Lords Sitting of 23 March 1978

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of London.

INTERNAL COMMUNICATION: HOUSE OF LORDS
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: 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 the Leader of the House whether improved facilities can be provided for internal communication by letter or circular between Members of the House of Lords.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, a Peer can hand up to six messages to a Doorkeeper in the Prince's Chamber or to the Attendants' Office in the Peers' Lobby. A self-service letter rack is also provided in the Prince's Chamber for Members of the House who wish to contact more than six Peers. Any expansion of these facilities would require additional staff and extra space for sorting, both of which would be expensive. An improvement on existing facilities could be achieved if Peers made more use of the self-service letter rack.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that that reply is really very disappointing? Does he understand the complete nonsense of existing arrangements? A Peer goes to the board and asks leave to put messages for fellow Peers on it. Six messages, as my noble friend has pointed out, may be put there. The rest have to be taken to the Post Office for 9p stamps to be put upon them. Thereupon they are transferred from the Post Office to the board for noble Lords to collect. This seems to me absolutely ridiculous—
Several noble Lords: Question!
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: Cannot my noble friend find some way whereby a limited use of the facilities of this kind may be made? Is he aware that we have just formed a House of Lords industrial policy group and we wish to communicate with 35, 40 or 50 Members? There is an all-Party conservation group. They wish to communicate with—
Several noble Lords: Speech!
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: It is no good my noble friend looking so pained about this—
Several noble Lords: Order!
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, there is no Order involved. I am still on my feet.
Several noble Lords: Order!
Lord PEART: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will ask a direct question.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I do not need prompting to ask a direct question: I am asking a direct question, which is whether some improved facilities can be made. My noble friend has apparently said, No. I am asking him to reconsider the matter. Existing arrangements are ridiculous. I repeat that word, and we want better facilities—
Several noble Lords: Order!
Lord PEART: My Lords, the noble Lord has been in this House longer than I. This is the first time that I have heard any complaints about this facility. There is of course an administration subcommittee of the Offices Committee. A strong case will have to be made out there for any alteration. But I am prepared to consider this, so I am not being negative.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, will my noble friend refer this matter to a group of noble Lords who can report on the facilities of this House?
Lord PEART: No, my Lords, because there is an administration sub-committee of the Offices Committee. The noble Lord has been a Member of this House longer than I have; he is experienced and knows that the sub-committee exists.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: My Lords, will the noble Lord consider, or ask those responsible to consider, improvement in the self-service racks, since letters have to be of a particular size? Would it not be easier if the self-service racks took letters of different shapes and sizes?
Lord PEART: My Lords, there is a very good general information booklet which deals with letters. I think that information is excellent, but I am prepared to look at that request.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, would my noble friend accept that I am sure the whole House supports him in urging my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby to say what he wants to say in interrogative form? But would he be good enough to see that this rule is applied right throughout the House, to both Front Benches and the Liberal Party as well? We should all put questions into interrogative form or none of us should do so, one or the other.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I agree. I continually intervene to try to get Members to do that. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord.
Lord ARDWICK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that great inconvenience can be caused because letters addressed to noble Lords and delivered by hand to this House cannot be sent on to them? There is no facility for sending letters on to Peers and sometimes weeks of delay can occur over important communications.
Lord PEART: My Lords, as I have said, I am prepared to have this matter considered by the administration subcommittee.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, does it not go a little further than this in this sense: would the noble Lord also consider examining the possibility of having all mail stamped when it is addressed by one Member of the House to another?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I will look at this suggestion. I will refer this matter to the administration sub-committee, for that is its purpose.

ZAMBIA: PAYMENTS TO BRITISH OFFICERS
11.11 a.m.
Lord GRIDLEY: 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, in the case of officers seconded under contract from the United Kingdom to the Government of Zambia, whether they are aware of the delay in the payment of gratuities and leave pay to these officers by the Government of Zambia when due.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, very few officers are seconded from British Government services, and those who are would have no difficulties over exchange controls since they are paid in sterling by their home departments. Most of those experiencing the difficulties mentioned by the noble Lord are Zambian Government employees, recruited and paid by them but in receipt of a supplementary allowance from Her Majesty's Government which is payable in the United Kingdom. Wherever practicable, these officers are given the chance to attend briefing courses at Farnham Castle at which they are made aware of various aspects of conditions of service and life in Zambia, including these difficulties. Ways of publicising the situation more widely are also being considered.
Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for that Answer and appreciate the difficulties of going into this matter in a little greater depth, I hope he will understand that the supplementary question which I propose to ask is a constructive one. Is it not a fact that, in the case of the delays in the payments to which the noble Lord refers, Rhodesian sanctions and the closure of the border between Zambia and Rhodesia, together with the fall in the world price of copper, are causing grave difficulties to the Zambian Government? If that situation were to go on there could be the threat of disturbances in that area. Is the noble Lord in a position to tell us whether President Kenneth Kaunda has studied the internal settlement for Rhodesia or whether some representative of Her

1917
Majesty's Government has made helpful representations to him on that internal settlement?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, certainly Her Majesty's Government fully understand the economic difficulties which are facing Zambia and which the noble Lord has summarised. They are, of course, causing considerable foreign payments difficulties for Zambia. I am quite sure that President Kaunda will be fully aware of the proposed internal settlement, but it seems to me that is a question which goes much wider than the original Question on the Order Paper.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, while I think all your Lordships will understand the economic position and the difficulties that the Zambians have at the present time, would it not be possible in cases of hardship for Her Majesty's Government to advance money to these officers, if they are in trouble, until such time as the Zambian Government can pay?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, that would be possible. Some such system was operating in relation to Uganda when people were leaving that country, but the experience arising out of that has not been very fortunate. Therefore I think we would look rather closely at any suggestion of a similar scheme in relation to Zambia.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while I appreciate the penultimate answer of my noble friend, is it not the case that Zambia has probably suffered more than Rhodesia as a result of its loyalty in carrying out sanctions against Rhodesia? Therefore, will Her Majesty's Government seek, in consultation with President Kaunda, to settle this matter in a conciliatory way?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, it is true that, as a result of the unfortunate history of the last 10 years or more, Zambia has suffered not only through the reduction in copper prices but also from the disruption of her normal means of trade. I think my noble friend is aware that Her Majesty's Government are constantly in touch with President Kaunda in relation to the Rhodesian problem.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, will the Minister have another look at this matter? Is it not really a question of the position of the officers themselves and of the money they have not been receiving, and not so much a matter of the obvious impossibility of Zambia being able to pay? Surely this Government should undertake to give some money to these officers to live on in the meantime, regardless of whether or not Zambia will be prosperous in the future?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the problem to which the question is directed is the repatriation of funds into this country and not the receipt of funds in Zambia on which to live. It is a question of funds being able to be repatriated to this country.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, as I understand the Question, it refers to the delay in the payment of gratuities and leave pay. That is money which these officers are entitled to receive as of now, and the Government should surely see that they are getting this money.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, as I understand it, the problem of gratuities and leave pay is that they want to have those funds available in this country. It is that difficulty which is very difficult to overcome because of the balance of payments situation of Zambia.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, will the noble Lord suggest to his right honourable friend that he ought not to be put off by the Ugandan experience? Will he suggest that he will be dealing with a different sort of Administration, we hope, and that the chances of reaching an agreement on the question of repayment are more likely in this case than they have been at some times in the past?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I agree that each case has to be looked at separately, but, in relation to advancing funds to officers who have left a particular country, I think the experience in Uganda is relevant.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, is there not a distinction which the Minister has failed to draw between an officer who is normally working for the British Government and who was seconded by the British Government to the Zambian Government, and

1919
an individual who goes out there under contract, for whom there is no relationship whatever with the British Government? Would he not agree that the Question rather smears that over when it talks of being,
"seconded under contract from the United Kingdom"?
An officer is either seconded or under contract: not both.
Lord ORAM: Yes, my Lords; but if my noble friend will look again at my original Answer I think he will find that that distinction is made clear.

DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS OVERSEAS
11.18 a.m.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will open or re-open this year any small diplomatic posts (or "mini-missions") of the type referred to in the CPRS Report, having regard to export promotion, aid, strategic and political criteria and historical friendly relations.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, we plan to re-open a resident Mission in Honduras and to establish one for the first time in Gabon by the summer. The Honduran and Gabonese Governments have welcomed our initiative.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for that Answer, particularly with regard to Gabon, because I know that President Bongo has been keen for this and there are many economic reasons for opening a diplomatic post in Gabon—
A noble Lord: Question!
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I ask the Minister how it is, in effect, that such a decision has not been reached in respect of Madagascar? Would he explain how it is that after a decision was reached in July 1975 to close the post there, against
1920
what was felt to be a wrong decision—my Lords, I will leave it there.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I know the noble Lord's particular interest in Madagascar and I have no doubt he is aware that Her Majesty's Ambassador at Dar-es-Salaam has been accredited as a non-resident Ambassador to the Democratic Republic of Madagascar since 1975, when our resident Mission there was closed. This arrangement is considered adequate to maintain our essential interests there. But having regard to what the noble Lord has said, I shall certainly ask my right honourable friend to reconsider the case of Madagascar, though I am sure the noble Lord appreciates that my right honourable friend will need to have regard to other claims on our resources in these matters.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he agrees that it would be much better to replace these mini-missions and strengthen the trade side of our Embassies abroad, rather than continue to support the Crown Agents who do not seem to have done very well lately?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I think the general principle is that it is left to Her Majesty's Ambassadors to decide how to deploy the manpower which is at their command, although one recognises that, in the mini-missions, specialisation is not easy.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, are the Government contemplating closing down any further Missions, other than those already closed down, as a result of the CPRS Report?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, my right honourable friend has made it clear in another place that the Government will not take final decisions on the CPRS Review until they have heard the views of Parliament on the matter. The Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee, which has been taking evidence in relation to that review, has not yet reported, so that there is really nothing to announce about firm decisions.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, in view of what the Minister has said, can he reassure the House that members of the

1921
British information services in the United States have not been notified that their services will no longer be required?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I am afraid that I should need notice of that question.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, can the Minister tell me whether, if no posts have yet been closed as a result of the Think Tank's report, his right honourable friend will take into consideration the fact that these mini-posts are extremely useful in the education field, because they find out which students want to come here? That was not mentioned in the Think Tank's report.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I am sure that that view will be conveyed to my right honourable friend, and, certainly, the value of so-called mini-missions is fully appreciated by my right honourable friend.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, does the Minister agree that his initial statement this morning will cause disquiet with the Malagasy Government? Secondly, does he not agree that, in effect, two of the roles of a diplomatic post are export promotion and aid administration? Further, is he aware that, since the closure of our Embassy at Tananarive, our exports have not risen at all like those of Germany? Finally, as aid administration is part of the role of a post, does the Minister not welcome the fact that Her Majesty's Government have increased their co-operation assistance to that country since the closure?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I knew of the considerations in the noble Lord's mind, particularly those of trade and aid. With that in view, I indicated that I should be prepared to ask my right honourable friend to include Madagascar in his review of mini-missions.

SAFETY OFFICERS' QUALIFICATIONS
11.24 a.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider there is a need for all safety officers working for companies and factories to hold a Diploma in Safety Management and, if so, whether they will invoke paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 to the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 which gives the power to the Minister to restrict performance of specified functions to persons with special qualifications.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government's view at the present time is that there is not an immediate need for invoking, in the case of safety officers, paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 to the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. However, the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission informs me that the question of the employment, training and qualifications of safety officers is under consideration by the Health and Safety Commission, following their Discussion Document on the subject published by the Health and Safety Executive in 1976. If the Commission's consideration of these basic issues points to the need for a nationally recognised qualification for safety officers, they will have to consider what those qualifications should be and whether they should be made mandatory.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that very helpful Answer. I think that the British Safety Council have very good standards which could be used, and they say that training can prevent about 50 per cent. of the accidents. When there were over 900,000 serious accidents and 30 million minor accidents, surely it is a good idea to have somebody trained?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, in reply to the noble Baroness, she will, of course, agree with me that training is in fact carried out at the present time, although it varies a great deal in content and duration. For her information, and for the information of the House, I would say that training is provided by universities, including Aston University and Imperial College London, and by a number of polytechnics and colleges of further education throughout the country, as well as by voluntary bodies, which include the Institution of Industrial Safety Officers,

1923
the Institute of Municipal Safety Officers, et cetera. The polytechnics and colleges of further education often use the examination and syllabus of the Institution of Industrial Safety Officers. So, at the present time, their training is carried on to a fairly high standard. But I can understand the noble Baroness's point. She is concerned with a registered diploma qualification and, as I indicated, this is a possible matter for consideration.
Lord MURRAY of GRAVESEND: My Lords, in view of the fact that in most factories the employment of safety officers is a very hit-and-miss affair, and safety generally turns out to be the job of somebody who is just shoved on to it, and also in view of the very high loss of man-days due to accidents, will my noble friend urge the Health and Safety Commission to look at this matter very urgently?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: Yes, my Lords. Certainly I can give that assurance. But I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that there should be adequate consultation on this point between management and trade unions. In addition to safety officers, there are many other people in factories who have responsibilities and who should receive some training. It is the responsibility of the trade unions and management to see that these people are adequately trained.
Lord HALE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the special training given to safety officers—
Viscount St. DAVIDS: My Lords —
Several noble Lords: Order!
Viscount St. DAVIDS: My Lords, I think that the last noble Lord to speak did so from those Benches.
Lord HALE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether any provision is made for training in the use of the almost unknown and unidentified poisons which are being used in manufacturing processes, and whether there are facilities for making representations as to the conditions under which it would be safe to use them?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I recognise my noble friend's deep
1924
interest in these matters. But rather than give an answer on the spot, I should prefer to get the detail for him so that he may be fully satisfied and informed.
Viscount St. DAVIDS: My Lords, is a possible path through this problem to give higher pay, first, to safety officers for their duties and, secondly, to qualified safety officers according to their qualifications, thus possibly building up the body of safety officers who are so needed in this business, rather than trying to make it statutory at once?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I would rather not embark on discussions on pay problems at this stage.

DINNERS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to announce that dinners will be available on Tuesday, 4th April, the day when the House resumes after the Easter Recess.

EXPORT GUARANTEES AND OVERSEAS INVESTMENT BILL [H.L.]
11.29 a.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Export Guarantees Act 1975 (as amended by Section 4 of the International Finance, Trade and Aid Act 1977 and Schedule 1 to that Act), and Sections 1 and 2 of the Overseas Investment and Export Guarantees Act 1972. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

OATHS BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Oaths Act 1838 and the Oaths Acts 1888 to 1977, and to repeal, as obsolete, Section 13 of the Circuit

1925
Courts (Scotland) Act 1828. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Lord PEART: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 43 (No two Stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with for the purpose of taking the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill through its remaining stages this day. —(Lord Peart.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SCOTLAND BILL
11.30 a.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Scotland Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order, viz.:—

Clause 1

Schedule 1

Clauses 2–18

Schedule 2

Clauses 19–21

Schedule 3

Clause 22

Schedules 4 and 5

Clause 23

Schedule 6

Clauses 24 to 38

Schedule 7

Clause 39

Schedule 8

Clauses 40 to 57

Schedule 9

Clauses 58 and 59

Schedules 10 and 11

Clauses 60 and 61

1926

Schedule 12

Clauses 62 to 64

Schedule 13

Clauses 65 and 66

Schedule 14

Clauses 67 to 77

Schedule 15

Clauses 78 to 80

Schedule 17

Clauses 81 and 82

Schedule 16.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, bearing in mind the number of clauses and Schedules, their nature and what lies behind them, is the noble and learned Lord of the opinion that a sufficient number of days has been allowed for discussion of the list he is now moving? Is it too late to consider allowing sufficient days to enable adequate consideration of these important clauses and Schedules to take place?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am not sure that this is either the appropriate occasion or the moment to deal with the allocation of time for these matters. I have no doubt that a further opportunity will arise, of which I am quite confident that the noble Lord will take full advantage.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (PROPERTY AND ENDOWMENTS) AMENDMENT ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Bill read 3a, and passed.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Baroness Stedman.)
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

