Included in the auction (which had already been advertised) were 20 brood mares, 17 foals, 12 yearlings, nine two to three

2197
year old ponies and about eight stallions. I beseeched the Secretary of State to pay regard to the possible consequences of selling that stud, which was to be auctioned yesterday, 13th December. Where would it go? Who would buy it? What would be the destination of this highly prized stud? The nearest slaughterhouse they could have gone to for meat for export to Europe would have been Huddersfield.
But, of course, the Scottish horses do not necessarily go to Huddersfield; they certainly cannot go to any place in Scotland; they may even go to Crawley. Horses are being taken from Wales to Norwich, and from East Anglia to Bristol. They are not catchment areas; they are authorised slaughterhouses. What goes there depends on who buys them and where they go for slaughter. I am glad to report to your Lordships the speed with which the Secretary of State for Scotland decided to cancel this auction. I want to express my warm gratitude to him for such a swift response. That is not something one usually gets from Ministers. When they have decided on a course of action, they can usually find plenty of reasons for going on with it. Here was a swift cancellation of this auction and his assurance that he was going to consider alternative arrangements for the sale of the animals in the stud.
Of course, normally we would not be unduly worried about putting a stud of that quality up for auction, and we would not think that the slaughtermen would be almost the only buyers; but now the price of horses for horsemeat, at £30 and £40, and even more, per live hundredweight is higher than the price that will be obtained for a horse for a riding school or for other uses. There is something wrong when there is not a single authorised slaughterhouse in Scotland, or Wales and there are only four for the rest of the country.
Regarding the sales of horses, the regulations which apply to markets and auctions of farm animals do not apply to horses. It is possible to sell horses anywhere, and there are many auctions that are being held—some regularly and some at intervals—in very unsatisfactory conditions. I have a list of 10 or 11 places where auctions of horses are being held and about which I have received strong criticisms from observers of the conditions.
I supplied the Minister with this list. I am not going to read it out. That would not be fair: there is nobody here to reply to accusations of unsatisfactory conditions. But I mention the fact that a list of this length has come to me from responsible observers giving the conditions in which horses, ponies and foals are being auctioned in different parts of the country. Auctions and sales can be held in warehouses and barns late at night, with horses being boxed up and transported in the middle of the night under conditions which would not be tolerated in a cattle market or other auction sale. I hope that the Government will consider applying to horse sales and auctions the regulations which apply to the sale of cattle and other farm animals. I understand this means an order under the Diseases of Animals Act 1950, Section 20 of which enables the Government to make regulations of the kind that I think are needed. I think something else needs to be said: the growth of this traffic has been so swift that a good deal of improvisation has been necessary to deal with it and, therefore, a good many of the transport vehicles are quite unsatisfactory.
I have a lot of evidence here from observers of the conditions in which animals are arriving at the place of slaughter. In many cases the trucks have no tailboards and they are rickety. In one case, there was a prosecution because of jagged metal edges inside the container where animals were crowded together for a very long journey. Some prosecutions have taken place. I have many Press cuttings here, but I will only quote the references: the Horse and Hound magazine for 19th August, the Nottingham Evening Post for 27th August, the Middlesbrough Gazette for 19th, 20th and 22nd September and the Daily Telegraph's account of the notorious case of the transporter convicted at Diss in Norfolk last February.
The stories of overcrowding are numerous; heavy and light horses are crammed together. Injury and death on the way to slaughter is almost commonplace. Transport vehicles with no ramp are used so that the exhausted animals have to jump or fall out. Some have already suffered injury on the way and they come tumbling out with broken legs. Then they await slaughter, again in conditions which give rise to very strong criticism from those who

2199
see them. There are exposed paddocks which in this weather have become nothing but mud and slime. I am informed by the Minister that these four slaughterhouses were all inspected as recently as last month, but I also understand—though not from the Minister—that the inspecting veterinary officers do not regard the paddocks in which the horses are kept while they await slaughter as part of the slaughterhouse which it is their duty to inspect. The animals in such conditions, if protected at all, are protected under the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which is the general Act dealing with unnecessary cruelty to animals.
