Lords Sitting of 25 July 1978

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

LORD BLEASE
William John Blease, Esquire, having been created Baron Blease, of Cromac in the City of Belfast, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Melchett and the Baroness Stedman.

STEEL PRODUCTIVITY
2.49 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 what plans they have for improving productivity in the steel industry.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the Government believe the main responsibility for improving productivity in both the public and private sectors of the United Kingdom steel industry rests with the managements and the workforces and their representatives concerned. Improvement of productivity is one of the objectives of the Industrial Strategy, and is being studied by the Iron and Steel Sector Working Party, on which both the public and private sectors of the industry and the trade unions are represented. The Government's recent White Paper British Steel Corporation: The Road to Viability recognised the need for very substantial improvements in management and manpower practices in the Corporation over the next few years to achieve viability through international competitiveness.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, is it not a fact that in January 1976 a joint committee of the BSC management and the TUC Steel Committee agreed to reduce the very serious overmanning in the
774
industry, so that it was internationally competitive? Did not this agreement result in the setting up of 100 productivity schemes? May we be told what has happened in the past two and a half years to reduce the overmanning and so make BSC internationally competitive? How many people have been made redundant and paid compensation?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. A joint BSC-TUC Steel Committee statement recorded agreement on reductions in manpower where necessary to achieve international standards if the industry wants to be competitive in the 1980s and it set out the conditions under which they were to take place. Progress was held up under Phases I and II of the pay policy, when meantime payments could not be introduced. Since 1st August 1977 more than 100 self-financing productivity schemes involving a de-manning element have been proposed. Provided the current pay policy year's guidelines are observed, the introduction of these schemes is a matter for the British Steel Corporation and the unions.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, can my noble friend say how many steel industries in the world are internationally competitive at the moment?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I could give details of a table to the House, but it is fairly depressing. So far as I can find out, none is competitive.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us a little about the Government's and the Steel Corporation's diagnosis of the reasons for the increasingly poor productivity record of the Steel Corporation over the past 10 years in relation to our competitors abroad? Do they know what the main reasons are?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, 10 years is a long time. The Iron and Steel Sector Working Party plans to undertake a detailed comparative study of the efficiency of certain British Steel Corporation works, as well as similar works in Germany and the Netherlands. The terms of reference are:
"to examine relevant variables in specific processes in matched pairs of steelworks in the

775
United Kingdom and Europe; to assess the reasons for differences in performance; and to report back to the Sector Working Party with proposals for action."
This study will be carried out by a small team comprising trade unionists and British Steel Corporation management. I believe that that is a much more valid system of assessment than is jobbing back over 10 years, a period during which much has happened in the world outside.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that since nationalisation a huge amount of modernisation has taken place in the British Steel Industry? Taking that into account, can he say what level of production we should have had to endure had we not had nationalisation?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is one of those awful questions where one has to give what the alternatives would have been had we not taken certain action. What is interesting here is to compare two sets of figures of output per man and loss per tonne of liquid steel, which show that the losses seem to be equivalent to those of any major steel producing unit.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us how many redundancies have been effected in the steel industry in, say, the past year with a view to de-manning—to use his phrase—the industry?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: No, my Lords; but if the noble Earl will table a Question I will answer it.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether he thinks that he will be able to sell the steel which is being made at present?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, part of the problem is that it is a very peculiar situation. Yes, most certainly we can sell the steel that we are making.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that the Government cannot entirely opt out and leave this responsibility to the BSC and the trade unions? The BSC is at present losing over £450 million of taxpayers'
776
money every year. It is not right for a Government to leave the taxpayers in this parlous position. Something should be done to increase productivity, so that it does not take two Britons to produce the same amount of steel that one German can produce.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Lord is overstating the problem. The BSC is not losing over £450 million every year. This is a jeu d'esprit, if I may use a French expression. BSC expect to make a loss of about £175 million in the first half of the current year, without allowing for contingencies.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: My Lords, does the noble Lord not remember that, as I recollect, every time a chairman of the steel industry has forecast a loss it has been doubled by the end of the year?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: No, my Lords, I have a greater confidence than the noble Lord. I should like to make a point arising from what my noble friend mentioned earlier. If we take the actual loss per tonne on the international scale, we find that the French private sector lost £42 per tonne; the German public sector lost £26 per tonne; and the United Kingdom public sector lost £25 per tonne. We are not doing too badly in the international league of losses in what is a very difficult world situation.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, what about the Japanese private sector?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that was a fast one.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, if the Government were to lay on a supply of the escort vessels which the Navy need so desperately, would that not greatly help the steel industry? Would not some of the cost be off-set by the reduction in unemployment, by insurance, and other factors? Would not our status in NATO be greatly improved?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: That is another question, my Lords.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, will the noble Lord please tell us how much how many Japs are being paid per week

777
to produce one tonne of steel, and will he compare that with how many British workers are being paid how much per week to produce one tonne of steel here?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Earl said either "chaps" or "Japs"—
The Earl of ONSLOW: Japs.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: The figures regarding Japs are not available, my Lords.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of us consider that the questions which have been asked today are certainly inept? Is he further aware that unless we start studying the implications of the micro-circuitry of the electronic ship—which will put thousands and thousands out of work, unless we get a plan for the future—we shall be living and arming like Sparta?
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that whatever else is inept, redundancy payment of £15,000 to £17,000 per head may very well be inept in view of the impact that that has on the economy elsewhere, particularly on the private sector?

DISABLED PERSONS: UN DECLARATION
2.58 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action has been taken in regard to United Nations Resolution 3447 (XXX) adopted 9th December 1975, on the Declaration of the rights of disabled persons.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in many cases, the aims of the Declaration had already been achieved in this country, and in others we were actively seeking to achieve them before the Declaration was approved. Ministers generally, and
778
my honourable friend the Minister for the Disabled in particular, have been consistently seeking to improve the quality of life for disabled people since this Government took office. A progress report on the Declaration was recently submitted to the United Nations, and we shall be making arrangements for it to be published. When it is published, I shall see that a copy is placed in the Library of your Lordships' House.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that reply I should like to ask him whether the Declaration has yet been ratified and signed by the United Kingdom?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not know whether it has been ratified and signed. All I can say is that it has been sent to the United Nations.

H.M. DOCKYARDS: UNION ACTION
2.59 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what arrangements have been made with the eight unions at H.M. Dockyard Rosyth in order that two of the Polaris submarines may be moved and that H.M.S. "Renown" may be refitted.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will answer this Question in the form of a Statement to be made at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for saying that he is to make a Statement. However, in view of the fact that my Question has been on the Order Paper since 12th July, why have we waited so long for the Statement?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is a moving situation—or perhaps I should say a situation in movement. That is why there has been a certain postponement.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply—and it has not moved very far, I suggest—may I ask him whether, after the Statement, we shall be able to ask as many questions as we would have been allowed to ask on a Starred Question?
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I think the noble Baroness understands that of course she will be at liberty to ask specific questions on the Statement.

FAST NUCLEAR REACTORS: SAFETY INQUIRY
3 p.m.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they will take to set up an inquiry into the safety of fast nuclear reactors.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the Government have undertaken that any proposal to build a commercial demonstration fast reactor will be subject to a public inquiry. The inquiry would not be limited to local planning matters; but would allow wider relevant issues to be examined. The Government are considering what might be the most appropriate arrangements for such an inquiry in the event of a proposal being made.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that Answer to another Question, may I ask him whether he would answer the Question I asked, which is when and what action they will take?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the Government expect the nuclear organisations to put forward in due course considered proposals for the construction of a commercial-scale demonstration fast reactor. When these have been received we will be in a better position to decide on the timing of any inquiry.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government intend to
780
wait until there is some declaration made by the European Economic Community before making any Statement with regard to the nuclear reactor? There have been, as I have no doubt my noble friend has observed, statements in the papers to the effect that the European Community is looking into the matter. Does that mean that we wait for their decision?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sure that is a factor which will be taken into account by the nuclear organisations.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My Lords, could the noble Lord elucidate on his phrase "commercial demonstration nuclear reactor"? To me, those are two completely different things. Does the noble Lord mean a commercial, and therefore usable, reactor, or does he mean a demonstration, in other words a trial, reactor of a commercial size?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I would recommend the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, to look up the glossary behind the energy Green Paper, which is dated last February and is in your Lordships' Library, where he will see an explanation of the term.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: But, my Lords, if the noble Lord has it so readily in his mind, could he not tell the House what it is? Because there may be a queue in the Library as a result of his answer to that supplementary question.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I took the opportunity to arm myself with a photostat of the glossary, and I will read this out to the House:
"A fast reactor is a type of fission reactor in which neutrons resulting from fission are not deliberately slowed down. The main types of fast reactor at present under development are designed to use plutonium as a fuel, at the same time breeding plutonium from depleted uranium at a faster rate than it is consumed."
I may say that this is a very serious and important subject; and, of course, the Green Paper concluded:
"We need to ensure that fast reactor technology will be available to us when we need it in a proven and acceptable form, and it will be necessary for Ministers to consider how best this will be achieved."
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, while I am sure the House is very interested in what the noble Lord has just told us, it was not an answer to the question put by my noble friend, who wanted to know the exact meaning of a commercial demonstration reactor. Whatever else was the definition given by the noble Lord, it was not a definition of that.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord would be good enough to look up the glossary under "thermal reactor", he will then see a description of a thermal reactor—
Several noble Lords: No!
Lord STRABOLGI:—and then a reference indicating that he should look up "fast reactor", where he will be given an explanation.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I know perfectly well what a thermal reactor is, and perfectly well what a fast reactor is? The question is: What is a commercial demonstration reactor, to which he referred in his original Answer? We cannot be put off by definitions of different things, because we can actually hear; and if the noble Lord thinks that I do not know the elements of nuclear physics, he is wrong.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, a commercial reactor of this kind is one that, if it is developed—and there is an experimental one at Dounreay at the moment—will be able to put nuclear energy to commercial uses. It is as simple as that.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the prototype fast reactor now operating at Dounreay is putting quantities of electricity into the grid, and that in fact it lights my house every day—or, perhaps, every night; and every day in the winter-time? Is he further aware that the system which is employed was described in your Lordships' House not very long ago in a debate on nuclear energy by the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, as being inherently safe; and that in that debate we were pressing Her Majesty's Government to produce the commercial
782
size demonstration reactor, which will work by the same means as the prototype but on a commercial scale?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, these are all factors which will be taken into account, but we have not yet had the proposals from the nuclear organisations. When we have those, we shall then consider what inquiry to set up. These are all matters for an inquiry.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that my noble friend gave a far better answer than he did?
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, to bring this matter to a conclusion, would the noble Lord give an undertaking that he will ensure that the other side of the business, in whose court the ball apparently now rests, is aware that the next move is up to them?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords,

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Lord PEART: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Peart be given leave to advance the Motion relating to the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 1978 from Tuesday the 1st August to Thursday the 27th of July.—(Lord Peart.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOMES INSULATION BILL
3.7 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT(Baroness Birk): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Baroness Birk.)
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I wonder whether on this Motion I may ask the noble Baroness a question which I have put on at least two previous occasions to other ministerial spokesmen,

783
when I have been told that the Department in question was not theirs and they could not answer at that stage. Everyone accepts that the insulation of offices is a very desirable thing that ought to be encouraged. The Government wish to do that, and everyone would support the Government in their endeavours. Is the noble Baroness in a position to say that, if householders go to the expense of insulating their houses, it will not have the effect of putting up the rateable value of the house, which will mean that they will have to pay more rates? When, with the same aim of conserving oil revenue, we encouraged central heating in houses, it was found that the rateable values of properties were increased as a consequence of the extra amenity, which meant that, far from encouraging installation, it acted as a discouragement. As regards insulation, my question is very clear. Is the noble Baroness in a position to say that it will not interfere with the rateable value, therefore causing an increase in rates? Alternatively, if she cannot answer that specifically, can she say that she would recommend to her right honourable friend that instructions be given that insulation will not put up the rateable value, so that we do not have, on the one hand, encouragement, and, at the same time, discouragement caused by the extra expense to which householders would be put?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, that was an unexpected one at Report stage. As the noble Lord is well aware, rateable values are set by references to the hypothetical open market annual rental value of the property. It is true that, theoretically, it is obviously possible that, by increasing the value of the amenity to the house, the rateable value could be increased, but I am advised that the insulation measures eligible under the Bill are, when taken in isolation, unlikely to have more than even a marginal effect on the assessed rental value. In any event, in England and Wales, improvements which increase the gross annual rental value of a domestic property by less than £30 are normally ignored until the next general revaluation. That is provided for under Section 21 of the Local Government Act 1974. I would add that I think it is extremely unlikely—in fact, practically impossible—that, when the Government are taking this initiative and paying people
784
to heat their houses, they would then put up the rateable value in that way. It does not make sense, even in the Alice in Wonderland situations which sometimes go on in government.
Lord PLANT: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that the valuation office have never increased the rateable value of a house because of the insulation of a loft?
Baroness BIRK: That is absolutely true, my Lords. That is why I particularly pointed out to the noble Lord opposite that although this was theoretically possible in fact it had not happened in this case and it was very unlikely that it would happen.
On Question, Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Birk.)
3.12 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I feel that this is an appropriate opportunity to mention to the noble Baroness the pace with which we have been invited to discuss this important Bill; because it is against a background of four years in which the whole question of energy saving has been discussed that this very small Bill, a Bill which has only the remit to carry out approximately 10 per cent. of the housing programme insulation every year for 10 years, is included. The Second Reading took place on 12th July, the Committee stage on 18th July, and today we have just had the Report stage and Third Reading.
We are being invited at considerable speed to examine this Bill and, although it is not for me to suggest how the Government arrange their business, it appears that it is Bills of this type which might well be examined in this House at a very much earlier stage in the Parliamentary programme and be much more satisfactorily discussed. We hope that the insulation programme is a great success;