EMPLOYMENT SUBSIDIES BILL
11.33 a.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Wallace of Coslany.)
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I should like to return to a question which I asked the noble Lord on Second Reading. Under Clause 2(2), there is provision that the Secretary of State shall in certain circumstances lay a Statement before the House of Commons with a view to obtaining a Resolution. The question which I now repeat is, why such a Resolution should not need to be obtained from both Houses, as in the case of the Industry Act 1972? It seems that there may be some inconsistency here, and I should be grateful if the noble Lord would clear up this point.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I believe that there is no real difference of view between the noble Lord and myself on this matter. I think we need to be clear that we are speaking about two separate matters. The first is the provision in Clause 2(1) that the Secretary of State must seek the authority of the House of Commons via a Resolution before he sets up any new scheme under the Bill costing more than £10 million. The second is the provision in Clause 2(2) that before seeking such a Resolution he must lay a Statement before the House of Commons explaining his proposal.
Let us first consider the provision for a Resolution in Clause 2(1). It is normal for schemes of this kind to be financed by appropriation, and this means, as your Lordships will fully appreciate, that authorisation is a matter for the House of Commons. The purpose of Clause 2(1) is to ensure that large items of expenditure under this Bill can be scrutinised by the House of Commons in the normal way.
Now let us look at the provision for laying a Statement before the House of Commons in Clause 2(2). The purpose is, quite simply, to provide the necessary information about the proposed scheme.
1928
At this point I should say a few words about Clause 2(3). This subsection is intended to allow the Secretary of State to take emergency action without a Resolution of the House of Commons where he is satisfied that urgent action is required and a Resolution would involve an unacceptable delay. In such cases, the Secretary of State must lay before the House a Statement of the action he has taken and his reasons for it. The Bill therefore provides for a Statement to be laid in two different circumstances: first, before the Secretary of State seeks authority for a particular scheme via a Resolution and, secondly, when he needs to take emergency action and has to proceed without a Resolution.
I can assure noble Lords, as I did during the Second Reading debate, that although the Bill does not specifically provide for this, a Statement will be laid both here and in the House of Commons in both of the circumstances I have described. As I mentioned in the Second Reading debate, it is in any case normal practice for Statements to be made in both Houses when an important new scheme or package of schemes to combat unemployment is announced.
I hope I have said enough to make clear why the authorisation of individual schemes is a matter for the House of Commons. I hope also that my assurance that Statements will be laid both here and in another place will allay the noble Lord's worries on this point. I can assure him that the fact that the Bill does not specifically provide for Statements to be laid in both Houses in no way constitutes a precedent. With that explanation, I hope that the House will be satisfied. May I thank the noble Lord for raising the matter because, as a Member of the House of Lords, I have as much interest in it as he has.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for such a very full reply.
Bill read 3a, and passed.

STATE IMMUNITY BILL [H.L.]
11.38 a.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Submission to jurisdiction]:
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES had given Notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 2, leave out from ("agreement") to end of line 4.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I do not intend again to enter into a long argument on the subject. We discussed this matter quite fully during the Committee stage, but for two reasons I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships' House to my Amendment. First, the noble and learned Lord said in his reply, which is to be found at col. 1494 of Hansard, that he imagined that the effect of the Amendment is intended to be that an agreement by a foreign State that a contract is to be governed by the law of the United Kingdom is to be treated as an agreement to waive immunity from the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom courts. The point of my Amendment, which removes the two lines and the "but", is a question of submission to the jurisdiction and not a question of waiver of immunity.
Where a contract contains a provision agreeing the law governing the contract, whether it is municipal or international law, I believe it is correct to say that the choice of that law would influence the courts or the tribunal to be set up to decide the validity and interpretation of the particular agreement in question. So I think that this particular subsection (2) referring to waiver of immunity would be very much improved if those last two lines were deleted. I believe this causes more confusion than assistance in giving a guide to individuals entering into contracts with foreign States as to the submission to jurisdiction of that foreign State.
I am fortified in what I say by the support given to my original Amendment by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Denning and Lord Wilberforce. If the lines are to remain, I think this has considerable competence in international law. As I say, I do not think this is the time to go into it, but I should be most grateful if the noble and learned Lord would look into it and possibly at some stage I could have a written reply and, if my right honourable friend in another place considers that it is justified, the matter could be raised again in the Commons. On that basis, I shall not seek to move the Amendment.
Clause 3 [Commercial transactions and contracts to be performed in United Kingdom]:
11.41 a.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 1, leave out ("or other similar character) in which a State") and insert (", professional or other similar character) into which a State enters or in which it").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that proceedings relating to a commercial transaction in respect of which a State enjoys no immunity under Clause 3 include proceedings relating to professional services such as those which may be given by a physician or a surgeon, a lawyer or an architect. Where a State engages the services of such persons it is clearly acting in the same way as a private individual and should not be entitled to immunity. I hope that the Amendment meets the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, at the Committee stage, when she questioned whether the present wording would be adequate to cover professional services sought in anticipation of a commercial transaction which is later abandoned. I have looked at the wording to see if it was possible to enlarge their scope, and the words that I now propose will, I think, not only meet the example given by the noble Baroness but also embrace other activities like medicine and accountancy which ought to be covered. I beg to move.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for meeting my point and for going even wider. I notice that he took very great care not to define too closely the word "professional" but he certainly meets the point that I made at the Committee stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Contracts of employment]:
11.44 a.m.
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 13, after ("where") insert ("the employee was recruited in the United Kingdom and was ordinarily resident there when recruited.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, first I should like to express my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord for accepting

1931
the second half of my original Amendment in the Committee stage in relation to this clause, but as he may remember I was very concerned with cases where individuals are recruited in the United Kingdom and where the contract is not necessarily made in the United Kingdom. Earlier, we were discussing in your Lordships' House the question of United Kingdom citizens who are working in Uganda where there is difficulty in the matter of payment and the fact that there is no action that these individuals can take against the Government in such circumstances.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that many people are recruited from this country. The contracts are not always completed in the United Kingdom and I believe that this is something which the Government should look at very much more closely than they have hitherto done. They should either accept the Amendment as it stands or at some stage give some kind of undertaking that the individual cases which have arisen, are arising and undoubtedly will arise in the future will have some kind of guarantee from our own Government. I beg to move.
Lord WILBERFORCE: My Lords, should like briefly to reaffirm my support for the Amendment moved by the noble Baroness. This is a type of transaction which is becoming more and more current, and I certainly agree that Clause 4(1) is a little too restrictive. One would like to see Clause 4(1) adjusted in the positive form so as to correspond to the negative which appears in subsection (2)(b). This states that the subsection does not apply if,
"at the time when the contract was made the individual was neither a national of the United Kingdom nor habitually resident there".
Of course that is quite right. I should like to see the counterpart of that introduced into subsection (1), so that if the individual is a national of the United Kingdom or habitually resident in the United Kingdom or, to use the compendious expression, recruited by a foreign State, the immunity should not attach. The immunity is removed by the clause as drafted only,
"where the work is to be performed wholly or partly in the United Kingdom",
which is quite often not the case in these
1932
recruitment contracts. Without prolonging the discussion I would very much support what the noble Baroness has said and hope that at some stage, if not today, Clause 4(1) could be enlarged.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I shall shortly be moving Amendment No. 4 to Clause 4, and if that is approved a State will not be immune in relation to proceedings concerning contracts of employment made between the State and an individual where the contract was either made in the United Kingdom or the work is to be wholly or partly performed in the United Kingdom. The Amendment we are now discussing would add another class of contract which venture to think must be very exceptional, although both noble Lords have indicated that such contracts are becoming more common, which would lead me to give another thought to what is proposed. These are contracts which are not made in the United Kingdom nor are to be performed in the United Kingdom, and which recruit an employee in the United Kingdom at a time when he was ordinarily resident there.
I find it a little difficult to see justification for our courts entertaining litigation in those circumstances, even if the employer is a private individual and not a foreign State. The plaintiff's residence is universally considered insufficient, even unacceptable, as a ground for assuming jurisdiction and, equally, recruitment in the United Kingdom seems to me to be no adequate ground for giving jurisdiction to our courts. If our courts could not in any event entertain litigation there can be little point in providing that a foreign State is not to enjoy immunity in our courts in that litigation. It would appear that the only instance where a contract of this kind could be litigated in an English court would be where it contains provision that it is to be governed by English law.
The courts have a discretion to entertain proceedings relating to such a contract and in those proceedings, if the Amendment now proposed were adopted and its criteria applied, the foreign State could not claim immunity. But I venture to think that those cases must be rare. I doubt whether even the combination of English law, local recruitment and residence of the plaintiff in the United Kingdom establish sufficient links to justify removal