I think that some action is called for immediately, and I will not dwell longer than I need just to summarise my conclusions. I do not want to harrow the feelings of the House or of the people who read the report of this debate by detailing a great deal of the evidence that is available. All I can say is that if the Minister feels these animals are not at particular risk he does not know what is happening—and it is about time that somebody found out. First, I suggest that we need urgently the order I have referred to under the Diseases of Animals Act 1950, where the Minister can prohibit or regulate the holding of markets, fairs and sales of horses. The Minister says he is considering doing so. I am glad to hear that, and I hope he will not consider for much longer but act upon what I am sure he must feel to be his duty.
Secondly, we need much greater supervision of the conditions and the distances of transport. I think we ought to know what distances the horses are having to travel to these four slaughterhouses for European carcase meat. Where do they all come from and under what conditions do they await slaughter? I have serious criticisms here of one of the four. Again, I shall not mention the name, but I am told that 70, 80, 100 horses in exposed paddocks of mud, wet and cold, are left for days in conditions which cause distress to the animals and acute distress to the people who pass by and sec what is happening.
Do horses really have to be brought from Scotland to England to go as meat to Europe? The Transit of Animals Order 1975 is evidently no adequate safeguard—
2200
and here may I say in parenthesis that it is not fair to leave the policing of Acts of Parliament to voluntary bodies. Why should the RSPCA have to rely on voluntary help to do what it is the duty of Government inspectors and Government agencies to do? The law against cruelty is the law of the land, and its enforcement is the responsibility of Government. For far too long has an organisation like the RSPCA been regarded as a national institution and a kind of adjunct to Government, when in fact it is purely a voluntary organisation and does not receive a penny piece of Government money. Thirdly, I think that we need legislation to deal comprehensively with horses and their welfare. The Horses and Ponies Protection Association have compiled a draft Bill and recently various voluntary bodies have come together as the National Joint Equine Welfare Committee. They, too, have produced a draft Bill for consideration of Ministers.
The history of England could be written on the back of a horse. We are supposed to love our horses. As I said yesterday about sheep, we are fond of them; we bestow affection upon them and we try to care for them as long as they are with us. But, when the lorry goes off from the farm or the stables, it is a very different story in the last few days or weeks of their lives.
Finally, I think we need to look ahead as quickly as we can. I would ask: what is the future of this traffic in horses? Should we not know whether it is really a surplus which is being killed off or whether we are beginning the breeding of horses and foals for the meat trade or the pet food trade? Are we still reducing a surplus? If so, when is it likely to end? Are we beginning on some new industry of breeding our horses for the continental table? I hope that the Minister will be able to answer some of the points I have put to him because, as he knows, I have in customary courtesy given him a preview of the points that I was proposing to raise. I apologise for keeping the House so long, but this is a subject which I believe to be so close to our heritage and history and to our emotional response to animal life in this country that it is not too much to ask your Lordships' House to spend a little time on it even on the eve of Christmas.
7 p.m.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, I feel doubly bogus in speaking from this Dispatch Box on the Unstarred Question which was raised with such vigour by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, because I am probably the most inexpert of your Lordships on the subject of horses, and also because, since I originally communicated with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, I was parachuted on to this Bench and into speaking from it the day before yesterday, at rather short notice. So that his kind words were well received by me, but were undeserved.
There are very few subjects which disturb the British people more deeply than the unnecessary suffering of animals. Suffering of animals will always worry us, but unnecessary suffering even more so. Indeed, we constantly astonish our Continental colleagues and neighbours, and partners in the EEC, by our concern for the suffering of animals, and what I shall try to do tonight—and it is a difficult task—is to strike a reasonable balance between common sense and compassion.
I am fully aware of the dangers of trying to steer such a course. My daughter has a pony—and I am sure that she will study what I have to say tonight—and, at the last count, the animal members of my family included four rabbits, three ducks, a cat, a dog and a pigeon which arrived shortly before Christmas with a broken wing. I am sure that all of them will have me up before the Race Relations Board or the Equal Opportunities Commission should I appear to be discriminating against them in any way. In more serious vein, I want to examine these problems in a level-headed way and I shall try to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in his extremely powerful speech, which it is very hard for any Member of your Lordships' House to follow, has made a formidable case and I do not envy the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who is to reply, in his task, even if he did have warning of the questions which were to be fired at him. I want to limit my remarks to a few of the many issues which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, raised. But perhaps I can say this first. I take it that the noble Lord does not feel that we in this country can tell other nations what they should eat, or when or how. We
2202
cannot explain to the Belgians our views on horses, nor can we expect the Japanese to change their dietary habits because we have some objection to the consumption of horses. I believe that what lies behind the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is a desire to control this trade, in so far as it is possible in a reasonable manner to prevent unnecessary suffering.