785
but how can this be so, particularly for the forthcoming autumn and winter, if, in fact, Royal Assent is likely to take place early next month followed by all the usual provisions? In the first place, local authorities will be advised by circular; they, in turn, will be expected to advertise the scheme; and the programme will, we hope, get off to a start in the autumn. Had this Bill been considered by this House at an earlier stage in the Session, it might have been possible to have the whole thing not only on the stocks but moving by now—to the great benefit of large numbers of people in this country.
I should like to express gratitude on behalf of my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal for assistance over a number of questions in connection with this Bill. As I understand that the particular issue of approved materials has been a matter of discussion between the Department and the industry, it is, I hope, a matter on which the noble Baroness will be able to inform the House in a few minutes. It is a further issue whether materials will be approved materials under British Standards specification. This in itself is another reason why the Bill ought to have been completed at an earlier stage, so that this vital aspect of approved materials for the programme could have passed through its usual stages. I am grateful for what the noble Baroness said on 18th July (in cols. 188 and 189 of the Official Report) in regard to the budgetary considerations, because what she said in her remarks at that time, the assurances she gave, went a considerable way to removing anxieties which were expressed by my noble friend Lord Strathcona at Second Reading. It was not clear from the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum how this programme was to be paid for. Now we understand from the noble Baroness that it is a 10-year rolling programme, although the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum did not say so.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that, whenever this beneficent Government do anything to bring comfort to ordinary families in the country, it is greeted with moans from the Party opposite? It may be that this beneficent measure could have been introduced earlier.
Lord SANDYS: Yes!
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, the noble Lord says, "Yes". I would remind him that his Government were in power for three or four years and they did nothing whatever about it. There is no use in the noble Lord pretending that this method of insulation was not available at that time. Even in the days of the Tory Government, I had my own roof insulated by the method suggested in the Bill. In introducing this Bill, we have done a good thing
which will benefit many thousands of families throughout the country. I think it is very mean for the Party opposite to pour cold water on it.
3.17 p.m.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, I deeply resent what has been said just now by the noble Lord who has just sat down. It seems to me that we have done everything in our power to fall in with the desire of the Government that this Bill should be pushed on to the Statute Book as soon as possible. I was reading the proceedings in another place and there they said it was five years ago that it could have been gone on with. I think it was very unfair to suggest that this has been met with moans or groans or whatever it was the noble Lord said. It is nothing of the sort.
I preface my speech with the words: As I said on Second Reading, I and many others on this side of the House do support this Bill and wish to give it a fair wind. Nevertheless, I may say, it could have been a much better Bill—and this was the point made by my noble friend—if the Government had given us more time in which to consider it. In this respect, I feel I owe the House an apology because I put my name to two Amendments but I could not come to the Committee stage because of the fact that this Bill had the sign on it in the Minutes which meant it was "set down before the expiry of the recommended minimum interval between stages". This is what has gone on because it was not introduced earlier, as my noble friend Lord Sandys said it might. Nevertheless, I owe thanks to my noble friends on this side of the House and to the noble Baroness for making understood some of the points that I made in the Committee stage and,

787
with my noble friend Lord Sandys, I look forward to the noble Baroness replying to this problem of materials which is one that I raised on Second Reading.
I think that we all agree that this matter is of such importance and means such a lot to poor people with the cold winter coming along that it is better to have this Bill, imperfect as it is, than not to have a Bill at all. But I and many noble Lords on this side feel that that is poor consolation to those who think the measure should have been tackled a long time ago, perhaps years ago. Home insulation being a function of domestic space heating, I must confess that I used the Second Reading as a vehicle for my relentless pursuit of lower off-peak electricity tariffs for domestic heating.
The reductions which have taken place in the past few days do not go far enough. They do not cover Scotland, for instance; but that is another matter. I was glad that my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls mentioned the question of rates. The reply of the noble Baroness went some way to meeting the problem. That is something we did not discuss at the Committee stage, any more than the question of VAT has been mentioned. Perhaps the noble Baroness will speak on that when she winds up the debate.
There arises one point about insulation which I think is apposite and is a matter of interest to me and my family who have lived in the tropics for many years. My wife pointed out to me yesterday that if one insulates a house and keeps it cool inside one could find that the insulation keeps the cold in. This has a bearing on the angle which I took of the importance of adequate space heating which will result from proper low tariffs. I hope that the noble Baroness is going to be able to say something about dangerous materials. It has been suggested to me in various consultations that the time may come when more regulations may be required in regard to furnishing materials generally. I refer to the hazards which fire fighters have to face today with fumes and smoke which arise from some of the modern materials. That again is another matter. I support the Motion that the Bill, with all its blemishes, be given a Third Reading now.
3.22 p.m.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I should like to support both Conservative speakers in what they said about the haste with which this Bill was hurried along. It was intimated to us in Committee that, if a single Amendment were to be agreed to, the whole Bill might be lost. All I can say about that is I simply do not believe that it is the will of the electors that there shall be single-chamber Government in the month of July.
Lord ROBERTHALL: My Lords, following the tenor of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, may I ask whether the noble Baroness is able to give us some idea of when the local authorities will be ready to receive applications?
3.24 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, in dealing with the points which have been raised, may I first say something about the timetable and what has been described as the Bill being introduced at a late time in the Session. The timetable was agreed through the usual channels in the usual way. It was agreed between both sides of the House. I find it rather odd at this stage of the day—but I think it is a bit "end of termish" at the moment—that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, should have raised that question in that way. If I may focus on his remarks, may I thank him for the kind messages which he passed on from the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, which I enjoyed rather more than Lord Sandys's own remarks, although I am sure they were very good-humoured.
This is a short and simple Bill. We all discussed it and I explained carefully on Second Reading and also at Committee stage that due to the small amount of resources that can be put into the first scheme and because the Bill itself outlines not only the possibilities but the framework for future schemes, there is a tremendous simplicity about it. With great consideration and thought about it, I cannot believe that spending very much longer on it would have got us any further. I have no recollection of cutting down or trying to stop anybody on Committee stage. There is no guillotine in this House; every Amendment was discussed extremely fully. Other noble

789
Lords from both sides of the House who did not share this considerable interest intimated to me afterwards that they thought I had gone on rather too long about it. One really cannot please everybody.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Baroness? I personally would have put down an Amendment or suggested a Schedule regarding building materials had it not been for her appeals, which I feel were justified, that we should get on with it.
Baroness BIRK: I appreciate that, my Lords. The noble Lord will agree that we have had correspondence, we have spoken about it and I intend in a moment to reply for the record to the point that he raised on the use of materials. As the noble Lord said, he was unable to be here at Committee stage; otherwise no doubt he would have raised the matter on the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill? even if he had not had the opportunity to put down an Amendment. But I do not think that one can argue on that.
With the other Bills which have been through the House in this Session—the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill to name but two—which have taken a considerable amount of your Lordships' time, I think that it is a triumph for both sides of the House that we are going to get this Bill on the Statute Book. My noble friend Lord Leatherland had a point when he said—and it is part of the political scene—that when one brings in anything it is always considered that it is either late or does not go far enough. It is traditional for such matters to be greeted by moans. That does not make it a less important measure.
The answer to the question that the noble Lord, Lord Roberthall, asked about when the local authorities will be able to take action is this: We are hoping that this will be some time in early September. Directly the Bill gets the Royal Assent, local authorities, who know all about it in any case—it is not really a highly complicated measure and they will have already been discussing it and getting their plans underway—will have been circularised and will get it underway.
790
On that point, I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, that one has to take human nature into account. When the weather is rather warmer and there is the odd nice day like today, people do not start, as perhaps they should, thinking about insulating their homes. When we get to the fresher days of September and October the demand will come and, then, I can assure noble Lords, local authorities will be able to deal with it. On the whole, noble Lords will agree that there has been a wide measure of agreement and a repeated emphasis on this throughout the discussion on this Bill. There has been a recognition of the overriding need to bring the first scheme under the Bill into operation before another winter is upon us. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has kindly advised me of his questions in advance and he and the noble Lords, Lord Sandys and Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, have raised the question at some length of ensuring that the products in respect of which grant aid is given are both effective as insulants and safe in use. This is an extremely important point.
If noble Lords will bear with me for a moment, this is something that I think should go on the record in our discussions on this Bill. I think that I should make it clear immediately that most insulation products generally available in this country at present have been tried, have been tested and have been proved in use over many years. The insulating industry itself has taken action to ensure the safety and effectiveness of its products. A number have already submitted voluntarily to the Agrement Board for assessment and other manufacturers are working with the British Standards Institute towards the urgent establishment of a British standard.
Officials of my Department have been closely involved with a number of manufacturers and only yesterday were having further discussions with them and, I believe, the Agrement Board on this. However, it is true that the introduction of this Bill will no doubt lead to the appearance of a number of new products on the market. Despite the steps already taken by industry therefore the Government remain concerned to see that adequate measures are taken to protect the householder and ensure an effective use of public resources. We are therefore continuing

791
urgent discussions with the various interested parties to establish an effective method of excluding from grant-aid projects which fail to meet acceptable standards, and I am confident that will be achieved very soon. I can, however, assure the House that these discussions and the introduction of appropriate control procedures will not delay the commencement of the first scheme, which will come into effect, as I said, as early as possible this autumn.
The noble Lord also referred to VAT. At present there is no special VAT relief for insulation work, although in some circumstances the work can be exempted under the general zero-rating for building and reconstruction work. The distinction for VAT purposes is between works of constructional or alteration services which are zero-rated, on the one hand, and works of repair and maintenance, which are standard-rated, on the other. Insulation work on new buildings and first-time installation of insulation in existing buildings would both be within the first category, and thus qualify for zero-rating for VAT purposes. As there is no question at the moment, as I explained at earlier stages, of any "topping up" being possible, these would all be new insulation schemes and therefore should be zero-rated.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier's interesting point—or rather his wife's point—about insulation keeping the cold in, this is, of course, working on a sort of vacuum process. If we have a very hot summer it is rather like having a thatched-roofed cottage: it seems to keep one warm in winter and to keep one cold, combined with stone, in summer. So in a way one could say that people are getting two services for one, and even North of the Border it has recently been quite hot. In other words, you can keep hot when you want to, warm when you want to and cool when you want to. That gives an added dimension to the advantages that people are going to get.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, I really only meant to link it with the cost of heating a house. The point is that it is no use insulating the house unless you can heat it inside in cold weather. That is why I want low rates for heating.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I can see that point. I think we would all like
792
low rates for heating; but I think the noble Lord will agree that if you want to keep the heat in you have to heat up the house to start with. I think we are all agreed on that.
Finally, I will reiterate that this Bill, although a modest one, is of great importance in regard to our general efforts to conserve energy in this country. The debates have served to highlight some of the problems which face us as we try to instill a greater awareness of the importance of energy conservation in the country at large. Certainly we shall be looking closely at this problem and at how fast we can move towards the further measures which are contained within the Bill, ready to be taken in hand directly resources are available. In the meantime, I would ask the House to pass this Bill.
On Question, Bill passed.