1933
of immunity; and I am afraid that in relation to Member States of the European Convention a provision of this kind could probably not be legitimated even by a declaration under Article 24. There are many difficulties in the way but if the noble Baroness would be good enough to withdraw the Amendment at this stage I shall certainly see that further consideration is given to this matter, either by further proceedings in this House or in another place.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he has said. I think it should be borne in mind that those of us who read our daily newspapers from one end to the other see an enormous number of advertisements by foreign governments for professors, technologists and scientists. These are in fact recruiting advertisements, but since, as I understand it, it is the foreign government itself which is offering these posts, the contract is actually finalised in the foreign State itself and these advertisements merely act as recruiting formulae. This is just to give one example to support my earlier statement that I do believe that there are an increasing number of instances where people are being recruited from this country and where the contract itself is actually made abroad. In view of what the noble and learned Lord has said, I should be most grateful if he would look at this again, and we could perhaps have it pursued in another place if seen fit. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 13, leave out from (" where ") to end of line 14 and insert (" the contract was made in the United Kingdom or the work is to be wholly or partly performed there.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment, to which I have already referred briefly, is to provide that a State is not to be immune as respects proceedings relating to a contract of employment between a State and an individual where the contract was made in the United Kingdom. At present, Clause 4 removes immunity from contracts of employment only where the work is to be wholly or partly performed in the United Kingdom. This Amendment meets some of the criticism
1934
that was made at the Committee stage. Then, the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, referred to an increasing number of cases of contracts of employment, generally made in the United Kingdom and involving British citizens, where persons are recruited by reason of their specific and special scientific or technical knowledge or their administrative capability, or for other specific reasons which, I am happy to think, send our fellow countrymen to all parts of the world. They are invited to render services abroad, particularly in less developed countries and, after themselves incurring heavy expenditure, they may find when they get there that their services are not wanted after all.
The noble Baroness quoted a case of an officer in the Armed Forces who was pressed to take such a job, but who, after waiting three months in the country concerned, was informed that there was no post for him. The noble Baroness properly, if I may say so, urged that such a person should have a remedy in the courts of this country. He cannot rely on Clause 4 as it is now, and accordingly this Amendment is now made. I hope it meets the point that was raised. I think it is a helpful improvement. I beg to move.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having met this point, and of course I strongly support the Amendment that he has put down.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Ships used for commercial purposes]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 5, line 28, at end insert ("or").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it may be convenient to consider with this Amendment Amendment No. 6. In each case, the word "or" is added. This is a minor drafting point which was raised by the noble Baroness at the Committee stage. The insertion of the word "or" does not affect the meaning of the subsections concerned, but I think that the following of the wording of the clause will be improved by the insertion of the word "or". As the clause is concerned with shipping, perhaps an additional "or"

1935
is not out of place. I do apologise for that terrible pun. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 6, line 2, at end insert ("or").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Other procedural privileges]:
Lord WILBERFORCE Lord WILBERFORCE moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 7, line 22, leave out ("in an action in rem").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I do not want to take up a lot of time on this because it was fairly well discussed when the House was in Committee. It really should be considered together with Amendment No. 8, which was the one I moved at the Committee stage and on which some debate took place. Both Amendments, which are alternatives, concern the remedying of an injunction, which both I and my noble friend Lord Denning thought was an important head of relief to be available in certain cases. The anxiety expressed by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, which, if I may say so, I fully understand, is against the granting of an injunction against a State which may involve difficulties when it comes to enforcement. But I do not think that that is really a danger which is brought about by either of my Amendments. It is certainly not one into which I would desire to run the country. What I think both my noble and learned friend Lord Denning and I were concerned about was that the court should be empowered, where there is property in this country, to grant interim interlocutory relief of a kind which would prevent that property being removed. What very often happens is that property is held by some bank or third party and one wishes to secure that the money in that bank shall be held there and not removed pending determination of the dispute.
At the Committee stage I sought to achieve this by inserting (a) before (b) in line 33, where it says "Subsection (2)(b)", so as to read "Subsection (2)(a) or (2)(b)". I think the noble and learned Lord still felt that that might involve proceedings against a State itself, although subsection (4) merely refers to process in
1936
respect of property and does not refer to any process against the State itself. If the noble and learned Lord still thinks that that is a difficult Amendment, I venture to suggest an alternative here which would consist of removing from line 22 of subsection (2)(b) the words, "in an action in rem". If one deleted those limiting words, one would have in (2)(b) as it would then appear, a provision for the arrest, detention or sale of property which I should have thought was harmless, since it does not bring about a direct collision between the courts of this country and a sovereign State.
Having said that, which briefly repeats what I said at Committee stage, I just wanted it to be clear, in case the matter comes to be considered again in another place, that I do think this an important subject and one which will have to be dealt with somehow and at some time. I believe that the courts ought not to be deprived of the power to freeze assets in this country where there is a genuine and properly constituted dispute in which a State may be involved. So, formally, I beg to move Amendment No. 7 at this stage.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I fully understand that the noble and learned Lord is mainly concerned with preventing States from invoking immunity against court orders designed to preserve the property in dispute in the litigation before the court. The noble and learned Lord has indicated that he is not aiming at interlocutory injunctions generally, and in particular the kind of injunction which has come to be known as the Mareva injunction, a matter about which I learned much for the first time during our earlier discussion of these highly technical matters.
It was pointed out in Committee, and I think it remains valid, that the Government see very serious difficulties if court orders which are subject to personal sanctions were to be allowed against foreign States. I have a good deal of sympathy with the more limited objectives, but even orders for the detention or preservation of the subject matter of the litigation present, I think, some difficulties. Those orders, although they relate to particular property, nevertheless normally can be enforced only by a contempt

1937
process, which noble Lords may think is the kind of sanction which is inappropriate against States.
My own view, as at present advised, is that neither of the noble and learned Lord's Amendments will satisfactorily achieve his objective. The first, I venture to think, would leave the clause in a form which a court might find somewhat bewildering. References to "arrest" or "sale" of property are unaccustomed except in connection with actions in rem for ships. The second Amendment, I venture to think, would be so wide as to let in injunctions of a personal nature.
Accordingly, I am afraid that I still see difficulties in regard to these Amendments, but I am very willing to respond to the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord that the matter should be further considered. We shall certainly do that, and I shall seek the best advice available to see whether we can find some way of meeting what the noble and learned Lord has in mind.
Lord WILBERFORCE: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble and learned Lord's sympathy, though I would sooner have had his support. I should like to make it clear that the process I have in mind does not involve any process against the State—it would be a process against the third party, whoever it is is holding money. Thus, in the well-known case against the Bank of England, the company which I was then representing took out an injunction against the Bank of England from parting with certain gold bars. It was very effective and had very beneficial results when it was found that the Bank of England had miscounted the bars. There were a certain number which ultimately the plaintiffs in the case were able to recover. Therefore, it is not really quite so dangerous as the noble and learned Lord suggests.
However, with the support of his sympathy for the objective—I quite agree that my two Amendments are probably technically inadequate—I am happy to let the matter go, and hope that perhaps some more skilled tool than I have been able to bring to bear may produce the right sort of Amendment to give the courts the right remedy, and one which will not involve us in diplomatic incon-
1938
veniences. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 7.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Clause 15 [Restriction and extension of immunities and privileges]:
12.3 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 9, line 12, after ("any") insert ("treaty, convention or other").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9. This Amendment is linked with Amendment No. 11, which concerns the meaning of the expression "agreement" in Clause 2(2) and Clause 13(3), and includes in it a treaty, convention or other international agreement. As the international agreements mentioned in Clause 15 cover an identical class of international instruments it is necessary to use the same language here. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 9, line 17, at end insert—
(" ( ) Any statutory instrument containing an Order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 10. This Amendment implements an undertaking which I gave in Committee. Its effect will be to make Orders in Council restricting or extending the immunities accorded under the Bill subject to annulment by a resolution of either House of Parliament. I beg to move.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I am grateful once again to the noble and learned Lord for having listened sympathetically to my Amendment on this particular matter. As he will recall, I had proposed an Affirmative Resolution rather than a Negative Resolution, but I thought that the noble and learned Lord gave very convincing reasons why it might be difficult in certain circumstances to have an Affirmative Resolution. For my part, I should be very happy to accept his proposed Amendment. However, perhaps I may be allowed to make a reservation.