We have to follow the horses in their journeys from the field to the auction, from the auction to the slaughterhouse, and look at the chain of journeys that they will go through before they are finally turned into meat for human food or for dog food. Therefore, my first question to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is this. I understand that there was an internal review inside the Department. What has happened to it? Has it been completed? What did it cover? Will its results be published, and when will we see those results? I understand from a memorandum which the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food issued in April 1977, that the Government consider the four Acts which cover the welfare of horses and ponies—I shall not specify them, because they will be well known to the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government—to be sufficient. Is that still the Government's view; and, if the Acts themselves are sufficient, are they being enforced sufficiently thoroughly, or could there be some improvement? What I am really asking is whether Her Majesty's Government still adhere to the view that they expressed in public in April this year, that the controls and safeguards over the transport of horses to slaughterhouses, and in slaughterhouses, were sufficient. Has there been any change since then?
It may be irrelevant at first sight, or at first hearing, to talk about the cost of animal feedstuffs, but this is something that we need to bear in mind when we are trying to find the underlying reasons behind the increase in the number of horses and ponies that have been slaughtered. Grazing can often cost £60 or £70 an acre per year, and farmers and others do not like letting grazing for use by horses or ponies because of the poaching of the soil that occurs. Again, a bale of hay can sometimes cost £2, and it has cost as much as that in recent years. Thus many of those people who have now found themselves well off enough to afford to buy a pony do so without realising the cost

2203
that they may be incurring. Later on, when times get hard, ponies are neglected because the cost of feed is too high. I wonder whether the Government have given any thought to the possibility of ensuring that those who buy ponies understand fully the cost of what it is they are buying for their child.
What should be done about the present situation? I wonder whether the Government have considered the situation from the European angle. There is, I understand, a European Convention for the protection of animals during international transport, to which we have now adhered. Do the Government think that this is satisfactory? Is it enough, or do they feel that the European Economic Community itself should have a look at the problem, so that there are uniform standards throughout the Community?
Another point which I should like to put before your Lordships is this. I think that we must stop and wonder why this trade is so lucrative, because there is an economic justification for the very considerable increase in the trade to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has referred. Part of the reason is the shortage of horses on the continent, where, of course, they breed horses to eat; and there is a huge trade from East European countries to the EEC. But, partly, it is the decline in the value of the pound which has made British horsemeat worth exporting and worth buying for those involved in the trade overseas. So that, unless the pound continues to decline at the speed with which it has declined in recent years, there is no reason necessarily to believe that the increase in the volume of the trade will continue in the proportions in which it has increased in recent years—and those proportions are considerable. The figures that I have—and I am using Continental tonnes—are these: 1975, 1,403—that is, tonnes of horsemeat exported to the Continent; 1976, 4,579, and 1977, January to October, 6,026. There is a very considerable increase in the trade, and I think that your Lordships will see some correlation between the increase and the slide in the value of the pound.
There is also the question of the export of live horses for breeding, racing or similar purposes. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, whether
2204
the Government still believe what they said in their memorandum dated April, 1977. In paragraph 5 of that memorandum they stated confidently:
"Rumours that horses or ponies are being exported for slaughter circulate from time to time, but careful inquiries by Ministry officials and by the RSPCA have failed to substantiate any of them."
May I ask the noble Lord whether that is still the case?
I have not tried to compete with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in his eloquent portrayal of the more heartrending aspects of the trade which he has described to your Lordships. What I have tried to do is to look at one or two of the underlying reasons for the increase in the trade and to ask the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, whether the Government are satisfied with the existing controls. If they are not satisfied with them, are they dissatisfied with the controls themselves or with the way in which they are being enforced?
I shall not detain your Lordships any longer. This is an interesting and important debate and I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for having asked this Unstarred Question, even though it is rather a gloomy and depressing subject to be considering just before Christmas.
7.12 p.m.