ROYAL NAVAL ARMAMENT DEPOT, COULPORT
3.34 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I wish to repeat an Answer to a Private Notice Question being given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence in another place. The Answer is as follows:
"Attempts to persuade the workforce at the Royal Naval Armament Depot, Coulport, to resume normal working have not yet succeeded, although I naturally hope that an early settlement can be achieved. To ensure that our contribution to the Alliance strategic deterrent is maintained the Government must ensure that preparations for HMS 'Revenge' to sail are completed very soon. We are therefore today informing the workforce that naval and management personnel will complete the loading of HMS 'Revenge', starting tomorrow, and that in the interests of safety the Depot will be closed temporarily to all except certain specially authorised personnel from 26th July until the loading has been completed. As regards 'Repulse' and 'Renown' there is as yet no operational problem, although I shall of course keep the situation under review."
My Lords, that is the end of the Answer.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think the Government are quite right. It must be the prime duty of the defence policy of a Government to keep the nuclear deterrent in action. Would the noble Lord not agree that it is really totally intolerable that union leaders should set themselves up as the arbiters of whether or not it is necessary that there should be a British nuclear deterrent at sea? Would the noble Lord be good enough also to tell the House whether the industrial unrest in the other dockyards is likely to lead to further trouble for other ships in the Royal Navy and, if so, what the Government intend to do about it?
On a domestic matter, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House this: my noble friend Lady Vickers has had a Question down on this subject for some time. A Member of another place put down a Private Notice Question at the last moment, which was accepted in another place. Because a Member of another place put down that Private Notice Question, my noble friend was not allowed to hear the Answer to her Question, or to have the right to ask the first supplementary in this House. I do not believe that is the right procedure. All it would have meant would have been that another place would have heard the same Statement 50 minutes later. I hope very much that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will look into this because, if I may say so, I do not think it is fair on my noble friend.
Lord PEART: My Lords, may I just say that the Statement was agreed with the usual channels. That is the procedure. I had hoped that the noble Baroness would be able to put questions directly to my noble friend, and I am sure she will.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, I should like,—
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, may I first reply to the first two points made by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition—
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, if I may continue, along with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I welcome the Government's determination to tackle this extremely serious problem, because it
794
is a matter which has shocked the whole country. We really are in the land of make-believe if this sort of thing can continue. The laughter in the Kremlin must be considerable. This is so serious that I think the Government should have all-Party consultations in order to get the backing of all the forces in this country who really want to see some semblance of order and sanity in our defence preparations.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, asked me whether the situation was not intolerable. The answer is: Yes it is, and we are not tolerating it. As regards the other dockyards, that is a wider question. I understand that the Joint Co-ordinating Committee for Government Industrial Establishments is willing to discuss with the trade union side any alternative proposals made for settlement in this area of Polaris missiles and, of course, in other areas in the dockyards.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, expresses the feeling of the House as a whole and indeed the feeling outside this House, that the situation is of such significance that a common view should be expressed on the problem we are facing at the moment.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, if I may, I should like to join in the welcome that has been given to the Government's taking of this action, and I do so both as a Member of this House and as an official of the union concerned for a long, long time. May I ask the Minister whether he would agree that these things are never done, even when they have to be done, without a great deal of delicacy and risk being involved? May I therefore put it to him: Is it not better that anything that we might all have wanted to say had he not made that Statement today should not now be said, in order that we do not stir up more trouble following the decision, since the Government have courageously made the right decision?
May I further put it to him, having heard Mr. Mick Martin on television last night, who said that if there were ever an emergency of course the Glasgow shop stewards would have met—could

795
we just remind him, as I once put before the Lower House, that the nuclear warning in those days was four minutes and nobody ever heard of a Glasgow shop stewards' meeting coming to any decision—they would soon be up there!
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his very wise comments.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for replying to my Question on the Statement. Can he tell us what is the basis of the dispute? Is it solely about pay, or is it also about length of hours? As my noble friend Lord Carrington said, there is unrest not only in this dockyard but in other dockyards, so we should welcome Government discussion with officials and others, in order to see that we do not have trouble elsewhere.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is a dispute based on pay. There is nothing more sinister than that.

INNER URBAN AREAS BILL
3.41 p.m.
Baroness BIRK:My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments be now considered.—(Baroness Birk.)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, may I say that it is very gratifying to us on this side of the House that all the Amendments to the Inner Urban Areas Bill, with the exception of one, have been agreed in another place. I think that this reflects the view of the whole House about the importance of this Bill. But before we accept the Reason, given on the Order Paper, for not accepting the Amendment about giving grants to voluntary organisations, I wonder whether the noble Baroness can give us any further explanation. It has been ruled a Money Resolution by the Speaker in another place, and that I must accept. Nevertheless, it seems, on
796
looking again at the Financial Memorandum to the Bill, that this is a very difficult ruling to accept. The Amendment did not impose a duty at all. It opened the possibility of giving grants to voluntary organisations in the inner cities. It seems, on reading the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum that goes with the Bill, that most of the clauses in the Bill—
"are discretionary and the precise expenditure that will arise cannot therefore be calculated."
No one was asking for extra expenditure, but what we were asking for was value for money; and most people who have had experience of voluntary organisations believe that giving money to them is often better value than giving it to a statutory authority, whether it be central or local government, to manage. I therefore think that it raises quite an important matter of principle, and for those of us who are concerned with voluntary organisations it is very disappointing that the Government have not seen fit, if they are unable to accept the Amendment as drafted, to bring forward an Amendment which would have achieved the same objectives, but would not have been subject to the same difficulty.
I say this in the knowledge that when this matter was discussed in the House at Report stage the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said at col. 616, in reference to the Amendment by my noble friend Lord Sandford:
"I hope that the noble Lord does not intend to press it, but if he does, I do not intend to put myself or my noble friends into a position in which we appear to be opposing the interests of the voluntary sector. Therefore if he wishes to divide the House, I shall abstain, and ask my noble friends, if they feel that way, to do the same thing."—[Official Report, 30/6/78.]
In fact, the Government did not vote against the Amendment, but abstained for reasons which I am sure are perfectly understandable to us on this side of the House. I should therefore be grateful to the noble Baroness, if she could give us an explanation of the Government's attitude in another place.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (141) as first printed for the Lords. The Commons Reason is printed in italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
1 After Clause 14, page 9, line 41, at end insert new Clause B:
Grants to national voluntary bodies.
"B. The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury make grants for assisting persons engaged in promoting or assisting schemes and research relating to, and dissemination of information in respect of, the enhancement of the physical environment and the promotion of employment in designated districts."
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
2 Because it would involve a charge on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that the above Reason may be deemed sufficient.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 2. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has just pointed out, this Amendment is the new clause which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, moved on Report to attempt to provide for grants to national and voluntary bodies. At the time, I said that the clause went beyond the Money Resolution on the Bill and that it would not be acceptable in another place. The noble Lord was not content on that occasion to accept my advice, but as it turned out, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has just said, what I said about another place proved correct. A number of comments were made about this clause and the Government's attitude to it, and I think that I should briefly make clear our views, particularly because the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has herself raised the matter again.
The Money Resolution refers to other Acts of Parliament and not to this Bill. Therefore, the Amendment could not have been accepted. If the noble Baroness will look at the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, she will see that all the financial provisions come under the powers of other Acts, and there is no special financial provision for this Bill. We believe that there are ample powers to aid voluntary bodies within the Bill as it is at present, and under the powers of previous Acts of Parliament. I should now like to explain what I mean by that, and I hope that it will be the last time that we clarify our views on this matter.
798
First, the clause is unnecessary because we can, and do, already pay grants to the kind of bodies that the noble Lord said he intended to provide for. I say "intended", since the clause, despite this idea, does not provide specifically for grants to bodies that are either national or voluntary. Secondly, our opposition to this clause does not imply any opposition to the involvement of voluntary bodies, at either national or local level, in the problems of inner areas. It was in order to underline that, and make it quite clear, that I made the comment, which the noble Baroness has just read out, at the end of the debate when the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said that he would press his Amendment.
I have stressed before, and I stress again, that we are concerned to have the widest possible involvement of the voluntary sector, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment emphasised this when he spoke to the National Council of Social Service conference two weeks ago. If the Government felt that further powers were necessary to make grants to assist in this involvement of voluntary bodies, we should most certainly have included such powers in the Bill and should also have provided an appropriate Money Resolution. The noble Baroness is correct, and, if it had been decided that they were necessary, then they could have been provided, but not within the Money Resolution as it stands; they would have needed a new Money Resolution. But as I have already said, we do not believe that such additional powers are necessary to enable us to do what the noble Lord and the noble Baroness are suggesting, nor would the Amendment make further funds available.
We have discussed the role of voluntary bodies at some length at previous stages of this Bill, and there was considerable discussion in another place. I feel that my right honourable friend has moved some distance towards assuring, and reassuring, voluntary bodies in the discussion that he had with a deputation from the NCSS and also when he spoke at their conference. I am now sure that the House will be content not to insist on this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the

799
Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 2.—(Baroness Birk.)
3.50 p.m.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: My Lords, may I say from these Benches that we very much welcome the acceptance by the Government of the overwhelming majority of the Amendments, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said. Like her, we are disappointed, but I think we have to accept willy-nilly the explanation which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has given for the unwillingness of the other place to accept this Amendment. I only hope that the optimism of the noble Baroness—that her right honourable friend has satisfied voluntary organisations—is realised. There is still great concern—I am sure noble Lords appreciate that I am involved with voluntary organisations—about the absence of the involvement of voluntary organisations in inner urban partnerships. There is a great concern among councils of voluntary service that they are not being sufficiently involved.
I hope that the discussions both in this House and in another place and the representations made by the Minister may convince local authorities that it is vitally important—for financial, charitable and efficiency reasons—that voluntary organisations should be thoroughly involved. If that assurance can be given, I should like to thank the noble Baroness very much, as it were as an apprentice in this House, for the courtesy, patience and, indeed, resignation with which she has been prepared to listen to all that I have had to say about the Bill during its various stages. We all feel that the Bill has been very considerably improved by the Amendments which the Government have been willing to accept.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PARLIAMENTARY PENSIONS BILL
Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

COMMUNITY SERVICE BY OFFENDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.53 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (193) as first printed for the Lords. The Commons Reasons are printed in italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 2, page 2, line 45, at end insert ("and, where appropriate, the particular days or times of day when the work is to be performed")
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
2 Because it is unacceptable in principle and would have undesirable consequences in practice for the effective operation of community service by offenders in Scotland.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No.1, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 2. The Government consider this Amendment undesirable in principle and believe that it would have most undesirable consequences in practice for the effective operation of community service by offenders in Scotland, the principle of which has been widely supported in your Lordships' House, in the other place, and among those with an interest in penal policy in Scotland.
The principal reasons for objecting to the Amendment are practical ones. I was particularly appreciative of the intervention at Report stage by the noble Baroness, Lady David, who spoke with great conviction from her own personal experience as a magistrate who has imposed community service orders under the legislation in force in England and Wales. She described the Amendment as "totally impracticable."
What the court would never be in a position to know, or find out, with any

801
certainty at all is whether work would continue to be available on the set day or at the set time right through to the point, up to a year later, when the offender is working off the last hour of his sentence. If for any reason work ceases to be available at the right times or, for that matter, if the offender through no fault of his own is no longer able to work at those times, it would be necessary, under the Amendment, for the case to come back to the court at the request of the offender or the supervising officer under Clause 5(1).
The court has a number of options open to it under this clause, but it cannot simply vary the times specified in the order as the Bill had no such provision in it. It would be necessary, therefore, for the court to use its powers under Section 5(1)(d) to revoke the order and to sentence the offender again for the original offence. This is a highly cumbersome and most unsatisfactory procedure. It would add even further to the work of the courts and the community service organisers and could have a most damaging effect on the morale of the offender who would find himself in a most uncertain position through no fault of his own.
I have stated before in your Lordships' House, and I say it again now, that the court does have the power to express a view as to how a sentence should be carried out. As I have also indicated before to your Lordships, I am quite convinced that the community service organisers will do all that they can to fall in with such an expression of the court's wishes. There are many ways in which courts can influence the social workers, and vice versa, informally and formally. Such mutual influence is most likely to be beneficial when it is based on genuine mutual trust, and that will not, I submit, be achieved under this Amendment.
I can assure your Lordships that the Government will continue to stress the need for the fullest co-operation between courts and community service organisers in order to ensure that the wishes of the courts are met to the fullest extent possible. I am sure that Scotland needs this Bill which is throughly workable. I trust, therefore, that your Lordships will not press the Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 2.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for having explained why the Government, when the Amendment went to another place, still decided not to change their minds. Very briefly, I should like to comment on this Amendment, and it would be convenient if I referred also to the other Amendment because both are in the same terms.
First, I should like to say that I am speaking in place of my noble friend Lord Mansfield who has hitherto been dealing with this Bill, although I have been associated with him. My noble friend regrets that he cannot be here this afternoon. May I remind your Lordships that he is singularly well qualified to deal with this subject, practising as he does as a barrister at the English Bar—incidentally, following in the footsteps of the first Earl of Mansfield—and also being familiar with Scots law and procedure, since from time to time he sits on the bench of his local district court. There are very few people, if any, in your Lordships' House who are so familiar with law and procedure on both sides of the Border.
I think that all concerned have given a welcome in principle to this Bill. We are also glad that the Government have accepted certain Amendments, both in another place and also in your Lordships' House. As the noble Lord knows, on two or three occasions at Question Time I have suggested that a Bill of this kind should be introduced for Scotland. This was when we were discussing football hooliganism, because a system for dealing with it has been in operation in England for about five years and we believe that it has been successful. Circumstances are different in Scotland, but we feel sure that we can benefit North of the Border from a Bill of this kind.
We regret that the Government did not see fit to accept both this and the following Amendment. The purpose was to ensure that the alternative of community service was not treated as if it were not a punishment. I think that it can bring another benefit to Scotland, because the prisons in Scotland are overfull. There is a higher proportion of persons in prison