1939
Should my right honourable friend in another place decide that he would prefer an Affirmative Resolution, I should like to leave the matter open. So far as I personally am concerned, I am fully satisfied that this would be sufficient guarantee in the circumstances.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Interpretation of Part I]:
12.6 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 10, line 9, at end insert—
(" ( ) In sections 2(2) and 13(3) above references to an agreement include references to a treaty, convention or other national agreement.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 11. This is a somewhat modified version of a Government Amendment moved during the Committee stage. Clause 2(2) of the Bill provides that the immunity of a foreign State may be waived by prior written agreement. Clause 13(3) provides that relief by way of injunctions and various other remedies and certain processes of enforcement are to be available against States with the written consent of the State concerned, and that any such consent may be contained in a prior agreement.
It is intended that these prior agreements should include not only agreements entered into for the purpose of a particular transaction or litigation by the parties, but also instruments by which the State involved has undertaken to waive its immunity in a manner binding that State in its international relations.
The new subsection makes it apparent that not only contracts are involved but also instruments like treaties and Conventions which are binding in public international law. I hope that this Amendment will deal with the questions that were raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, in Committee. I beg to move.
Lord WILBERFORCE: My Lords, I should just like to say that I would regard this as an important Amendment and one which makes a significant addition to the Bill. We should be very grateful to the
1940
noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for having proposed it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 [Short title, repeals, commencement and extent]:
12.8 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 13, line 41, leave out from ("proceedings") to ("and") In line 1 on page 14 and insert ("in respect of matters that occurred before the coming into force of this Act;").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 12. If this Amendment is adopted the Bill will not apply to proceedings in respect of matters that occurred before the coming into force of the Bill. This Amendment meets the objective of an Amendment moved in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, and strongly supported, as I recollect, by the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien of Lothbury, who thought that it was necessary and said that he was speaking not only on his own behalf but for others in the City who had expressed a view. It was put—and I fully sympathise with the argument—that the United Kingdom should not be seen to be acting in a way that would alter retrospectively the terms and Conditions of existing agreements, or upset the basis on which foreign States might have taken past decisions. I beg to move.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, once again I should like to express my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for having met this point. It was a very important point and, as the noble and learned Lord rightly said, strongly supported by the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien of Lothbury. Perhaps in this connection I may be allowed to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he can give any indication under subsection (4) of the clause as to when he envisages that the Bill might come into force.
Lord O'BRIEN of LOTHBURY: My Lords, may I thank the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for this Amendment, which I believe to be a wise one.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, and the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien of Lothbury, for their support for this

1941
Amendment. I am afraid that I cannot answer the question posed by the noble Baroness. It is a matter of urgency that the Bill should be enacted. That is why we have forced the pace a little upon noble Lords and the noble Baroness in trying to get this matter through so quickly. It was comforting to hear from the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien, that the City attaches great importance to this. I hope, therefore, that in another place the Bill will receive as speedy and sympathetic treatment as it has received here.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

ROYAL ASSENT
12.11 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1978,

Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978,

Local Government (Scotland) Act 1978,

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978,

Employment Subsidies Act 1978,

Consolidated Fund Act 1978,

Civil Aviation Act 1978,

Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Amendment Order Confirmation Act 1978,

University of London Act 1978,

Customs Annuity and Benevolent Fund Act 1978.

SOCIAL SECURITY (CONTRIBUTIONS) CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENT REGULATIONS 1978
12.12 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL rose to move, That the draft Social Security (Contributions) Consequential Amendment Regulations 1978, laid before the House on 9th March, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the regulations make
1942
further arrangements, such as have been made annually in earlier years, for the calculation of mariners' primary and secondary Class 1 contributions consequent upon the changes, from 6th April 1978, in the percentage rates and earnings limits for contributions.
To avoid the need for separate regulations each year it is intended to put in a permanent form the basis on which a mariner's earnings should be taken into account for National Insurance contributions purposes. That is, where the earnings were in respect of a voyage period which fell in more than one income tax year and where there had been changes in rates and earnings limits for contributions during that period. Draft regulations to achieve this have recently been considered by the National Insurance Advisory Committee, but their report is awaited. There is no prospect of these regulations—which are subject to Affirmative Resolution in both Houses—completing the necessary Parliamentary processes in time to operate from 6th April 1978.
As it is essential that regulations to take account of changes in rates and earnings limits which come into force from 6th April 1978 should be made to come into operation on that date these further regulations have been laid. But as I pointed out a moment or two ago, it is intended to introduce an order which will make this unnecessary each year. In the past it has not been necessary to trouble the House with such regulations as they were wholly consequential on the Contributions Re-Rating Order, and accordingly subject to Negative Resolution procedure. This year, however, the regulations are made partly in consequence of the Re-Rating Order and partly in consequence of regulations under the Social Security Pensions Act prescribing the earnings limits and, therefore, are not exempted from the Affirmative Resolution procedure. Subject to the later approval of Parliament, it is now intended that the permanent regulation should come into operation on 6th April 1979 and thereafter there will be no further need for separate regulations each year.
I now come to the detail of the regulations which I can, I think, take shortly. Regulation 1 provides that the regulations shall commence operation on 6th April 1978. Regulation 2 inserts into the

1943
principal regulations an interpretation of the term "The Re-Rating (No. 2) Order 1977" used in the draft regulations. Regulation 3 makes the last made separate regulation—that is, 88B of the principal regulations—subject to the new regulation. Regulation 4—the new regulation—continues the general pattern of special regulations which have been made each year for the calculation of mariners' contributions. It is required because the mariners to whom it relates, normally receive a settlement of earnings at the end of the voyage. The voyage may fall in more than one tax year, with the result that in the absence of special provisions the mariners' earnings would attract contributions at the rate existing at the end of the voyage rather than at the rates, and subject to the limits, appropriate to the periods of the earnings. As your Lordships know, contribution rates and earnings limits, which affect the amount of contributions, often vary from year to year.
This regulation has the general effect that where a voyage period spans 6th April 1978 the mariner's earnings are subdivided and contributions are calculated separately on the basis of the contribution rates and earnings limits applicable in the year prior to, and that commencing on, that date. Earnings are not, however, taxed specially in this way under the regulation where the part of a voyage period which falls in one tax year is no more than a month in duration.
If I may, I shall explain this a little further by saying that should a voyage commence on or after 6th March 1978 and continue beyond 5th April 1978, the earnings and the period of time in the first tax year of the voyage shall be added to those in the second tax year of the voyage, and contributions shall be calculated by reference to the total of the amounts earned during those two periods, the total length of the two periods and the rate and limits applying during that second tax year.
Alternatively, should a voyage commence before 6th March 1978, continue beyond 5th April 1978 but end before 6th May 1978, the earnings and the period of time in the last tax year of the voyage shall be added to those in the penultimate tax year of the voyage and the contribu-
1944
tions shall be calculated by reference to the total of the amounts earned during those two periods, the total length of the two periods and the rate and limits applying during the penultimate year. I know that this sounds extremely complicated and I do not think that I am in danger of over-simplifying it when I merely say that a good many mariners are at sea for a considerable period. They can be away for some months in the present tax year and then still be away on the same voyage for several months in the tax year which will begin on 6th April 1978.
The rates of contributions in both those years are different. We know the contributions are going up after 6th April. The earnings limits are going up, and it would be unfair to ask them to pay National Insurance contributions in the year when they are higher than they were in the previous year. Briefly, it means that they are being assessed for each period of the years in which they have been away. These special arrangements have been made for the industry for many years and are fair to the employers as well as the employees, and it can be done in such a way that it does not create undue administrative difficulties for the employer. I hope that that explanation is reasonably clear, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Social Security (Contributions) Consequential Amendment Regulations 1978, laid before the House on 9th March, be approved.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
12.21 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for explaining this particular order. One realises in listening to the noble Lord how complicated this situation is. I was interested to hear that the report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee is still awaited. Naturally this will very much concern the situation with which we are confronted. In regard to Regulation 4, on which the noble Lord dwelt at some length, it appears from listening to the noble Lord that, although contributions will be re-rated satisfactorily so far as the mariner is concerned, there may indeed be a tax disadvantage to the mariner because of the grossing up of earnings for a rather longer period.