Lord McNAIR: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, confined his speech entirely to the carcase trade. I wish to speak about the trade of horsemeat on the hoof, which my information suggests may well be continuing, even though only with the use of a certain amount of deception. I hope that I am wrong. I imagine that we in this House would be unanimous in our view that the export of horsemeat on the hoof is an undesirable trade. I should like to suggest, however, that the export of horsemeat on the hoof is not necessarily the most undesirable of these trades. There is another one, called trade in spent hens, which I find even more revolting. If a battery hen ends up in an overcrowded crate to be sent across the North Sea for slaughter, Heaven knows where, it seems to me to degrade even more the people who indulge in the trade than those who indulge in the export of horses.

2205
Why is there a trade in horsemeat? Any economist would tell your Lordships that there must be a demand and a supply. The demand exists on the Continent. As the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, also said, it would be a great mistake for us to deplore the fact that people eat horses. They have as much right to eat horse as I have to eat beef or mutton; ethically, I can see no distinction between the two. However, this demand on the Continent is beyond our control.
Why is there also a supply, without which the trade would not exist? We have a national surplus of horses and ponies and I should like to suggest two reasons why this may be so. The first is the normal trade cycle. A few years ago we used to hear a great deal about the pig cycle, and I believe that there has been a pony cycle. A few years ago you could sell, at good prices, almost anything which looked remotely equine. Many people bred from mares which, viewed objectively, were quite unfit to cover. Partly, therefore, I believe this to be a normal economic cycle.
The point that the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, made about the pound is obviously valid, but perhaps what is most under our control and has led to our current pony surplus is indiscriminate breeding. In the last few years there have been many new horse and pony owners who have had more enthusiasm than experience. All too often one finds that one can cope with a mare which somebody else has broken and trained. Then one rashly allows the mare to foal and the foal is born with a surprising amount of its feral nature still there, with which one cannot cope; so there is a surplus pony. Normally this surplus would be absorbed by the vast and voracious pet food industry. Although they advertise a great deal, the manufacturers of these pet foods do not advertise that what they are doing is recycling Dobbin to feed Fido. However, that is what they are doing to a very large extent.
The new factor is that a better price can be obtained for meat for human consumption. Despite the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, I should have no great objection to the export of horsemeat in carcase form, provided, of course, that his objections to the treatment of the animals before
2206
slaughter had been met. I am entirely in sympathy with those remarks of the noble Lord.
The reason why more horsemeat cannot be exported in carcase form is because, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has told us, we have only four export-approved slaughterhouses. This suggests the action that we should take. First, surely we should discourage indiscriminate breeding. I believe that the Pony Club is already doing its best to discourage this, and also the breed societies. If the Government could do anything to discourage indiscriminate breeding, I am sure that they would be well advised to do so.
Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will agree with me that we should upgrade more of our slaughterhouses. Certainly there seems to be a great need for a slaughterhouse in Scotland. If we could upgrade more of our slaughterhouses to conform to EEC export standards, then at least the live trade could be controlled and stopped while the trade in carcase meat could be carried on in a more humane manner.
7.18 p.m.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, may I heartily support the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in everything that he has said. The horse holds a peculiarly special place in the hearts of the people of our country. It has never been developed as a food animal. However, due to the changing times, economically it is now becoming a very valuable animal for food purposes. When one hears about the import of EEC labour, one begins to wonder whether we are developing any form of horsemeat trade in this country. It would be very interesting to know how much of the slaughterhouse horsemeat is sold for human consumption in this country, quite apart from the amount which is sold for pet food. If this trade develops, one will get into a situation where one begins to think of the intensive breeding of calves and pigs and chickens which, when associated with a horse becomes a most undesirable factor, even though it may be viable economically.
I should also like to join the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in what amounted almost to a denunciation of the

2207
fact of having voluntary bodies policing Acts of Parliament. It is most undesirable and I would take issue not only with noble Lords now sitting on the Government Benches but certainly also with my noble friends (who I hope will one day be sitting on the Front Bench opposite) if they do not take steps to see that Acts of Parliament are actually enforced by the Government in power and not by a body which is supported by voluntary contributions.
One does not want to risk the future of the horse. I am perfectly in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord McNair: we are starting to get overbreeding of horses. Always when we begin to get a rise in economic promise in an animal we get overbreeding. As I have said earlier today, we have had it in dogs; we now appear to have it in horses and I would implore the breeders of horses not to go on with this overbreeding, with all the disastrous results which may flow from it.
When we look to the future—which most of us will not see—we are arriving at a crisis of energy. I foresee, and I hope the breeders of good working horses will note it, that there will be a basis of breeding stock which, if energy becomes scarce, will enable us to go back to the use of the animal which gave great service for movement throughout our agricultural land, which I can remember well when I was a small boy, by transporting us from place to place. I would implore breeders of good stock not to dilute that stock purely for economic gain.