803
in Scotland than in England and Wales, and it will be beneficial if that prison population can be reduced. At the same time, we do not want persons who are before a court to feel that they are simply getting off if they are given a community service order.
The object of the Amendment which was moved and pressed by my noble friend at an earlier stage was to ensure that the court would have some say in how the community service was to be carried out. If I may give a very simple example, if it was a football hooligan who was before the court it would be very satisfactory, appropriate and salutary if the community service were to be carried out on Saturday afternoons so that he was not able to attend football matches. That would have been the kind of thing which the court would have been able to arrange under my noble friend's Amendments. The Government have raised objections to this and have not accepted it, but I do hope that the Government will none the less keep under special observation the way in which this Bill is carried out when it is enacted. There may well be cases where this Bill, if it is not carried out in the way in which I think we in this House all hope it will be, may fall into disrepute, and hooligans or vandals may simply think that they are getting away with it.
At an earlier stage, the noble Lord indicated that there were advisory committees which had been set up in different parts of Scotland. He did not indicate that the sheriffs sat on those committees, but he did indicate that they sometimes attended. I hope the Government will do all they can to ensure that the judiciary in Scotland are able to keep in contact with the social work departments of the local authorities who will have the task of carrying out the community service obligations under this Bill; I hope that the sheriffs will keep in touch with those committees. I know that this may be patchy; there may be some parts of Scotland where there is close liaison between the judiciary and the social work departments and others concerned. I hope the Government will keep this under close observation.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I should say, for the record, that so far as the pilot schemes themselves are concerned, at
804
this stage some sheriffs have joined the advisory committees; others are meeting informally on a monthly basis with those who are involved.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords I am grateful to the noble Lord for adding that clarification to what he said at the earlier stage. I am sure my noble friend Lord Mansfield will be glad to have that additional information. In accepting that another place has rejected these two Amendments, I would only say on behalf of my noble friend and myself that we hope that the action which is taken when this Bill is enacted will be kept under special observation, and, should it be necessary for improvements to be made, that the Government of the day will come forward with any further necessary legislation.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
3 Clause 2, page 3, line 10, at end insert—
("(2A) Upon making a community service order the court shall have regard to the desirability of relating the work to the nature of the offence.")
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
4 Because it is unacceptable in principle, unecessary and drafted in a manner which could lead to confusion.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 4. I do not propose to add anything to the debate in your Lordships' House at this stage. The Government's position has been put very clearly before your Lordships' House. So far as this particular Amendment is concerned, the Government consider it to be defective. But the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has spoken on both Amendments, and I would not wish to add anything.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 4.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CIVIL LIABILITY (CONTRIBUTION) BILL
Lord SCARMAN: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set

805
down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Scarman.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

ROAD TRAFFIC (SEAT BELTS) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1978
4.6 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Melchett)The MINISTER of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Melchett) rose to move, That the draft Road Traffic (Seat Belts) (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, laid before the House on 19th June, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order will permit the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland to make regulations, subject to the approval of Parliament, requiring the compulsory wearing of seat belts in Northern Ireland, and prescribing exemptions from such requirements. The order would require seat belts to be worn only in the front seats of vehicles that have, by law, to be fitted with belts. This would include all cars first registered after 1st January 1965, light vans registered after 1st May 1967 and some three-wheeled vehicles registered after 1st May 1967 and others registered after 1st September 1970.
The draft order recognises the need for a number of exemptions which will be provided for in the regulations. The order mentions two in particular: drivers who are reversing their vehicles, and drivers and front seat passengers who have a medical certificate from a doctor certifying that there are medical reasons why they should not wear a seat belt. This will be a matter solely for the doctor's own judgment and no specific diagnosis need be spelled out on the certificate. The Government are, of course, ready to consider any reasonable approaches for other exemptions, and the order provides enabling powers for this. Infringement
806
of the regulations would be a summary offence liable to a maximum fine of £50, and it would come within the general range of fixed penalty offences.
As noble Lords will know, the provisions in this order were originally included in the Roads and Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which was approved by your Lordships last week. During the consultative period for that draft order, it was clear that the most controversial provisions would be the introduction of the compulsory wearing of seat belts, and many people suggested that this provision should not be included in an Order in Council dealing with a wide range of uncontroversial road safety and traffic matters. The Government did not share that view, but we were anxious to be as helpful as possible, and that is why the mandatory wearing of seat belts is being introduced in this separate Order in Council.
I should like, if I may, to set out fully the arguments in favour of these provisions, and then to do my best to answer the reservations that some people have about them. First, I should like to explain to the House why the Government are proposing to introduce the compulsory wearing of seat belts in Northern Ireland. The Government were naturally concerned about the appalling road accidents problems of Northern Ireland, and in 1976 we set up a local road accident study group to advise us on how to reduce the terrifyingly high toll of death and injury.
Statistics show that the number of deaths on the roads in Northern Ireland per 10,000 vehicles registered is double the number in Great Britain. In every 1,000 road accidents in Northern Ireland there are 60 deaths compared with 25 in Great Britain. The number of deaths and injuries caused by road accidents throughout the United Kingdom is bad enough. But the grim statistics in Northern Ireland show clearly that we have problems there on a different scale altogether from the rest of the UK; in particular, the very high fatal accident rate is a cause for great concern. By establishing a study group in Norhern Ireland, the Government accepted that the particularly high rate of road deaths and injuries there might well only be reduced by introducing special measures in Northern Ireland.
The study group was an entirely local body, made up of members of a wide range of relevant interests, including motoring organisations, the road safety movement and the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The study group was not, of course, asked to consider whether Northern Ireland should be used as a test bed for other parts of the United Kingdom. Nor did it recommend any such thing. It was asked to consider carefully, and on their merits, what new measures could be taken to reduce the road deaths and injuries in Northern Ireland. And that is what this locally based and locally composed study group did.
One of its main recommendations was that the wearing of seat belts should be made compulsory. It was convinced that, in a community where so many fatal accidents were occurring, we could not neglect the experience accumulated in the very many other countries which had introduced the compulsory wearing of seat belts. This is not a new or untested idea. It is commonplace in Western Europe.
Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that the study group's proposal has had a wide welcome in Northern Ireland. Those most knowledgeable and experienced in road safety matters wholeheartedly support it. And, above all, the proposal has had the solid and virtually unanimous support of responsible medical opinion. I have no doubt that this support, and the moderate and positive way in which it has been expressed, will impress noble Lords. Society as a whole owes a great debt to the surgeons in Northern Ireland's hospitals. They have had to cope with the appalling consequences of many years of violence. Anything which will reduce the burden on them should, I believe, have our full support.
Day by day and week by week, these surgeons have had to cope with the tragic consequences of violent death and injury. Their views on this order are clear. On 9th March no fewer than 70 of Northern Ireland's leading surgeons sent a letter to me, as Minister with responsibility for Health and Social Services. They estimated that in 1976 road accidents had cost Northern Ireland something like £30 million. They said that a significant proportion of this cost fell on the Health Services, and that the risk of being killed
808
in a road accident was about four times greater for the "unbelted" and that their injuries were likely to be more serious. Referring to the many countries where compulsory wearing of seat belts has been introduced in the last few years, the surgeons said—and I quote from their letter to me:
"They all show impressive reductions in death and injuries on their roads. If we could achieve similar reductions the burden on our surgical wards would be eased considerably. In a time of financial stringency it is difficult to see any other way in which one could make extra beds available without additional cost. The result would be equivalent to building and staffing half a hospital."
I entirely agree with what Northern Ireland's leading surgeons have said to me. This measure is not simply a vital road safety measure, but also one of the most significant initiatives open to us in the field of prevention of illness and death.
I would now like to mention some of the reservations which have been expressed. First, some people have said that we should not use the Order in Council procedure to make a reform of this kind.
But Orders in Council are the normal means of legislation for Northern Ireland in transferred matters. The Government do not believe that they are an ideal way of legislating, but until there is a devolved Legislature in Northern Ireland again they will be the only practicable method. Parliament recognised this when it passed the Northern Ireland Act 1974.
Orders in Council have already been used to place a wide range of measures on the Northern Ireland Statute Book. While some of these enacted provisions for Northern Ireland which were already in force in the rest of the United Kingdom, many made provisions for Northern Ireland which have no equivalents in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Seat Belts Order is, therefore, in no way unique in this respect. I am sure that your Lordships would not want to confuse the issue of Northern Ireland's constitutional arrangements, which we debated very recently in this House, with a measure designed to save lives.
Objections to this order have, of course, been advanced on libertarian grounds. I find these arguments extremely difficult to understand, let alone accept. In the

809
last two years I have made innumerable flights from London to Belfast by plane, and I have never yet come across anyone who refused to fasten their seat belts on any grounds. I have certainly never met anyone who claimed that the switching on of the "Fasten Seat Belts" sign, and the cabin staff's checking to make sure all passengers, without exception, comply with this, was an infringement of their personal liberty. Of course, everyone knows that on take-off and landing an unbelted passenger could be thrown with force against the back of a seat, and voluntary persuasion and personal checking by cabin staff has been effective, in ensuring 100 per cent. wearing of seat belts in aeroplane.
With cars, where there are unfortunately no cabin staff to check on drivers and their passengers, persuasion and advertising have failed. But—as current Government publicity on seat belt wearing points out—a head-on crash at even 30 miles per hour has much the same effect on an unbelted driver as taking a high dive on to a solid surface.
People do, of course, argue that individuals have the right to do, or not to do, something which places only themselves at risk. But society no longer takes that view—for example, as far as the wearing of crash helmets by motor-cyclists is concerned. In any event, I believe that the general argument is a difficult one to sustain. Noble Lords will be aware that the Government car service is suffering from industrial relations problems today. I had to wear a crash helmet when travelling to work on my moped, but I did not feel in any way that my personal liberty was infringed by that particular legislative requirement. Unnecessary deaths and injuries involve social as well as personal costs; make unjustifiable demands upon scarce hospital beds and the time of doctors and surgeons, and often leave families dependent upon the support of the community at large.
Some people, I know, argue that in particular types of accidents, people may be in a worse position as a result of wearing a seat belt. I certainly would not claim that that is inconceivable, in some very rare cases. But the balance of advantage is overwhelming. The risks when wearing a seat belt are a great deal
810
lower than the risks when not. Governments and Parliament do not base their policy or law upon extremely exceptional cases.
Finally, people have asked whether it will be possible to enforce this measure in Northern Ireland, given the many other demands on the RUC. Clearly the requirement will not be self-enforcing.
But the information available, as a result of the experiences in other countries where seat belt wearing is compulsory, indicates that the vast majority of people will comply with this new law. Indeed, wearing rates of up to 80 per cent. have been reported in other countries, without the need for exceptional enforcement effort. Moreover, the Royal Ulster Constabulary was, of course, represented at a very senior level on the working party which recommended this proposal to the Government in the first place.
My Lords, I hope this House will support an advance in the road safety law in Northern Ireland which has been proved to be effective elsewhere; which has been pressed on the Government by responsible and expert local opinion in Northern Ireland; which is not merely supported but demanded by the local medical profession. Your Lordships' House regularly and rightly expresses horror at the appalling tragedy of the deaths and injuries that result from terrorist and paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland. Yet, in terms of the number of people needlessly killed and injured, road casualties are by far the worse tragedy. Since 1969, when the troubles began in Northern Ireland, a total of 1,852 people have died in Northern Ireland from terrorist or paramilitary activity. Of those, 1,373 were civilians. Over the same period, road accidents have claimed the lives of 2,981 people. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Road Traffic (Seat Belts) (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, laid before the House on 19th June, be approved.—(Lord Melchett.)
4.20 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON Lord CARRINGTON rose to move, That further debate on the Motion for approval of the order be now adjourned.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should first explain to your Lordships the reason

811
for this rather unusual Motion. It seems to me that the circumstances surrounding the presentation of this order warrant it, and it has nothing whatever to do with the merits or otherwise of the order itself. It is usually the case that we in this House do not oppose Government orders. It is true that on very rare occasions we have done so, sometimes with rather unexpected results. Generally speaking, orders pass through your Lordships' House with nothing other than discussion. The reason for this is that orders do not come under the provisions of the Parliament Act. Therefore, the rejection of an order by this House is the end of the matter; there can be no second thoughts, though, of course, it is possible for the Government to re-lay the order at a later date in slightly different terms. Your Lordships will remember that there has been some debate in the past, particularly from those who sit on the Government Benches, as to whether or not this state of affairs should continue.
Some little time ago, there was a Bill making the wearing of seat belts compulsory in the United Kingdom. As this matter could hardly be said to be a Party affair, there was a free vote and the House rejected the proposal. Indeed, this House on two separate occasions rejected a proposal for the compulsory wearing of seat belts—whether rightly or wrongly it is not for me to argue at this moment. It now seems to be the Government's proposal to use the people of Northern Ireland in an experiment to see whether or not the compulsory wearing of seat belts is both effective and acceptable, and for the other reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has explained.
Speaking for myself, I do not feel very strongly on the subject of seat belts or the proposal that there should be an experiment in Northern Ireland. Indeed, if anything, I tend to think that it might be rather a good idea. However, I am well aware that this issue raises considerable controversy and it may well be that on a free vote your Lordships will once again reject this order; after all, your Lordships have rejected such a proposal twice already. If that is so, that would be the end of the matter.
But, on this occasion, the proposal has not been discussed in another place
812
and, should the order be rejected, there would be no opportunity for the House of Commons to make its views known about this matter and—perhaps rather more importantly in this particular case—there would be no opportunity for the only elected representatives from Northern Ireland in the Westminster Parliament to make plain their position with regard to their own Province. I do not think that it would be right that this House should deprive the other House, in particular those most concerned, of the right to have a discussion.
There is another point which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, touched on. This is, in effect, a Northern Ireland Bill, and it is only because of the abolition of Stormont and the Emergency in Northern Ireland that the Government at Westminster can use such a procedure to differentiate between one part of the United Kingdom and the other. Once again, it would surely be wrong for the House of Commons not to have at least a chance of commenting upon that most important constitutional departure.
As I understand it, the order is down to be discussed in another place later this week. There would be no objection whatever to your Lordships taking the order next week, after the House of Commons has debated it; after all, the House is sitting and will not be particularly busy. If we postponed the discussion of this order until next week, we should in no sense be reflecting upon the merits or otherwise of the order. Indeed, if the order was rejected in another place, that would be that and we should have no further say in the matter. But, if it was passed in another place, then noble Lords could make up their own minds, having regard to what happened and knowing the debate and the views of those in another place.
I must say that I think that seems to be a much more suitable way of arranging things. I am surprised that the Government—to whom I have put this proposal and who presumably want to get their order through Parliament—have not been prepared to accept it. We have so often heard from noble Lords opposite that the elected House must always have the last word and that we, in this House, must be careful not to usurp the functions of the elected Chamber. It seems to me very