1945
However, as we are awaiting the National Insurance Advisory Committee's report, I shall not comment further.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, once again we are indebted to the noble Lord for a clear explanation of what is, in essence, a simple proposition that is nevertheless complicated in operation. The noble Lord has made it clear that this is a proposal to cover the position where a voyage takes place in more than one year—spans the division between two fiscal years. It is, as he said, an interim provision until a permanent provision is introduced, it is hoped, next year. When the permanent provision comes, will it be by a Negative Resolution or an Affirmative Resolution? Is it just because of the peculiar situation this year that we have an Affirmative Resolution? I do not wish to question the precise proposals which the noble Lord has explained. We certainly are happy to support the approval of the order.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for what they have said. I believe that the tax does not present a problem. I think many of us have been in a position whereby we have been in receipt of monies in the middle of the year which has covered five months in one year and five or six months in the previous year. Speaking personally in this matter, I have never felt that I have been at a disadvantage, because it has been possible to make adjustments.
With regard to Lord Banks's point, I understand that it will be an Affirmative Resolution.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EXPORT OF LIVE FARM ANIMALS
12.25 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are now in a position to make a Statement on the export of live farm animals. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. My Question asks whether the Government are able to make a Statement on the subject of the export of live animals. I do not expect to get the sort of Statement
1946
that I had in mind when I put down the Question, and indeed I am not inviting that kind of Statement today because the situation has obviously changed with the publication this morning of the Yellow Paper—which is perhaps a new colour in discussion documents in Parliament. Nevertheless, there are a few points and questions which I can put on this subject. Other noble Lords may wish to add to them.
First, can my noble friend, when he comes to reply, give the House any idea of the Government's programme with regard to the discussion of this Paper and the interval that is to elapse before conclusions can be reached? The second question is whether there will be an opportunity for a debate on the report in this House before the Government reach conclusions. I think both of those questions are important. I hope that, on a subject of this kind, it will not be regarded as sufficient for a debate to take place in another place only. We have a close interest in this subject here.
My next point regards the composition of the working group of officials who compiled this report. I take this to be a welcome sign of more open government. I think it is a genuine contribution to placing before Parliament and the public the considerations involved in a difficult and sensitive subject, often attracting a great deal of emotion, so that we can consider the facts calmly and closely before a decision is reached. That is far better than the Government making a Statement on their conclusions and saying that a Paper is in the Vote Office this afternoon. For the Government to listen before reaching conclusions is better than that they should not listen after they have reached their conclusions.
May we, at some suitable point, be told who comprised the working group of officials, merely so as to know what are their credentials and whether there were veterinary officers among the working group. After all, this is an anonymous group presented by the Ministers concerned to Parliament and to the public. It is an advantage when a report of any kind is produced for which the Minister is not taking ministerial responsibility. He has received a report and says, "Well, let it be published and let the public judge, let Parliament discuss, and then

1947
we will reach our conclusions." Therefore, I do not think it unreasonable to ask to know who were the working group officials. Recently, when there was a report on dogs and society from an inter-departmental working party, the names of the chairman and other members of the working party were published along with their report. I think that that is quite a reasonable thing to ask.
I come next to the size of this problem. It is obviously much greater today than it was some years ago. In Annexe B some figures are given which, as regards sheep, for example, do not tally with the figures published in The Times newspaper on 16th March, which I understand were given by the Meat and Livestock Commission. The numbers have risen significantly, the export of calves going up from 249,000 in 1976 to 394,000 in 1977. In Appendix B, the numbers given for calves do not differ significantly from the figure I have quoted, but, as regards sheep, there is a considerable difference. According to the figures given in The Times as coming from 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.
In any event, the numbers are large. Apparently the Commission said that they did not think exports of sheep would rise again in 1978, partly because of the greater restrictions expected against British meat for sale in France. Difficulties on that head are referred to in the report. At the moment, I am simply indicating points which the Government should study before we come on to the subsequent debate.
I come to the welfare side referred to in the report relating to EEC regulations. It may be that the reply given by Commissioner Gundelach in the European Parliament on 16th March is later information than that contained in the Yellow Paper before us. I am indebted to Caroline Jackson, Press Officer of the European Conservative Group, for an abbreviated account of the reply given by Commissioner Gundelach, who said that the Commission was about to propose implementing regulations to tighten controls on transport and was also about to propose an action programme for animal protection.
That, incidentally, was in reply to a question put by Sir Brandon Rhys-Williams, a Member of the British House of Commons, who is a Member of the European Parliament. Commissioner Gundelach said that the Commission was quite satisfied that, in general, the conditions of slaughter were adequate in the Community, but that it had started proceedings into instances. Then he went on in the summary which I mentioned—and this is important—
"On the other hand, the Commission was not satisfied about the conditions for the transport of live animals and it was for this reason that they were concentrating on the proposed legislation and action programme.".
That rather suggests that, notwithstanding the recitation in the Yellow Paper of the regulations in the EEC, there is still some disquiet there about conditions of transportation and the need apparently to tighten up controls and have an action programme for what Commissioner Gundelach described as animal protection. That may be an important development too.
Another development is that, in order to protect their own industry, the French have imposed a still higher import tax on sheep and lambs going into France, with the result that there is likely to be a greater diversion of exports from this country via Holland to escape the imposition of this additional tax. So not only may the figures change but the destination of considerable numbers of sheep and lambs may also change. Nothing is up to date for more than about five minutes at a time in the world of today and therefore any report which is dated March 1978 almost requires one to ask on what day in March 1978 the report was concluded so as to know whether it is really up to date. Apparently, two things have happened since the completion of the report.
I come to another point which I believe is important: We should avoid the attitude of the animal welfare organisations being misrepresented. On page 8, we read:
"Views of the animal welfare societies: The animal welfare societies remain opposed as a matter of principle to the export of live food animals from the United Kingdom to the Continent".
I suggest one has to be very careful when using the words "of principle". This is not marriage or divorce or euthanasia, where people have very strong principles