7.23 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for asking this Unstarred Question and to say that I completely agree with everything he said. I have an interest to declare as I am President of the Ponies of Britain, and I have had a lifelong association with horses from about the age of three. I have ridden horses of all forms, sizes and shapes and I have ridden them in various sports, so I do declare an interest in the horse.
I do not quite agree with everything that has been said by some of my noble friends. I cannot quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, when he said that there was a great danger of
2208
overbreeding of horses as there had been with dogs. Since a mare takes 11 months to have foal, whereas a bitch can have two or even three litters in a year, I really do not think there is much danger there. However there is a danger of breeding sub-standard stock.
As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said in asking his Question, the horsemeat trade is an unacceptable trade. Many people may ask, why? We have heard some of the reasons explained tonight. We export and slaughter hundreds of thousands of cattle and sheep and people may well say if we do it to cattle why not do it to horses. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, pointed out, the horse auctions are not protected under regulations as are the auctions for farm livestock. Also I should like to make the point that the horse, varying of course with the particular breeds, is a very highly strung animal.
My noble friend Lord O'Hagan gave some figures for horsemeat. I think he said up to the early part of this year—perhaps my noble friend could repeat them.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, the figures I have are for January to October of this year, 6,026 tonnes.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I did not have those figures but I have the figures for last year when, apparently, the export trebled and the figures are 4,500 tons worth £3 million, amounting to 28,000 horses or ponies. Of course the law lays down quite strict standards of welfare for the transit of horses in the United Kingdom and we have the Balfour assurances if they go overseas, which cover all livestock. But the trouble is that the law regarding transit is not adhered to in every case.
I should like to quote here shortly from the Yorkshire Post regarding a large auction near Harrogate at a place called Pannal. It says here:
"there was ample evidence that the manner in which some horses and ponies were driven to auction at Pannal, near Harrogate, on Saturday did not begin to measure up to the most basic legal requirements. The Diseases of Animals Act 1975 specifies that horses must be transported in vehicles with roofs, inspection doors and ramps. The police and the Ministry of Agriculture's transport inspectors could have secured at least three straightforward prosecutions on these points alone at Pannal".

2209
That shows what many of us have been pointing out for some time, that, I regret to say, the Ministry's inspectors do not always do their job. I realise that it is very difficult for the police because they are over-stretched.
I must speak shortly about ponies, being President of the Ponies of Britain. We have the minimum values for ponies, the object being that they shall not be exported on the hoof for slaughter. These values were raised again in July 1973. The figures are now £160 for ponies over 12 hands but not exceeding 14.2 hands; it is £120 for ponies under 12 hands and £60 for Shetland ponies not exceeding 10.2 hands. But the poor horse over 14.2 hands has no protection at all. The only protection it has, which is complete nonsense, is that it must be fit for riding or breeding. Any horse, providing it can actually stand up and walk, can pass as fit for riding and any mare, certainly if she is under 25—and I have known them breed over that age—can be fit for breeding.
As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, pointed out, the real answer is to have far more slaughterhouses equally distributed about the country, in England, wales and Scotland, and so not necessitate these very long journeys in overcrowded and uncomfortable conditions. I was under the impression that we had one slaughterhouse in Scotland for equines, but apparently I was wrong. I know we have four in England for horses, and I thought we had one in Scotland, too. I have seen at some of these auctions, which, as the noble Lord said, are held anywhere, cases of great cruelty. You have foals which are not weaned. They are driven into these corrals, and have been separated from the mare, having never drunk from a bucket. A lot of these Welsh ponies and ponies off the fells in Cumbria come in for a very rough time at these horse auctions. I am quite certain that a lot of people on the fells, on the moors, are in fact breeding them for slaughter; they are not breeding them for any other purpose.
The Transit of Animals Act definitely needs far stricter control, and that may also in some instances apply to other livestock, too. We have a large trade going through Stranraer to Ulster.
2210
Where those horses and ponies end up I do not know. I suppose some go to the Republic, and the Ministry of Agriculture in the Republic say that none of these horses go abroad on the hoof for slaughter, just as our Ministry of Agriculture do. Certainly regarding our Ministry of Agriculture I have my doubts about that, particularly in regard to horses over 14.2 hands. I am quite certain that hundreds, if not thousands, go for slaughter on the hoof.