813
curious that the Government should seek to do precisely the opposite, and that it is those of us on this side of the House who seek to safeguard the position of the House of Commons. I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord the Leader of the House will be prepared to accept my Motion, but I must tell him that, if he does not, I shall ask your Lordships to to into the Lobbies. I beg to move.
Moved, That further debate on the Motion for approval of the order be now adjourned.—(Lord Carrington.)
Lord BYERS: My Lords, without repeating from these Benches the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, perhaps I could, very shortly, support what he has just proposed. I think that it is wrong to introduce controversial measures of this nature into this House at a late stage in the Session. This is not a precedent which would commend itself to the House if we really thought it out. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that this is a matter which is very controversial. I am a passionate believer in seat belts; I have always voted for seat belts; but I do not think that it is right for this House to pronounce on a controversial matter—on which I certainly could not carry the whole of my Party—late in the Session and before the House of Commons has had an opportunity, with the Ulster Unionists and others there, to give its views.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and to the noble Lord the Leader of the House that it is rather odd that, on the day when we read in the next Labour Party Manifesto that we shall be abolished in favour of a unicameral Parliament, we, in this House, should be seeking to protect those in the other place. Therefore, for those reasons and for the reason of common sense, I hope that we shall support the noble Lord, Lord Carrington.
Lord PARRY: My Lords, each of the speakers who has so far spoken is attractive in argument and persuasive in some of the things that he has said. But I wish to oppose the motion for the adjournment on this issue although, over lunch, I was invited in a jocular way to support the noble Lord who has spoken from the Opposition Front Bench. I
814
oppose the Motion because I share what I know to be his deep concern about this problem.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, is totally sincere when he says that he is deeply worried—as we all are—by the appalling consequences of bad driving on the roads. Although it may perturb noble Lords on the Front Bench, I am now speaking to the issue on the adjournment and I intend to make a speech in support of that which I think will be within the order of this House. I am so advised and I rise carefully to make this speech. I hope that the House will be tolerant in allowing me to make it. This is a tolerant Chamber and we are concerned about the appalling tragedies that occur.
If I needed a further argument to put before noble Lords, it is that which is contained in a letter which I have seen written from a Mr. William Rutherford of the Royal Victoria Hospital to the Prime Minister of this country. I have asked the House to be tolerant. I know that there are some noble Lords who are more tolerant than others.
Several noble Lords: Order, order.
Lord PARRY: My Lords, I have been assured that I am allowed to do this. I shall accept a ruling of the House if otherwise.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but the issue is whether or not the debate be adjourned. As far as I know, there is nothing to prevent the noble Lord, Lord Parry, saying anything relevant to that or, supposing that the debate is adjourned for a week—which is really what the Motion amounts to—making a speech on the merits. But, with great respect, I suggest to him that a speech on the merits is not in order in the rather narrow terms of the Motion which my noble friend has put forward.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I think, that the noble and learned Lord would agree that my noble friend can give the reasons why he thinks we should not adjourn.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: Certainly, my Lords.
Lord PARRY: My Lords, thank you very much. I realise that this is a very difficult and contentious issue and that it is tempting to use the procedure of the House in order to set the matter at rest. However, I also believe that this is such a vital matter and time is so vital that, on reflection, noble Lords will believe that they are right to allow me to speak and, in fact, to allow matters to proceed to a debate of the House at this point.
I was about to give this quotation:
"By allowing the recent Bill in the House of Commons to lapse for want of a quorum in the House, the death, disfigurement and crippling of many road victims has been assured".
That is one man's opinion, but that man is an eminent consultant surgeon at the Royal Victoria Hospital. When the noble Lord was moving his Motion, he said it had nothing whatever to do with the merits or otherwise of the measure. My respectful submission is that it has everything to do with it; that, when the adjournment of the House is moved—in fact this has been said openly—it is almost a form of sinister attempt to introduce this discussion.
Several noble Lords: Rubbish!
Lord PARRY: My Lords, I say that looking at the words before me. It seems rather odd that the Government should attempt to bring this discussion before the House in this way. However, if noble Lords opposite think I put too strong a point on it by using the word "sinister", I would use the word "odd", with whatever implications that might have. If that is the insinuation, it is my belief that the Government do not intend to bring this debate before your Lordships' House to circumvent any of the processes of democracy, with which we are as much concerned as any other noble Lords. This is germane to the question of whether or not we adjourn. My first point is that we cannot afford to waste any time in dealing with this problem and therefore it is vastly important that we discuss it. We must not waste any time.
A noble Lord: One week?
Lord PARRY: Yes, my Lords. We must not waste even a week. In one week, 30 more people could be killed in road smashes by not wearing belts and,
816
if we can save 30 lives by bringing the whole process forward one week, then we shall have achieved something to the credit and not to the discredit of this House.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, does the noble Lord really believe that the passing of this Motion would save 30 lives just like that? Surely he knows that, while this sort of provision might help, if people believe that way, it cannot completely turn the statistics upside down.
Lord PARRY: I welcome that question, my Lords. When I last spoke on this subject, noble Lords thought I had introduced some emotion into the debate because I referred to my experiences. Briefly, I can repeat those experiences by saying that I have been in two accidents, once unbelted and once belted. I experienced those accidents myself, and my father, not wearing a belt, was killed in an accident. I believe the introduction of seat belts would substantially reduce the loss of life and that if we introduced this measure at once we could save a measureable number of lives. In my view, 30 is a conservative, not a radical, estimate of the saving.
Several noble Lords: Order!
Lord PARRY: My Lords, it is all very well for noble Lords opposite to shout "Order", but I will go anywhere and speak before any audience if I can advance the case I am seeking to put. I have already established that nobody will convince me that we should delay discussing this matter. I shall accept the will of the House. I see that noble Lords opposite would prefer that I were not speaking in these terms. Very well. If the issue before the House is that we should now adjourn on some point of principle, I simply wish to make it clear that I for one, and there are many like me, shall resent very much indeed the fact that we were not given the opportunity to speak on a subject which we consider to be vital.
Lord MONSON: Next week.
Lord PARRY: Not next week; now, my Lords. This is a subject on which we have been invited to speak by groups of people in Northern Ireland. The

817
Government are not seeking to use Northern Ireland as a test-bed, nor the people of that tortured nation in an experiment that will help to come to conclusions to be used elsewhere. They are simply using evidence that has been brought forward at the invitation and on the instigation of people in Northern Ireland who are qualified to judge.
A recent international conference in Australia evaluated the experience available, and, as my noble friend said, on 5th March the British Medical Journal summarised the findings of that conference. There was overwhelming evidence to show that we should as soon as possible introduce in Northern Ireland legislation to make the wearing of seat belts compulsory. The two debates we have had in this House have not been concerned with the introduction of seat belts in Northern Ireland; we have debated only the introduction of seat belts in this country. I had hoped to persuade the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, for whom I have a deep regard, not to seek the adjournment of the House but to allow us to have our debate and come to a conclusion properly.
4.36 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I share with the noble Lord, Lord Byers, regret that this order should have come so late in the Session, but there may be reasons for that. My main concern is the question of business, a matter with which I have been involved for a number of years, and I believe I can claim to have an understanding of what is involved. First of all, it is for the Government to decide as and when to introduce their legislation. In practice, of course, there is consultation between the two sides, but at the end of the day, whether a Conservative or Labour Government are in office, it is for the Government of the day to decide, as and when within their timetable, to introduce legislation.
The noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Byers, seemed to rest their case on the fact that if your Lordships' House were to consider this order today and were to exercise their undoubted right to reject it, we should have precluded the House of Commons from considering this matter. Lord Carrington himself recognised that that was not the case. He
818
said there had been occasions when this House had rejected an order; an order has then been reintroduced—with different phrases but in substance the same—and your Lordships' House has then acquiesced in the passing of that order. Thus, if this House were to reject the order, it would then be open to the Government to re-lay, first in the House of Commons, a new order, differently phrased, and for the other place then to have its debate and reach a decision on it.
Regarding the problem of orders, I have for long felt that your Lordships' House should always have the right to tell another place, "Think again", but as Lord Carrington said, with orders we very reluctantly do not do that; we do it only on the rarest possible occasions. If we were to reject this order, another place could take into account what we had said—our thoughts on it and reasons why we rejected it—and we could then have a second chance of looking at the matter in the light of what had been said both here and in another place.
There is much advantage in the proposals the Government have put forward and for doing this today. As I say, I regret it is late in the Session because it is a matter of controversy in your Lordships' House. However, I must tell Lord Carrington that if he insists on his Motion he will not have placed the House of Commons in any different position than if the order were rejected. If that were not the case, the other place would not be placed in a different situation because it would have to consider the matter and vote on it. Therefore I do not believe there is a great deal in what Lord Carrington said.
I fear there could be a danger of it becoming a precedent in that never should an order be taken in your Lordships' House before being taken in another place. I do not believe the noble Lord, Lord Denham, if he has the misfortune to be the Government Chief Whip, would wish to have that sort of precedent round his neck. My final comment is that it seemed to me from the way Lord Carrington was speaking about the order, about your Lordships' House and about the other place, that this House should he purely a rubber stamp for another place.
Lord CARRINGTON: No.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, that is not a view I have ever held.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, sits down, would he not agree that virtually no notice whatsoever was given of this order, with the result that a great many noble Lords who feel extremely strongly about this issue which affects the freedom of so many people have not been able to come along this afternoon to discuss or vote upon it?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, may I for a moment intervene to say that that is not the case. The House has known for at least a week.
4.41 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, if I may, I should like to respond to some of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, put in moving his Motion—if that is not going to upset noble Lords on the Opposition Front Benches too greatly. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for signifying that he approves of that suggestion.
The noble Lord first of all suggested that legislation on seat belts in Northern Ireland, which
is the substantive issue before the House in the order today, had been rejected by your Lordships' House on previous occasions. But may I say to the noble Lord, with great respect, that that is not the case. So far as I am aware this is the first time that your Lordships' House would have had the opportunity of discussing an order which related explicitly to Northern Ireland. It is simply not true to say that your Lordships' House has rejected an order—of the type which the Government are asking your Lordships to discuss today—on two previous occasions. On many other occasions your Lordships' House has passed orders which introduced legislation for Northern Ireland, which is unique to Northern Ireland, and has not concerned itself with whether they have been previously debated or not debated in another place or in your Lordships' House. There are a great many examples of orders which have been passed with the approval of noble Lords opposite which have introduced unique legislation for Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, also suggested that the Government were
820
attempting to use the people of Northern Ireland for an experiment. But, as my noble friend Lord Parry said, that is not true. A very large number of bodies in Northern Ireland supported this measure, including the Transport and General Workers' Union, the Methodist Conference, the Road Safety Council for Northern Ireland, the Association of District Councils—which represents all those elected representatives in Northern Ireland—the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the RUC, the AA, the Approved Driving Instructors' Association, a number of political Parties and the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. All those bodies have had the courage of their convictions and have felt able to stand up and say what their views on this measure were. I suggest that it would be a matter of great regret if your Lordships' House approved this Motion and did not place itself alongside that large number of responsible bodies in Northern Ireland in supporting this measure. That will be the effect of approving the Motion which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has put before the House.
Several noble Lords: No, no!
Lord MELCHETT: It certainly will, my Lords. The Government are asking the House to approve the order put before the House today and the noble Lord is suggesting that we should no longer discuss it.
Several noble Lords: Until next week.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Next Friday?
Lord MELCHETT: I hear my noble friend behind me saying "next Friday" with some horror in my heart, as I confess that Northern Ireland Ministers do not get very much opportunity for holidays. I should like to answer one other point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington —and my noble friend Lord Shepherd dealt with this at some length—and that was that if your Lordships' House were to reject this order today we would be denying the House of Commons the opportunity to discuss this matter. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said.
Several noble Lords: No!
Lord MELCHETT: The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is agreeing with me although all his colleagues on his Front Bench do not seem to be agreeing with him. If he wants to retire for a moment to sort this matter out between himself and his noble and learned friend I should be quite happy to allow him to do that. But if I could follow the noble Lord, Lord Carrington's own view of what he said, that is only true if your Lordships defeat this order. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, may be privy to some information to which I am not, but unless the House has an opportunity to hear the arguments and to have a debate as the Government have suggested we should, we will not know whether the danger which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is suggesting the House will face will actually arise.
Several noble Lords: Too late.
Lord MELCHETT: If it is too late because the House rejects it, as my noble friend Lord Shepherd has already said, and as we have previously done with Northern Ireland orders in another place, the order can be re-laid in a slightly different form.
Though I do not entirely share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about your Lordships' House, I was interested by the novel constitutional proposition that controversial measures should not be debated in, or considered by the House of Lords if they have not already been considered in another place. That would have interesting effects, for example, if it were applied to the Scotland and Wales Bills. As I understand it, on those Bills, noble Lords opposite were suggesting the exact opposite; namely, that your Lordships' House should make a special effort to debate and discuss controversial issues which had not been considered by another place. I find it a little hard that one law applies to Government business on devolution and another law apparently applies so far as noble Lords opposite are concerned about a vital measure to save lives in Northern Ireland.
I would also have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, might have suggested to your Lordships that there was some value in an expression of opinion by your Lordships' House, regardless of
822
whether or not another place had considered this matter. I would not necessarily go so far as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in putting that forward, but I am surprised that he did not suggest that there was some value not only for the people of this country but for the people in Northern Ireland hearing your Lordships discuss this order and knowing what your Lordships' opinions on it were. That will be, at least for today, denied to us if the noble Lord's Motion is carried. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, said that while he was a personal supporter of this Order—
Lord CARRINGTON: No, I did not.
Lord MELCHETT: I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is again in dispute with his colleagues. I apologise for sowing such dissension among noble Lords opposite. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, suggested that he might not be able to carry the whole of his Party with him if it came to a division on this matter. I do not know whether the same thing applies to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, but in my view the noble Lord, by moving his Motion, is not making any attempt to preserve the rights of the elected Chamber in this matter. He is simply trying to ensure that your Lordships do not get a chance to say whether or not your Lordships approve of the order and in that way protecting if anything, the image of your Lordships' House and not of another place.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I must admit I am rather surprised that the Leader of the House has not answered.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I shall be delighted to respond. I think that my noble friend has put a powerful case and it
was reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Parry. We should like to discuss this matter, but if noble Lords feel that they wish to force it to a Division immediately then let them do so. That is all I have to say. It is clear.
Lord CARRRINGTON: I must say, my Lords, I am slightly surprised at the bad temper shown opposite. It seems to me—
Lord PEART: I hope that I never showed bad temper in my intervention.