1949
based on convictions which are not open to argument or discussions. The welfare organisations are not, I submit, in the position where they do not listen to what the facts may be or what the arguments are. Really and truly, the welfare organisations are opposed to something happening where the conditions under which it is happening are unsatisfactory; that is, where some cruelty may be imposed upon animals.
It may be that the animal welfare organisations in general concede to animal life rights which many human beings do not concede, and believe that animals can claim to have some rights of their own in the living world, in the environment and in their association with human beings. That may be, as a matter of principle, a rather different attitude towards animal welfare to that which many people have. I do not want it to be thought that the animal welfare organisations are just stubborn and unreasonable, are not open to argument and will not listen. It is not a matter of a closed mind based on some conviction which is unshakable; it has to do with the facts and what is happening.
On this matter of welfare, there was an interesting development recently when a meeting of port workers' shop stewards was held in Birmingham on 11th March. It was convened by the shop stewards of the Hull port workers and there appeared in the newspapers a report saying that the shop stewards from the ports were to recommend to their members that they should ban the export of live animals from British ports. That was a very significant decision for port workers' shop stewards to take; they must have some very strong grounds for disquiet if they go to the trouble of holding a special meeting on a Saturday to consider recommending such a ban to their members. I shall not dwell on the aspect of industrial relations involved in any such decision. I am simply drawing attention to the fact that these workers obviously have very strong feelings about the subject, otherwise they would not have convened a meeting for that purpose and would not have made such a recommendation to the port workers. That is a development of considerable importance.
Along with the question of calves being exported, a good deal of publicity was given to the visit of two Members of
1950
another place, and that visit—the visit of Mr. Mills and Mr. Hicks—is referred to in the report. The details appear in paragraph 50 and, after indicating what their experience was, the report ends:
"They have, however, suggested that exports of live animals for slaughter should be phased out".
That was quite an important conclusion for those two Members of another place to come to, bearing in mind that they both represent considerable agricultural constituencies. We can also welcome in the report the reference, in paragraph 46, on page 12, to the fact that the National Farmers' Union, the RSPCA, and the British Veterinary Association are getting together on an informal basis to form an export welfare group, which I believe will contribute greatly to a rational approach to this problem.
In general, my question mark about the report is this. While it is good in dealing with what has been suggested, and good in expressing the views of the various bodies consulted, I do not find in it any indication of close examination by the committee of the actual facts of welfare and of the observance of regulations. I have here voluminous papers, though I do not propose to refer to them in the few minutes more that I shall occupy the House, but it has been put to me that those who know about this will say that wide-spread disregard of the regulations is almost endemic in this trade, because, it is claimed, if one complies with the regulations fully, then, the competition being what it is, along with the steps taken by the French to keep one out, they lead to an uneconomic transportation industry of live animals. I do not see any evidence in the report which supports any conclusions about welfare. It is fairly obvious that when the numbers have risen to the extent they have, supervision and enforcement are bound to be more difficult than they were before. There cannot be a rise in the numbers I have quoted without very great strain being put on all the resources, on the veterinary officers and all concerned with the supervision and enforcement of the regulations.
It is an extremely useful report, and I congratulate the Government upon adopting this method of dealing with this difficult problem. There will be many questions asked about it. There will be probes into the basis upon which it

1951
reaches certain conclusions, but I hope that, in the end, we may have a combination of compassion, as well as realism, in reaching final conclusions.
Looking at the economics of exploitation of animal life in this particular regard, we all remember that when the bans were lifted, after the O'Brien Report of 1974, we were all very concerned with the balance of payments. We were ready to give up home consumption of food produced here if it would help our balance of payments. That situation is substantially changed now, and I do not think that the economics of this matter really relate to any problem about the balance of payments. They may relate to the balance of trade, but not, in present conditions, to any serious problem regarding the balance of payments. That aspect of the matter is, I believe, very different indeed. I saw the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien of Lothbury, in his place a little earlier, and I was hoping that he would remain for this debate and, if necessary, say something on the subject. His committee, in 1973–74, devoted itself very earnestly to what must have been to him, and to the other members, a strangely unpalatable task. This now is the second chapter in that consideration. I hope that we shall be given adequate time not only to study it but to debate it in this House.
12.44 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he would reply to a suggestion I wish to make to him. In his closing remarks he referred to the opportunities we would have to debate this important report, and I would draw his attention to the fact that as the report has been available in the Printed Paper Office only from 10 o'clock this morning, as he himself said earlier, your Lordships have been placed in a somewhat difficult position to debate it on a day when we are about to rise for the Recess—together with the fact that the report is somewhat lengthy, running to 44 pages. Does the noble Lord feel that it may be possible to take a further opportunity to look at this matter on some more suitable occasion, and that your Lordships may do better not to proceed with this Question at the moment? Would the noble Lord—
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I am sorry; I was looking at my papers as the noble Lord was speaking.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, if the noble Lord is consulting his papers and considering this matter, perhaps I may continue with my remarks. I believe that we are under a particularly difficult set of circumstances, and while recognising most fully the public interest in, and the urgency of, this matter, I feel that this Unstarred Question merits much fuller consideration and investigation by your Lordships before we discuss it in the depths to which your Lordships are accustomed. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has anything to say at this stage. If he has, I should be only too happy to resume my seat—
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I see that there are present other noble Lords who were hoping to contribute to the debate on my Question, and I think that we should have at least a preliminary reply from the Government on the first point I mentioned, on procedure.
Lord SANDYS: Very well, my Lords; I am only too happy to continue.
The noble Lord has raised a particularly important subject, from the point of view of both the agricultural industry as a whole and, further, the very wide interest in the European Convention, which is to come into effect in August 1978. I should like to go over a little of the history leading up to the report, and further to comment upon it in relation to the O'Brien Committee Report, because I believe that the two are most intimately linked. With your Lordships' permission, I should like to go over some of the history of recent years, because it may benefit some of us to refresh our memories upon it.
Your Lordships will recollect that there was a suspension of trade in 1973, and the appointment of the committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien of Lothbury, took place in July of that year. The committee investigated most carefully the circumstances of the trade, and it reported on

1953
27th March 1974. Its report was considered, a debate took place in another place on 17th January 1975, and the resumption of trade occurred almost immediately. Since the trade was suspended a number of things have taken place, and I believe that it will be generally recognised that what has happened since 1975 has been, overall, to the benefit of the conduct of the trade in all its aspects.
But certain other factors had entered into the situation. In the first place, the numbers of fat cattle being exported have dropped, and the numbers of calves have been greatly increased. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, referred in particular to the very substantial number of calves. I shall not repeat the noble Lord's figures, but there was an increase in the past two years, between 1976 and 1978. Further, the transport arrangements have changed quite substantially. The introduction of roll-on/roll-off ferries has become almost universal for part of the trade with Europe; and there has also been a growth in the air transport of calves, especially to countries as far afield as Italy and North Africa.
The European Convention for the Protection of Animals during international transport is a Convention to which the signatories have given great consideration, and the charge made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is one with which certainly I most heartily disagree. He said—and I quote his words—that "widespread disregard of the regulation is endemic in the trade". This is a serious charge, and I think we ought to consider it in some depth.
At this point, I should like to refer back to the key paragraph in the report to which I referred earlier; that is, the O'Brien Committee Report of 1974—and I hope I shall not be trespassing on the indulgence of your Lordships if I read it. It occurs at page 22 of the O'Brien Report, where they say (and they begin, "If"):
"If we had come to the conclusion that the trade was inhumane, we should have had no hesitation in recommending a ban on that element of the trade which is carried on in live form. We have not come to such a conclusion, however, and we are therefore proposing a system of controls which we consider will safeguard the welfare of animals in the slaughter trade".
My Lords, they do not stop there, for in their consideration the O'Brien Committee
1954
went on to say this:
"We believe that by allowing the trade to continue under strict and respected conditions we could set a practical example to those other nations which trade in livestock, and thereby contribute to a general raising of standards."
I believe that that was the spirit of the O'Brien Report. They weighed the evidence most carefully, and they came to a considered verdict upon it. If it is the fact now, in the submission of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, that "widespread disregard … is endemic in the trade", I hope that, in a future debate, he will be able to lay before your Lordships his evidence to this effect, because I think it must be manifest that a very considerable improvement has taken place in standards generally, both in Europe and to the further shores of North Africa, since the ban took place. I think that the example set in introducing these regulations in this country, and the initiative taken by the Dutch in implementing their own legislation, has had some effect in improving standards generally.
I should now like to refer to one particular aspect which I know that those with much greater knowledge than myself, especially my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood, would like to draw to your Lordships' attention. It concerns the basic need for an export trade of this sort. I go back to the summer of 1976, and to the drought that occurred during that year. That drought occasioned a very serious situation in the farm-feed world. It occasioned a rise in price of feedstuffs, especially hay, which doubled and in some cases increased a little more than that, during the course of the autumn of 1976. A very serious situation could have occurred—it had occurred in other years—when there were something of the order of 14½ million cattle and calves in this country to be wintered on fodder, and feed for only (and I quote figures roughly) about 13 million. It would have been a most unfortunate situation if the industry had been unable to feed those cattle within our shores, and therefore there was an excessive amount of slaughter of cattle, to the depression of the market and to the flooding of the trade generally. So, my Lords, this export of animals gives a breathing space in a situation such as that which I have described.