To cause the least distress possible some things are essential, and one or two of them have been mentioned. To do away with the necessity for these long journeys we must have more slaughterhouses. I cannot see why we cannot do away with auctions for horses to be slaughtered. The owner or carrier could take them direct to the slaughterhouse, where they would be graded according to their quality, as are fat cattle or sheep. You do not need to have them auctioned if they are going for slaughter; I cannot see the necessity for that. They could go straight to the abattoir and get a guaranteed price per cwt. according to their grade, as is done with cattle and lambs and sheep.
It is very distressing for unbroken horses from the hills to be driven into a ring; some are terrified. Quite a rough crowd of men surrounds them; I am not being uncomplimentary, but I would call some of them louts. They crowd into the ring. The horse ought to be inspected outside, in a paddock. They men all crowd round, and some of the animals are absolutely terrified. That is quite unnecessary. No animal—including us, of course—and certainly no horse, enjoys being taken out of its environment, driven into a lorry and bumped around the countryside for 100, 200 or 300 miles, perhaps kept waiting at an auction mart over the weekend to go to some other destination, or waiting in the docks. That is definitely cruel.
I would like Her Majesty's Government go exert greater control over these transit regulations, to have more inspectors, or to wake up the existing inspectors. I would also hope that we could do something about horses over 14.2, because I am quite sure that a great number go abroad on the hoof to be slaughtered. The regulations stipulate for riding or breeding,

2211
but that is an absurd regulation because it is wide open. As one or two noble Lords have said, the horse has served us very well through countless generations. Up to a short time ago it was our sole means of transport. It has won many of our battles in war. It is the most magnificent animal. If we cannot see that the old and the weak and the sub-standard young of the equine breed are treated with some consideration, I think we have failed in our duty. I impress upon Her Majesty's Government to take this debate seriously.
7.36 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I think we must be very grateful to my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby for giving us the opportunity this afternoon to discuss the welfare of horses. I would like to thank him for letting me have the points he was going to raise in advance. I think we are all agreed that his speech has moved us very much. Any suggestion of mistreatment of animals of course arouses great concern among the public, and rightly so. Since the horse occupies a special place in our affections, as the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, said, it is right that we should take particular care to ensure the humane treatment of horses in all circumstances.
But, my Lords, much as we should like to see horses and ponies allowed to live their full life-span, and eventually put down only when they become infirm, we must recognise that this is just not practicable. The simple fact is that the supply of these animals exceeds the demand for them for recreational purposes. It would not be right, I think, to suggest, as has been suggested, that ponies are deliberately reared as food animals, but over-supply results from the natural increase in the pony population on Dartmoor, in the New Forest and on the Welsh mountains.
As the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, rightly said—and I would like to congratulate him on making his debut on the Opposition Front Bench—the expense of keeping ponies and horses for riding, particularly the cost of feed, over the past three or four years has risen threefold. This also means, of course, that increasing numbers have to be sold by their owners. I believe it now costs about £500 a year to keep a horse at home, and £1,000 a year
2212
boarding. For the same reason, of course—and this was mentioned in the debate—the demand for the purpose of riding has declined. Thus, although prices are low, or relatively low, there is no recreational demand for many of the animals offered for sale.
What, then, is to become of these surplus horses and ponies? Ponies cannot be left to starve or to live in semi-starvation on the moors when their numbers increase beyond the grazing capacity of the area. It is not in the interest of animals used for riding to be kept on if their owners cannot afford to keep them. I think that all who are genuinely concerned with animal welfare accept the hard fact that when a domestic animal is no longer wanted by its present owner, and there is no other would-be owner willing to take charge of it, which, of course, is the best solution, the kindest course is for the animal to be put down humanely. That sadly has been the situation for many horses and ponies in recent years.
When a horse has been slaughtered its carcase can be put to several uses. Exports of horsemeat have significantly increased in recent times, as my noble friend, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said. There has always been some demand for horsemeat for human consumption, even within the United Kingdom where many people have an aversion to eating horse flesh. However, such an aversion on the part of some would seem to be no good reason for prohibiting the sale of horsemeat for human consumption. I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNair, that ethically there is probably very little distinction, although I personally do not like eating it myself.