823
I thought there was a bit of bad temper among those on the Opposition Front Bench.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I was slightly surprised at the bad temper shown, with the exception of the noble Lord the Leader of the House. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Parry, misunderstood me—and he did misunderstand me. What I was seeking to do is something quite simple. It seems to me that since this House has on two occasions rejected the principle of wearing seat belts, there was, to say the least of it, a likelihood that it might do it again. If it did it again that would raise certain difficulties. The difficulties it would raise would be that the House of Commons
would not have discussed this order. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is quite right that at a later stage, right at the end of the Session, they could put down another order saying much the same thing, which after two debates would lead to two more debates. All we need to do in order to avoid having four debates is to postpone this debate for four days and have it in four days' time. If I may say so, I have never heard so much song and dance about so little.
4.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether further debate on the Motion be now adjourned?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 114; Not-Contents, 74.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Forester, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Fortescue, E.

Nunburnholme, L.

Allerton, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Alport, L.

Gainford, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Amherst, E.

Glendevon, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Amulree, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Onslow, E.

Atholl, D.

Gridley, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Balerno, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Barnby, L.

Hale, L.

Ridley, V.

Belstead, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rochdale, V.

Bledisloe, V.

Henley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Bolton, L.

Hereford, V.

St. Davids, V.

Byers, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Salisbury, M.

Caithness, E.

Hood, V.

Sandys, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Seear, B.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Selkirk, E.

Carrington, L.

Kemsley, V.

Sharpies, B.

Cathcart, E.

Keyes, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Spens, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Stamp, L.

Clwyd, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Craigavon, V.

Long, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Crathorne, L.

Loudoun, C.

Tenby, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Teviot, L.

Daventry, V.

Luke, L.

Teynham, L.

de Clifford, L.

Lyell, L.

Thomas, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Ebbisham, L.

McNair, L.

Trenchard, V.

Eccles, V.

Mancroft, L.

Trevelyan, L.

Elles, B.

Marley, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Vernon, L.

Elton, L.

Mernvale, L.

Vickers, B.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Monson, L.

Vivian, L.

Energlyn, L.

Mottistone, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Exeter, M.

Westbury, L.

Faithfull, B.

Newall, L.

Wigoder, L.

Ferrier, L.

Northchurch, B.

Winstanley, L.

Foot, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ashby, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Aylestone, L.

Brimelow, L.

Castle, L.

Baker, L.

Brockway, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Blyton, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Listowel, E.

Rhodes, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Dowding, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Samuel, V.

Gaitskell, B.

McCarthy, L.

Segal, L.

Garner, L.

McCluskey, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Maelor, L.

Shinwell, L.

Hall, V.

Melchett, L.

Sligo, M.

Halsbury, E.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Snow, L.

Hamnett, L.

Mishcon, L.

Stedman, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Henderson, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Stone, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Oram, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Ilchester, E.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Walston, L.

Janner, L.

Pannell, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Kennet, L.

Pargiter, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Parry, L.

Wigg, L.

Leatherland, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

Lee of Newton, L.

Raglan, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and further debate on the Motion adjourned accordingly.

LIVE FARM ANIMALS: EXPORT FOR SLAUGHTER
4.59 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what conclusions they have now reached on the export of live farm animals for slaughter. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this matter has been dragging on for a very long time. I raised it on the eve of the Easter Recess, four months ago, when the report of the interdepartmental committee became available, and obviously a little further time was needed for consideration and consultation. But all the summer has gone by and no further Statement has been made on behalf of the Government.
When I tabled my Question some days ago the prospect of getting a debate on the subject in another place, or indeed a ministerial announcement in another place, seemed unhopeful. No undertaking could be given by the Leader of the House that time would be available for a debate in another place before the House rose for the Recess. I therefore thought that this was not an inappropriate time and place to ask a Question which might enable the Government to shed further light upon their position.
In the meantime, however, in the other place there were exchanges between the Minister and Members on both sides of the
826
House of Commons on 20th July. To some extent, therefore, the matter was advanced further by what the Minister said. Nevertheless, on that occasion there were ambiguities, there were statements made of less than adequate clarity or firmness, which I think make my Question very relevant today. There were two things about the Minister's statement in reply to questions in another place on 20th July which caused me some concern. One was that it appeared that the Minister was now waiting for developments in the EEC on the transportation of live animals between one EEC country and another before carrying his own consideration of the matter further. Another suggestion he made was that, while the EEC were considering the matter, perhaps some interim measure might he taken by Her Majesty's Government to deal with the growing concern and anxiety about this traffic in the public mind here. Altogether, I think the Minister's replies left quite a number of questions unanswered.
One thing I think I might draw to your Lordships' attention is the Minister's statement in column 762 of the Official Report, when he said:
"… when I come to make my decision it will, I hope, be the right decision and it will be made without fear and without favour".
That does not sound very much like a Minister with any fire in his belly, and I thought my right honourable friend had convictions on this matter. He supported them by vote in another place on a crucial occasion in 1973. My Lords, "without fear and without
favour". Fear of who? Favour towards whom? This is a matter

827
relating to the welfare of living animals; this is not merchandise—inanimate, unfeeling. This is a growing traffic in live animals, being bundled across the Channel into Europe for slaughter or so-called further fattening. The traffic has been increasing because the profits in it have been rising. Let there be no mistake about it: what we are talking about are the profits of the agricultural industry related to the exploitation of living animals.
It may be that Her Majesty's Government have no policy in the matter; that all they have is a desire to reach a decision "without fear and without favour". All the more reason, then, perhaps, why I should mention to my noble friend that tomorrow morning, if indications arc fulfilled, the National Executive of the Labour Party will be meeting and will be considering a report from their Home Policy Committee on a comprehensive set of proposals dealing with animal welfare and protection. One of the features of this report, which has received wide publicity, relates to the abolition of cruel sports; hut this report is very much more wide-ranging than that, and contains important proposals to go into the policy of the Labour Party, with the hope, indeed, of putting something along these lines in the Manifesto. It says:
"Animals should be slaughtered as near as possible to the point of production".
"Export of live food animals should be replaced by a carcass trade".
"Consideration should be given to compensating dairy farmers for any rapid drop in calf prices".
Those are the three summary heads of recommendations made in this particular matter. There are other proposals made regarding the transportation of live animals within this country, quite distinct from the export of live food animals.
If anything like this is approved by the Labour Party, if anything of this appears in the Manifesto of the Labour Party at the next General Election, this will be the most significant political document on animal welfare protection ever published in this country. At last a political Party looks like taking up animal protection and welfare as a national issue, as an issue which must engage the attention of Government and of Parliament and be backed by the consent and approval of
828
large sections of supporters of a political Party. In other words, what it does is to bring animals into politics, which in my opinion is where they should be, and not left to the hazards of the Private Member's Bill procedure, to Private Members' Motions and to the other frustrating experiences one can have of Parliamentary procedure on these matters. So I offer to my noble friend that guidance as to what the policy of Her Majesty's Government should be.
I have drawn the attention of the Minister to an article which appeared in a magazine called Veterinary Practice as recently as 19th June 1978, where there is the most scathing professional condemnation of this traffic that I have ever read. It calls it "An unjustifiable trade", and it concludes:
"Nothing can justify this despicable trade. It causes distress to the animals, anguish to those concerned members of society forced to witness its enactment, and degradation to those who ply it. Above all else, the trade is an affront to commonsense".
The truth is that this trade is the gravy train of the agricultural industry in Britain which goes where the money is—and where the money is, the animals go. We have had many confusing opinions about the economics of this matter—whether it is beneficial to the balance of payments, whether it is adding to our export trade figures, or what. But one thing is pretty clear, and that is that if the young animals which are being shipped to Europe for slaughter or further fattening remained in this country to come to full killing weight, the amount of meat we should have available would be out of all proportion to that which is exported to other countries. This traffic is not feeding any people better, it is not providing any more meat for anybody; it is merely pushing it across the boundaries of countries according to the marginal advantage of so doing.
When France puts a levy on the import of sheep to France because prices there are so much higher than in Britain and are attracting a good deal of trade from this country, undermining the economics of the French agriculture industry; when that levy is imposed, the animals are shunted via Holland or another EEC country where the French cannot, under the rules of the EEC, impose a levy on the import of these live animals. I think we should follow one firm rule that

829
animals should be slaughtered as near as possible to the point of sale. The idea that these animals are shipped around in order to get marginal profit without regard to the effect on the economics of the industry in this country, without regard to the effect on the level of prices of meat in this country, seems to me to be quite abhorrent.
I am not blaming any farmers who want to maximise their profits. That is what they are in business for. The National Farmers' Union is a trade union. It is looking after the interests of its members which it is their proper duty to do. But they must not pose as the custodians of the social conscience or, indeed, of the wider aspects of agricultural policy. It is for society, it is for Parliament, to safeguard the minimum standards of behaviour towards animals which is consistent with a compassionate and civilised society.
Therefore, my Lords, I hope that we are going to get something more positive from my noble friend this afternoon than we have had so far. Do the Government really intend to do anything or are they shillyshallying? Are they just holding all this off until the Recess—because if the Government do nothing, nothing is done. They could make orders tomorrow which will suspend this traffic, wholly or in part and, indeed, on a previous occasion without coming to the House of Commons at all, the Government suspended all orders enabling live sheep to be shipped across the Channel. When the vote was eventually taken in the House of Commons, it disposed of this traffic at least for a time. But inaction, I think, is the cruellest form of dealing with any problem of emotional content and anxiety of this kind. Will the Government respond to their own supporters?
Will the Government respond to those who have Motions down in another place asking for an opportunity to debate? Sir Harold Wilson said that the Labour Party is nothing if it is not a crusade. Let us have a crusade about something! Heaven knows, we need it! —not only in the Labour Party but in the country generally. Let us have some conviction about something. Let us feel there are principles we should apply and not submit all the time, to the squalid considerations
830
of the profit and loss account, especially when dealing with living things!
The danger in this country is that we shall reduce animal welfare, animal protection, to a matter of economics, a matter of industrial and financial advantage. It is our duty in both Houses of Parliament, to raise this matter above that level. Therefore, I invite my noble friend to be as full and frank as he can. Let us know where we stand. Let us know whether the Government have any intention of saying anything; and, if so, when. How are we to march towards a General Election in this state of indecision, this state of inaction, when a very large section of the Labour Party will be demanding between now and the General Election a positive assurance of action in this field?
5.15 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for having put down this Unstarred Question and for coming to the House, as I understand, on the first day after his recent indisposition. We hope that his good health will continue and increase as the days go by. This subject is one of great concern to many of us; and those who are taking part this afternoon in the debate on the Unstarred Question have demonstrated over a period of years their interest in this field. In opening one's remarks, I think one must inevitably refer back to the last time this matter was discussed. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, reminded the House, that was the Adjournment debate on 23rd March. The Working Party report, the yellow document we have before us, was first published on that very morning. Since that day, we have had ample opportunity to look at it in greater detail and also to take into consideration what has been said in another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, referred to the
Minister's statement in another place in reply to a Question. I think it would be valuable both for the purposes of the record and for some noble Lords who have not had an opportunity of reading what he said on that occasion if I referred to the Minister's Answer. He said:
"I am considering representations on the report by officials of the Agriculture Departments

831
and, pending a decision, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has told the Council of EEC Ministers of our concern and asked if it proposes to take any action. The Commission confirmed that new proposals concerning intra-Community trade in live food animals will be put forward shortly."—[Official Report (Commons) col. 762; 20/7/78]
The issue, of course, is the whole question of animal welfare. Today, the 25th July, is within a week of the European Convention for the Protection of Animals during International Transport becoming effective. This document, which was initiated by the Council of Europe as long ago as December 1968 and open for signature ten years ago, is about to take effect. Many of the signatories to this Convention have been observing for many years past particular articles set out in the Convention; but there have been disquieting reports which give rise to public concern.
I think it proper that we should put to the Government the Unstarred Question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. This problem has been of long standing. Your Lordships have discussed the Balfour Committee report, and I should like to refer to that report because the Balfour Committee was discussing this very issue some ten or more years ago. I refer to paragraph 13 of the Balfour Committee report, where they said:
"The Committee have obtained first-hand evidence that cattle exported to France from Great Britain have been travelling for long journeys through France to places as far away as Marseilles and Bordeaux. Some of these journeys may take more than 48 hours from the point of disembarkation and there are no Government regulations requiring animals to be fed and watered."
The Balfour Committee was speaking at a time when the French Government had neither signed the European Convention not had they drafted their own regulations. Of course since those days M. Michel Debre has signed the Convention and I understand that the French have taken appropriate action.
The situation, however, is not as easy as that because animal welfare bodies, including the RSPCA, have been very anxious about this field. I will quote from a report which came to me as recently as this morning from that body:
"It might have been thought that the widespread public concern over the export of live food animals would have led to a reduction in
832
the distances travelled by United Kingdom livestock to their destinations abroad. However, as recently as July 1978 substantial consignments of British calves have been carried to the veal rearing units in France and close to the Spanish border and sheep have been observed in the Spring of 1978 travelling to lairages in West Germany for periods over 24 hours—and for onward transit to more distant parts, and in both cases the stock were not fed, watered or rested within the journey times. Clearly exporters are not concerned that these journeys are considered to be excessive."
That is an important charge to raise only a week before the European Convention becomes effective. If we turn to this document, which is a very important one, Article 6, paragraph 4, on page 7 says:
"During transport animals shall be offered water and appropriate food at suitable intervals. Animals shall not be left more than 24 hours without being fed and watered. This period may, however, be extended but only if the journey to the destination where the animals are to be unloaded can be completed within a reasonable period."
It must be very apparent to all those who read the Convention what a very elastic part to Article 6 this is. It emphasises this point:
"This period may, however, be extended but only if the journey to the destination where the animals are to be unloaded can be completed within a reasonable period."
What is reasonable in this context, my Lords? Clearly, the reasonableness is interpreted in a quite different way from one area to another. It may be applied with greater vigour in our country and with less vigour in another.
But what is the value of the Convention on this particular point? I believe that it is an attempt: a sincere attempt, a prudent attempt and a timely attempt. If this Convention can be made to work, it can he made to work by all those official bodies working together in a constructive manner. It is a welcome fact that the British Veterinary Association, the National Farmers' Union and the RSPCA have formed themselves into a working party to look at this subject over quite a considerable period in recent years.
I also believe that our colleagues on the Continent, both the official and the voluntary bodies, have been looking at this with great care. When the Convention is only just about to start in operation, is it really for us to say that it will not work in advance of the experiment?

833
I believe the official and unofficial bodies will bring a great influence to bear upon the use and value of the Convention. I believe that it is the beginning of a European experience in animal welfare. I hope that we carry the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, with us in this event.
I return to the main problem. We are looking at the whole remit of animal welfare. I have concentrated on one particular aspect. I should like to pursue this because the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, referred to calves. He referred to this trade in some detail. I should also like to refer to what he said on 23rd March because it was specially relevant and was also particularly enlightening. The Minister has referred in his Statement to the increase in the carcase trade, and this has been a very welcome increase. We understand that by weight—not by value—the beef and veal trade in carcases has risen 16 times since 1970.
For the current situation so far as calves are concerned, I would refer to the Meat and Livestock Commission figures referred to most helpfully by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, at column 1947 of Hansard in the debate of 23rd March. This is what he said:
" The numbers have risen significantly, the export of calves going up from 249,000 in 1976 to 394,000 in 1977."
Further down he quotes the Meat and Livestock Commission:
"… the numbers of live sheep went up from 32,000 to 356,000 whereas Appendix B gives 200,000, so there is a big difference there."
We must consider the question to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, referred. He asked his noble friend Lord Strabolgi to comment in his reply on whether the export of calves was a real need and of benefit in our agricultural export field. I have given notice to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, of a question in very much the same terms because it will be of value to those concerned with this trade as to whether we could have a comparison of the benefit to exports by retaining those calves and exporting them as fattened cattle at a later date.
From the agricultural point of view, there are a number of factors which must
834
be stressed. First, there is the undeniable influence that monetary compensatory amounts have upon the trade as a whole. Secondly—and most important—there is the cost of farm feed. I do not think that this has been shown more clearly than in the year of the great drought, 1976. In that year the cost of a ton of hay rose from approximately £40 a ton—of course there are regional variations—at the beginning of the year, to well over £80 a ton—and again, there are regional variations, and some were very much higher—at the end of the year after the drought had taken full effect. This affected the whole range of farm feeds.
Naturally, the farmer must consider very seriously whether it is going to be possible to retain the animals on his farm; whether it is possible that he will be able to continue fattening those beasts over an extended period; and whether the whole of his plans for doing so are not going to he thrown out totally. Of course, in the background—and this applies over a much longer period—is the very beneficial situation with which we are faced in this country so far as grassland is concerned.
I should like to stress this because in the longer term the whole question of Food From Our Own Resources, the Government White Paper which, alas!, has not been fulfilled as rapidly as the Government or ourselves would have wished, has brought out the real benefits which we can attain by emphasising and developing our grassland potential. I believe that in this field we are placed by nature very favourably ahead of many of our European competitors. This may well have its own influence on our trade.
I have spoken for quite a long time on this issue. Other noble Lords will be bringing out other aspects of the matter; but before the noble Lord, Lord Somers, rises to speak I should like to say that I did support him on the Diseases of Animals (Amendment) Bill as long ago as January 1972. Since then 6½ years have passed and a great deal of water has passed under the bridge. I believe that the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Somers, may well have been brought into effect, partially, but only partially, through this European Convention. I believe that the anxieties expressed by all of us who took part in the debates on that Bill may to

835
some extent have been allayed, but I look forward to hearing what the rest of your Lordships have to say in this connection.
5.31 p.m.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, I must first of all declare an interest: I am a farmer and I actually buy calves to rear. It would be very much in my interest if the trade to the Continent were stopped, because the price would fall substantially in this country. I do declare my interest, but that is not how I regard the whole problem.
First, I should like to say I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has raised this matter again—he has a tremendous interest in it—but I must really defend my fellow farmers from his attacks. They appear to me to be attacks; perhaps he may correct that later, but they sound very like it. I remember that I was stupid enough to rise during a debate on dogs and say that I thought there were too many dogs who are not looked after by their owners and that there were too many useless dogs about the country; whereupon I was told by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that I was "talking as a farmer". My Lords, I still shiver when I recollect the contempt he put into his voice when he said that I was talking as a farmer.
I am concerned mainly with the calf trade and I should like to speak about that, but I should like also to speak about the calf trade inside this country, because it is very relevant to the problem. For many years, farmers in Aberdeenshire and further north have bought calves out of England for rearing. They have taken them from Devon up to Aberdeenshire, which is a distance of 600 miles or more. I have seen those calves arrive in Aberdeenshire in bad condition, but I have also seen them arrive in very good condition. I have seen such calves reared and put on weight and grow to slaughter weight very quickly, very efficiently and very happily. That can happen only with very contented and well-looked-after animals. The farmers who rear them know perfectly well that the end of the trade is slaughter and beef for the population, but they care for these animals a great deal more than many of the people who make a tremendous noise about it and then tuck into their
836
escalope of veal with an enjoyment wholly unrelated to anything concerning the animal.
The farmers do care for their animals and they do not like to see them badly used, from both a humane and an economic point of view. I agree with the noble Lord that there have been many dealers who have shot animals around this country, let alone the Continent, in a manner which is wholly reprehensible and should be stopped. The NFU agree with this and they want to see the welfare code implemented and, above all perhaps, with more inspection. But it is a fact that if you are exporting animals for slaughter they must be well looked after on the way there, otherwise you will suffer economic loss. Certainly it is in the interests of both the welfare of the animal and the susceptibilities of those who are rightly concerned about cruelty to see that that is done.
I think it can be done if we have a proper set-up of inspection over these animals. It is not all in farming—and here I quote from the noble Lord—
" Profit in the agricultural industry being related to the exploitation of living animals and squalid considerations of profit and loss".
The concern that is felt over the animals themselves is very, very strong in very large sections of the agricultural industry. One thing I should like to see is exactly the same as in human affairs connected with crime: that is, more police. We need more inspections of the vehicles, the lairage and the general conditions in which animals, and particularly young animals, travel to their destinations.
I should like also to say a little about the economics of the matter as regards this country and the EEC. The fact is that the calculation of the export levy on live animals is quite ludicrous, in terms of the calf. A calf is always reckoned at 50 kilograms and in fact it pays about £8 of export levy. These calves are going abroad for veal and for further fattening—indeed, to full beef-weight slaughter in some cases—but they only pay an export levy of £8, and in fact the price of beef and veal generally on the Continent is something like 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. higher than it is here. A levy of £8 for a calf is nothing at all; it is not a realistic levy for that calf going abroad. The levy should be at least

837
£18 to £20 before it will do anything like bring the economics into line as between the EEC and this country.
That is an enormous factor in the very large increase in the export trade. I have not got the exact figures—I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, ask for them—but I do know that, whereas in former days a large number of dealers went down to England to buy calves to be sent up for rearing in Scotland, we now have large numbers of dealers in the Scottish markets buying up calves to be exported to the Continent. It is a very much longer distance from Scotland over to the Continent than it is from the markets of the South. So, my Lords, I think this is a case of economic nonsense and of course it has everything to do with not properly applying the Common Agricultural Policy.
I have never felt that the CAP was wrong: it is the lack of application of proper principles of the CAP that is wrong. The fact is that the price on the Continent should come down quite substantially and here—and of course I again declare an interest—the price should go up quite a lot in order to make the CAP work. It is not the actual policy which is wrong, but the application of it; and the payment of an £80 levy, in or out, in the case of a 10 cwt. Full-grown beast and of £8 for a calf that goes out from here is a perfect illustration of the sort of nonsense we are making of the Common Agricultural Policy under the present system. Therefore I think we have to look to that.
I should like to end by saying that I hope the Minister can assure us that he is going to see that the welfare code is applied properly throughout the EEC. I should like to stress again that the farmers are as concerned—in fact, with more knowledge, more concerned—about the welfare of the animals they handle as those who are rightly concerned from outside the industry. I hope that we shall get a satisfactory answer from the Minister.
5.40 p.m.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, this is not the first time that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has raised this subject in the House, and I agree with him that it is much too long to have to wait
838
to see any definite steps taken on this subject. The possibilities of doing so are all there. The slaughter houses are available, they are not working up to full capacity and there is nothing, in a practical way, to forbid the adoption of a carcase trade—and that only—at once. The evidence for what we are complaining of in the treatment that our animals get on the Continent is available for anybody who wants to look at it. It is available from my own society, the Council of Justice to Animals, it is available from ISPA, the International Society for the Protection of Animals, and it is available from the RSPCA. It is all, to my mind, unquestionable, because in matters of that description we make a point of seeing to it that we do not provide evidence that is doubtful. So that we are waiting anxiously to see some steps taken.
Of course, there is always an objection from the farming community, but let me say at once to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that I shall not attack farmers, because I have the greatest respect for them. Many have been in my own family and I know what a hard life it is. But surely their problem could be
solved in some way by the Government. Could not the Government provide a subsidy for any loss that farmers might suffer by this step? They provide subsidies for many other things that are, to some of us, far less essential.
The EEC regulations have been mentioned a good deal tonight. They are, of course, very satisfactory, but the trouble is that they are simply not observed. The French society, the OABA, the oeuvre d'assistance aux bëtes d'abattoir, has done splendid work not only in observing but in bringing to legal action many cases of blatant disregard of these principles. One of the problems is that they are extremely difficult to enforce. You cannot have somebody watching or trailing every shipment of animals that is taken from the coast, but more could be done. One must also remember that certain races—in particular, the Latin races—arc not given to looking upon the treatment of animals as of any great importance. A little education in that direction might be a good thing. Whether or not they will accept it is another question.
I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, that these provisions are too