While I respect people's sensibilities, I am bound to wonder how it would benefit the animal or its former owner if the use of the animal's carcase were restricted to the manufacture of pet food or of inedible products. Surely from the animal welfare standpoint the prime objective is to ensure that animals are well treated while they are alive, and that when slaughter is necessary it is carried out in a humane fashion. That is the object of the present legislation.
Under the Protection of Animal Acts 1911 to 1964—there have been several—and the Protection of Animals (Scotland)

2213
Acts, from 1912 to 1964, it is an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to any domestic or captive animal in any circumstances, including transit and slaughter. The Criminal Law Act 1977 substantially increased maximum penalties under these welfare Acts. The penalties are now up to a £500 fine and/or up to six months' imprisonment. This legislation is widely used by the local authorities, the police and the animal welfare societies as a means of ensuring the proper treatment of horses and ponies.
There were 655 prosecutions and 593 convictions for offences against the Act last year, which I think illustrates that these Acts are at least working effectively, although possibly there are things that we can do to strengthen and improve conditions and I shall come to that later.
During transit the welfare of horses is also protected by the Transit of Animals (Road and Rail) Order 1975—also during the time of this Government—which lays down detailed requirements for the construction and maintenance of road vehicles used for transporting animals and also regulates the conditions under which they are loaded, unloaded and conveyed. These require that animals in transit should be fed and watered at intervals of not more than 12 hours. When the animals arrive at an abattoir or a knacker's yard they are protected by the Slaughterhouses Act 1974 and the Slaughter of Animals (Prevention of Cruelty) Regulations 1958. There are a number of special provisions in this legislation to safeguard the welfare of horses. These provisions, of course, derive from two Committees of Inquiry in the early 1950s—both of them chaired by distinguished Members of your Lordships' House. There was the Departmental Committee on Export and Slaughter of Horses chaired by the late Lord Rosebery and the Committee of Inquiry into the Slaughter of Horses chaired by the noble Duke, the Duke of Northumberland.
Both of those inquiries made a thorough study of conditions at slaughterhouses and slaughter methods. They put forward a series of detailed recommendations for strengthening the law relating to conditions and practices in slaughterhouses and lairages and to the licensing of premises and slaughtermen. Nearly all those recommendations have been incorporated
2214
into legislation, and I think it is generally agreed that the current legislative requirements are as stringent as they reasonably can be. On the other hand, I shall have a little more to say later about the Diseases of Animals Act referred to by my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby.
The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, asked about an internal review taking place at MAFF. The internal review now in progress in the Department covers the export of cattle, sheep and pigs for slaughter. It does not cover horses as they are not exported for slaughter. Local authorities are responsible for ensuring compliance with the legislation on humane slaughter of equines. Since 1954 officers of the State Veterinary Service have had a specific duty of advising local authorities on the exercise of their responsibilities in this area, and they have powers of entry for this purpose, into slaughterhouses and knackers' yards.
Reference has been made to the RSPCA. I should like to pay a tribute to that organisation. I think that it might be interesting if I read out parts of a letter from the Chief Veterinary Officer of the RSPCA about the question of the export of horses to the Continent for slaughter. He says:
"We have followed many consignments of New Forest ponies and also Welshponies to the Continent over a period of the last four or live years. In no case have we ever established that a single pony exported live has been slaughtered on arrival for meat… The Welfare Committee of the British Horse Society has received many allegations of the exporting of ponies and horses for slaughter abroad, but in no case have any of these allegations been substantiated."
Although about 20 slaughterhouses in England and Wales are licensed to slaughter horses, as my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby has said, only four are approved to produce horsemeat for export to other EEC countries. These four slaughterhouses must, of course, comply fully with the requirements of national slaughterhouse legislation. In addition they must meet the stringent hygiene standards laid down by EEC legislation on intra-Community trade in fresh meat as the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, will remember from when he was a distinguished Member of the European Parliament.
I am aware of the rapid increase in exports of horesemeat over the last few years. I am also aware of the allegations

2215
that, as a result of this increase, there has been overcrowding of the four slaughterhouses which has led to suffering on the part of the horses. My noble friend gave some moving accounts of some of these allegations.
Veterinary officers of the Ministry of Agriculture make frequent visits to these four slaughterhouses. I am informed that during their visits during the last four weeks they have seen nothing to substantiate these allegations. My noble friend has suggested that more slaughterhouses approved to slaughter horses for exports are needed. Although I have no information to suggest that the four slaughterhouses approved at present are unable to deal humanely with the number or horses being sent for slaughter, I would remind your Lordships that financial assistance is already available under the Industry Act 1972 for slaughterhouse operators who wish to bring their premises up to the standards required.
I agree with noble Lords in that I think there is probably a case for having a slaughterhouse approved for slaughter for export to the Continent, in Scotland, and I shall bring what has been said to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Officers of the State Vetinary Service, inspectors employed by the local authorities, the police and the RSPCA maintain a very active oversight of the conditions at sales and markets and also of transport arrangements.
My noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby and the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, have suggested that the present regulations are inadequate and they are not fully enforced. On the first point I can only say that there has been no suggestion from the RSPCA or from the local authorities that the existing legislation is in any way deficient, or that enforcement is not satisfactory. It is, in fact, most unusual for a horse sale not to be attended by at least one inspector or policeman.
I fully recognise the need for continuing vigilance and for the regular re-examination and updating of the regulations which protect our animals. I can assure your Lordships that there is no complacency in the Department. My noble friend is a
2216
distinguished Vice-President of the RSPCA and he will be well aware of the work done by inspectors of that Society in protecting the welfare of horses in transit and at markets. Many of the reports are at variance with the factual statements made by RSPCA inspectors who regularly attend these markets.
However, one must recognise that all laws get broken from time to time. Anyone anxious to protect the welfare of horses can best assist by reporting any infringements of the law at once to the police or to the local authority in the area in which infringement occurs. In this way the authorities can take immediate action to alleviate any suffering being caused and, where appropriate, to prosecute those responsible.
My noble friend mentioned the Highland Pony Stud. I am glad to report that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has cancelled the proposed sale this month by public auction of all the ponies in the Scottish National Stud, and he is considering future policy as a matter of urgency.
The BBC "Nationwide" programme about the shipment of horses and ponies was shown on 9th November. The first part concerned Shetland ponies transported to Aberdeen and then, after two weeks in Scotland, taken via the Stranraer-Larne ferry to Northern Ireland—to which reference was made in the debate—and then to the Irish Republic where they were sold to private homes as children's pets. There was nothing in the programme to suggest that the ponies were ill-treated in any way. The second part of the programme concerned the export of horses to France. The programme confirmed that they went to a riding school and the suggestion that these horses might later be slaughtered was pure speculation and not backed by any firm evidence.
The RSPCA confirmed last month that they have followed many consignments of New Forest and Welsh ponies to the Continent over the last four or five years and that in no case have they established that a single pony exported live had been slaughtered for meat on arrival. On the other hand, the "Nationwide" programme shown on 16th November was a programme on the slaughter of horses in Great Britain which did not reveal any evidence of ill-treatment. It made the

2217
point, with which I agree, that anyone disposing of a horse or a pony who wishes to ensure that it is not slaughtered would be well advised to sell it privately to some reputable person known to them who can offer it a permanent home.
Statements that British horses and ponies are being slaughtered in order to provide horsemeat for Continental restaurants tend to cause people to assume that horses are being exported from this country for slaughter. That is not so. There are regulations which are designed to prevent the export of horses or ponies from this country to the Continent for slaughter. Before exporting a horse to the Continent the owner must be in possession of either a certificate issued by the Jockey Club that the horse is intended for racing, or a permit issued by the appropriate Agriculture Department. These permits are issued only after officials have fully satisfied themselves that the animals are intended for a legitimate purpose, such as breeding or riding. The horses and ponies which we export are too valuable to be in any danger of slaughter on arrival. Careful inquiries by the RSPCA, as I say, have found no evidence of that.
I might, perhaps, add that the British Veterinary Association has recently produced a code for the conduct of horse sales. This was intended by the Association to be advisory rather than mandatory, but nevertheless veterinary and other officials of the Ministry of Agriculture are looking at these points to see whether any might, with advantage, be included in a new order under the Diseases of Animals Act. In examining this suggestion—and it is one that my noble friend made and which we willingly and gladly take on board—the officials concerned will naturally take account of the views of the recognised animal welfare socities and other interests concerned as well as your Lordships. I shall undertake that all the points that have been made in this debate will be brought to the attention of my right honourable friends.

COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House; Bill to be printed as amended.
NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House; Bill to be printed as amended.