839
elastic. The proviso which he quoted should certainly be eliminated. Incidentally, may I say how grateful I am to him for saying what he did about the Bill which I tried to introduce some years ago. It is very nice to know that what one has said in your Lordships' Chamber is remembered. This is an important subject and I sincerely hope that the Government will realise that feeling is running very high about it, and that something really ought to be done and done soon.
To go back to the subject of farmers, let me say at once that many farmers arc very much in sympathy with those of us who wish to revert to a carcase trade only. I hope that the Government will not merely take the opinion of the National Farmers' Union. They represent a good many of their members, but they do not represent them all and there is a very sizeable number of farmers who feel very strongly in the opposite direction. I hope that our debate tonight will have some effect.
5.46 p.m.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, I shall be very brief in addressing your Lordships, whom I have addressed on a number of occasions on this matter. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for raising this subject. The question on the Order Paper is quite clear: what will the Government do about this matter? A number of us in this country feel very strongly about the complete loss of control, once an animal crosses the Channel. This is the basis of everything that we want to know.
The noble Lord, Lord Somers, said that in a number of Latin countries, and other places, they are surprised at our attitude towards animals, which is different from their own. We are just as surprised about them, and if we accept the fact that their views on the treatment of animals are not the same as those of the vast majority in this country, then my submission to your Lordships and the Government is that we should stop the provision of animals which can be treated in this way.
I get rather alarmed when I hear that the EEC, which has issued Directives on the subject of humane slaughtering, has started to take proceedings against Member
840
countries, because they have not carried them out. If that is so, why should we continue to export our animals, when the EEC cannot ensure that humane slaughtering is universally carried out within the Community?
I am further extremely surprised—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, can give me some enlightenment—to hear that we not only export animals to the EEC but re-import them as meat. That is a report which was recently made in another place. If that takes place, what quantities are involved? It appears to me that, if we are re-importing meat from stock which has been exported, it is far better to keep the stock and slaughter it here. In view of everything that noble Lords have said this afternoon, I ask the Government to see whether they can take firm steps to stop this trade in live animals to the Continent.
5.49 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, may I intervene for just a moment? I had not realised that this debate was on, but this is a subject in which I am very interested and I am also a farmer. I should, first, like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, on what he said. He was quite right. It is obviously more humane to kill an animal where he has been bred or in his home environment at the nearest slaughterhouse. I also have a great deal of agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said, regarding farmers and the trade. But may I answer my noble friend behind me? He said that it is extraordinary that we export this meat on the hoof and then re-import it as beef.
With due respect to my noble friend, he is not quite correct. We do not re-import the beef that we export on the hoof. We import a great deal of cheaper beef that has come from the Argentine, or even from Russia through Europe. It is cheaper than our beef. We export beef on the hoof, which is very expensive beef, certainly as regards fat stock. That is the answer to my noble friend who sits behind me.
I sometimes take livestock from North to South. I also take livestock across country. When one does so, one makes absolutely certain that the stock is taken

841
either in one's own lorries or by transporters who have a high reputation. With regard to our own country, if cruelty takes place during transportation—and I am afraid that in certain instances it does—the answer is to employ far more inspectors and police. We have far too few police, but if we had more of them to carry out checks on livestock lorries and to ask the drivers when the livestock was watered or fed last and to check whether they were telling the truth, it would, I think, solve the problem. That is the answer in our own country. So far as what happens abroad is concerned, it is quite true that there are the EEC regulations, the Balfour regulations and all the other regulations, but they are not adhered to. We can make very strong representations about this in the EEC, but at the moment it is almost impossible for this country to ensure that those regulations are adhered to. As one noble Lord said, the Latins in particular—although not so much the Germans—have very little feeling for animals, and I do not think that we shall ever alter that state of affairs. It is impossible; it is human nature.
What interests me is that if one is exporting valuable pedigree stock, there is never any complaint of ill-treatment when it reaches and travels on the Continent. The only conclusion that I can reach is that if the stock is valuable enough the Frenchman, the Italian, or whoever he may be treats the animals well, simply because they are valuable. But there again that is human nature.
Our only hope is to keep on pressing for improvements in the EEC and to make all the representations that eve can to ensure that when we export animals on the hoof these regulations are adhered to. If, however, it transpires that year after year, or month after month, the regulations are not adhered to and if we keep on getting evidence of ill-treatment, then the only honourable thing to do, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has said, is to stop the trade.
5.53 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, may I say a word? I agree that there is a great deal of concern about this subject. It is proper to say that this concern has imposed a degree of improvement which I
842
think shows that a considerable reaction is taking place. In fairness, however, I have to say that there was a great deal of room for improvement. I do not doubt, as the noble Lord has said, that that improvement is continuing, but I find it a little shaking that calves on the bottle can, apparently, still be exported. Whatever the regulations are, that seems to me to be going rather far. I have no doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has said, that we have done much to initiate improvement in the way in which things are done on the Continent, but there is a very considerable margin for improvement to take place. I do not doubt that it is quite likely that the convention would not now be taking place if it had not been very strongly supported —I shall not say initiated entirely—by this country. If my information is correct, I believe that the convention comes into operation next week, but it will be years before it has a very profound effect upon what happens.
The crux of the issue is economics. I read with great interest the Yellow Book. This is a most complicated economic formula which they have produced, and I am very far from believing that it is anything like convincing. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, made a very interesting point when he said—and I dare say this is perfectly true —that the CAP plays a very substantial part in the way that this works out and that there is a substantial element of subsidy in various places. These are matters which are well within the Government's control. With great respect, I think that it is extraordinary that we import a great deal more meat than we export. I know that the quality is different, but one wonders whether this kind of export is really as valuable as it is made out to be. I thought that the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, was unanswerable. He asked whether it is really necessary to export live animals for slaughter and whether one can really make out an economic case for it. In the case of almost all raw materials, it is better to produce the finished product near to the raw material than it is to transport it before finishing it. This is a very simple, straightforward economic proposition. I find it very hard to believe, in terms of true economics, that when one takes

843
away subsidy and goodness knows what else it is justifiable to do the slaughtering after a long and what must be quite expensive journey of several hundred miles.
I hope that the Government will look very hard at this matter. Let us be quite clear that nobody is accusing farmers in this country of not looking after their animals properly. There are a few exceptions, of course, but farmers have a very real regard for their property. That is not, however, the point. There is always a strain involved during a long journey, whatever form it takes, and extra care is needed, particularly if part of the journey takes place out of our own country. This postulates an enormous amount of supervision, with all the expense that that involves. It is a difficult traffic to run, and somebody has got to pay for the inspection which takes place. I think that we must measure carefully how far this trade is really worthwhile.
5.58 p.m.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, if I may make two points, first I have to declare an interest. I rear livestock, both sheep and cattle. No matter how they twist it up with fine words about individual farmers, I still think that a huge attack on farmers is taking place. I do not believe that people realise what happens in the case of most farmers. I sell my sheep and cattle either in the market or to the FMC. The farmers are not responsible for what happens when their cattle are taken abroad or when they are taken from Devon to Scotland. It is the dealers who are responsible. Therefore, the implied attack on farmers in most of these cases is absolutely unwarranted.
Secondly, when one is trying to obtain a price for one's sheep, lambs, calves or whatever it may be, time and time again these dealers say, if you deal with them direct and not through the market, "If I don't deliver these animals in good condition, they they will not come back to me and I shall not get any more orders from them". So I do not see why this attack on farmers is taking place.
The only other point that I wish to make is that in my part of the world there has been an increased trade in live animals across the sea ever since the opening of
844
the Plymouth to Roscoff ferry. I was speaking to a carrier only the other day who frequently makes that journey. I know very well that he takes the utmost care over the feeding and watering of his livestock. He says, "If I don't do so, and if I deliver the livestock at the other end in bad condition, whether for slaughter, or for fattening, or for whatever it may be, I shall not get orders to come back and buy livestock off you again". I do not see, therefore, why there should be this unnecessary attack on the farmers, for in 99 cases out of 100 it has got nothing to do with them. The fault lies with the people who transport the livestock. That is where the problem lies and that is what has got to be dealt with.
6 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like first to join with the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, in saying how glad I am to see my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby back in the House after his illness and to find him so full of vigour. I have listened with great interest to what my noble friend has said on the subject of the export of live food animals and to all the speeches made by your Lordships in this short debate.
Of course, animal welfare in its various aspects is not an unfamiliar topic in your Lordships' House, and it is right that this should he so. I consider it entirely appropriate that we should devote time to discussing these matters which are of interest and concern to so many people in this country. Over the years, whenever the subject of live animal exports has been discussed, there have been those who have argued with conviction that the trade should be stopped, and that, of course, has been argued today; and there have been others who, with equal conviction, have felt that it would be wrong to impose such a sanction.
The welfare interests, among whom my noble friend Lord Houghton has long been prominent, would like to see the trade brought to an end. They have argued that animals should not be sent on long journeys without food and water, only to be slaughtered when they reach their final destination, and they believe that demand on the Continent could be met by further development of the trade in carcase meat, as has been said today.

845
Against this view are those who point out that many of the journeys to the Continent are no longer than journeys regularly undertaken by livestock in this country. They argue from the economic standpoint that the demand for slaughter stock on the Continent is separate from the demand for carcase meat, and that it would draw in more live animals from other possibly more distant sources such as Eastern Europe if the supply from Britain were stopped. Similar arguments have been advanced for and against the termination of the export trade in animals for further fattening, especially the calf trade, which has been referred to by your Lordships.
My Lords, I believe it is widely recognised that the dairy industry in this country produces many more calves than are required to maintain the size of the dairy herd and that the sale of surplus calves for beef production is an important factor in the dairy farming economy. It is also recognised that the considerable increase in calf exports in recent years—and the figures are given in the Yellow report—has brought a significant rise in market prices for calves.
Those who wish to see the export trade stopped are convinced that the great majority of the calves could and would be reared for beef in this country and exported as carcasses, and they argue, as my noble friend Lord Houghton has argued, that this would be to the ultimate benefit not only of farmers but also of the ancillary slaughtering and hides and skins trades. But the farming and exporting interests disagree with this analysis. They believe that stopping the export trade would result in a serious loss of income to dairy farmers, that beef rearers would not rear all the young calves which would then become available and that there would be a substantial increase in the slaughtering of young calves.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said—and I am sure all noble Lords will agree with him—that farmers have the welfare of their animals at heart, and indeed, as the noble Lord said, it is in their interests that this should be so. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, referred to our great grassland potential, and the noble Lord asks why it is not equally
846
attractive for producers to rear and fatten calves now exported so that they can be exported in carcass form. The ability to export beef and veal depends more on Continental demand for these products than on our ability to supply them, and that demand favours beef and veal killed in the importing countries. The availability of calves on the British market has limited relevance to these facts.
I may remind the House that when the export trade was resumed in January 1975, following the report of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien of Lothbury, which was followed by a debate in another place, the Government stressed the importance of applying international rules that would curtail excessively long journeys and would generally improve the conditions under which livestock are carried. Here, I fully agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said in this respect. The House will be aware that, last year, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, said, the EEC Council of Ministers adopted a Directive which gives the force of Community law to the provisions of the Council of Europe's Convention on the Protection of Animals during International Transport.
The Directive takes effect next week, from 1st August, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, said. Among its provisions are the requirements that animals shall be given a veterinary examination for fitness to travel before the international journey begins, and that they shall be fed and watered at appropriate intervals, as, of course, has always been the case in the United Kingdom. The Directive also provides a framework within which more detailed implementing rules can he introduced.
There are those who have criticised this Directive as being too generalised—and it has been criticised this afternoon—and have doubted whether it will be properly observed in some Member States of the Community. I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that, at a recent meeting of the Council of Ministers, the Commissioner responsible for animal welfare, Mr. Gundelach, announced that the Commission would shortly be issuing proposals for a further implementing Directive. My right

847
honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture has made it clear that the Government will critically examine such proposals to ensure that they advance the cause of animal welfare in a positive way and that they will be properly applied throughout the Community. I think that at this stage we must await the outcome, although I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, said, that we need more supervision and continuing supervision.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, who has great knowledge of this subject, referred to the export levy on calves. I do not want to go into this in much detail, but this was answered very fully in paragraphs 102/3 of the Yellow Report. I think they concluded that the French import payment MCA would at present almost entirely offset the United Kingdom export levy MCA, whatever calculations methods were adopted. This is a very interesting and detailed analysis, which I commend to the noble Lord. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, referred to Lord Houghton's query in March about the discrepancy between statistics in Annex B of the report and those quoted by the Meat and Livestock Commission. The export figures quoted in Annex B exclude trade with the Irish Republic and the Meat and Livestock Commission statistics include such animals.
My noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, as he was perfectly entitled to do, asked whether the Government are doing anything. The export trade in live food animals continues to pose many difficult questions, as the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, conceded. I have not been able today to indicate what conclusions the Government may reach about any part of the trade, but I can assure noble Lords that we are looking very hard at this. I hope that what I have said today is enough to assure the House that the subject is receiving the closest attention and that the welfare of these animals will continue to be a matter of prime concern to the Government.

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
SHEFFIELD GENERAL CEMETERY BILL
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.