1955
Other circumstances must also be catered for, and it is surely the whole spirit of the Treaty of Rome, of which this country is a signatory, that we should be able to trade with our partners on an equivalent basis. Your Lordships have earlier drawn attention to the fact that there is an unfortunate situation in relation to the export trade between Ireland and France and between France and this country. I believe, and I am sure my noble friends believe, that it is a matter of great importance that we are ironing out the differences between all member nations of the EEC, to the benefit of trade between us all. This European Convention, to which attention has been drawn, comes into effect on 1st August, and the interim arrangements meanwhile, we must agree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, have been unsatisfactory, largely because the signatory countries felt they were unsatisfactory within themselves. They are now willing to concede that the Convention itself would be a more manageable system, and I believe that, as there are only four months which have to elapse between now and 1st August, the period involved is a relatively short one.
My Lords, I refer back to what the noble Lord said in regard to the shop stewards' meeting at the Port of Hull; and I believe that one should consider what the O'Brien Committee reported in regard to that situation. I believe that, in their considerations, the O'Brien Committee took account of a great deal of evidence, both from respected official bodies and from other welfare organisations in this country. I believe that we ought to investigate with great care the report which has been published this morning. I have penetrated only one-half of the report so far, but I noted that on page 18, in paragraph 70, there is this remark under the paragraph headed, "On the ferry". I quote the first sentence:
"It has been alleged from time to time that animals have been carried in excessively bad weather, but there has been no evidence that animals have suffered on these occasions."
I do not believe that that is a wholly accurate statement because, of course, there has been evidence in the past that live cargo carried by vessels travelling to the Continent and other destinations has
1956
suffered on occasions. Nevertheless, the situation has improved within the last few years.
In closing, I believe we should give much closer consideration to this report, and I would welcome the opportunity to do so if the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, can arrange with the usual channels for a debate to take place after the Recess.
12.59 p.m.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, knowing very well that most of your Lordships are waiting impatiently for the House to rise for the Easter Recess, I shall be as brief as I possibly can be. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for having raised this Question; and, as I think some of your Lordships, at least, may be wondering why both he and I take up the time of your Lordships with what may be considered an unnecessary and unimportant matter, let me say that it is not an unimportant matter. To cause unnecessary suffering to creatures who are unable to defend themselves is morally wrong. It is just as bad with animals as it is in the case of small children. We heard during yesterday's debate a plea for better conditions for the mentally subnormal pace the noble Baroness, Lady Stewart; and very rightly, too! But it is every bit as bad to cause unnecessary suffering to animals who are unable to protect themselves. Therefore the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and I will go on as long as it is necessary.
There is one question that I should like to ask. When are the Government going to take some steps to rule out this quite hypothetical distinction between animals exported for immediate slaughter and those exported for further fattening. There is no distinction whatsoever between the two. The great point is that eventually they are both going to be slaughtered in Continental slaughterhouses. That is the fate from which we are trying to protect them.
A great deal of emphasis has been laid on the question of transport; but, although it can be very bad, transport is by no means the worst of the evils. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has quoted from the O'Brien Report but, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord and also to Lord O'Brien, a great deal has been

1957
discovered since publication of that report that they were unable to have access to. That knowledge has been made available to us by responsible people whose opinion one must take seriously.
As president of one of the societies which consider particularly this matter that we are discussing this morning, I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for what he said about the welfare societies. I can say that we are very careful indeed never to make any statements that are not absolutely provable in fact. We are very careful to keep the emotional side—which unfortunately is only too ready, with some societies, to creep in—outside our calculations. But one cannot deny facts that have been proved by those who have seen them. Some of the conditions in Continental slaughterhouses are absolutely unspeakable—even since the EEC regulations which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys.
I welcome those regulations but there is very widespread evidence that they are disregarded. I am afraid that some may think that this is a serious charge, and in fact the noble Lord himself called it so. Well, so it is; but it is, unfortunately, a true one. I am not speaking from personal experience. I have never seen them myself—and thank goodness for that!—but the conditions in some slaughterhouses are completely outside the regulations and are unspeakably awful. Therefore, I hope that this entirely hypothetical distinction between the two will be withdrawn. I will not take up the time of the House further, but I hope sincerely that the time will come before long when the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and I and others no longer have to keep on taking up your Lordships' time on this matter.
1.4 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I shall be very brief because we are all hoping to get home. I am possibly the only farmer to speak in this debate and the only person who is the chairman of an auction market where we have representatives from the welfare societies. We have a slaughterhouse. I do not run one, but we have one which is used by all the farmers and which is quite near.
May I assure the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that the improvement in slaughterhouses in this country has come about
1958
largely as a result of the EEC regulations. The standard has gone up considerably, for the houses have to spend a great deal of money in bringing their standards up to the EEC Commission standards. I do not know about the French or the other foreign ones; but here it is true that, if you are running a slaughterhouse, you are not allowed to have it operating unless it fulfils the standards insisted upon by the EEC. Whether they insist upon those standards in France or in Holland, I do not know; but I can only tell your Lordships of what happens here. That is a fact. I would hotly deny that our slaughterhouses are thoroughly bad. Those in this country are extremely good. I do not believe that the Continental slaughterhouses would be allowed to function if they were not up to the same standards.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, I never raised a word against slaughterhouses in this country. I know that they are excellent because our own society does regular inspections of them. They are of a very high standard.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, the standards have had to be raised—and that is my point—since the EEC Commission so decided. The noble Lord the Leader of the House will hear me out on this because he was in on the regulations which were originally started in this matter.
My Lords, I have had only a short time to read this report, but I should like to say that paragraphs 89, 90 and 91 are very much to the point in that the trade does depend on selling both carcass meat and live meat and that it is important that we should be able to sell live meat to the Continent because it is quite often the live bidding in auction markets which enables one to sell one's animals at a proper price. This is something which is really vital to the trade.
The French market is very important. Speaking now for the farmers in the hill country where we produce store sheep and store cattle, I may say that the amount of sales very often depends on whether or not the French market is open. Many a time I have been to the auction mart selling my own lambs and the word has gone round that the French market is open. Everyone knows then that the

1959
price of animals will be considerably better than if the French market were not open. One could say that about other EEC countries; but France is the biggest importer of our mutton.
I drew attention in my speech in the agricultural debate on Monday to the fact that, at the moment, the French market seems to be being operated in an entirely arbitrary manner. The French allow Irish sheep into their market free and they levy sheep that come from this country. I understand that the Government have, rightly, protested hotly about this and telegrams and letters have gone between the Minister of Agriculture and the EEC, where the French are represented. I hope that that will produce some satisfactory result; but, in fact, it is most important for the trade that these foreign markets should be available to us. One of the reasons that we are in the EEC is in order to be able to trade on an equal basis with the markets in Europe.
The paragraph in the report which refers to the question of backdoor methods is, I think, one that we must ask should be explored. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said, I do not think that it is right that, in order to get our animals into the French market, they should have to go via Holland. That is breaking EEC Commission regulations. I hope that the Government will be very tough about this. I am sure that they will, because the Ministry of Agriculture is obviously well aware of these matters and I am sure that the Minister will be anxious to do what he can to stop this kind of arbitrary method of operations.
I have only had a very short time to read this document but I think it is very fair. It puts the case for those who are against the export of animals as well as the case for those who are in favour of it. I look upon this as a matter which is vital to the operation of agriculture in this country. It would be most unfortunate if we cannot export. I am sure that it is the right to export, otherwise we shall find ourselves without a big enough market. This is not because we are trying to keep our sheep or cattle away from our own people, but simply because they cannot buy all that we can produce in certain lines. We import a lot of food; but the fact that we can
1960
export commodities that are needed and wanted in Europe is vital to our trade. I am sure that the Government will back us up on this. I am speaking for a large proportion of meat and livestock producers and I am quite sure that we shall have the support of the Government. I hope that this document will be a help and not a hindrance in these matters.
1.12 p.m.
The Earl of LISTOWEL: My Lords, my name is not on the list of speakers and I do not intend to make a speech. I should like to ask my noble friend who is to reply two questions. First, in view of the fact that it is obviously not possible for your Lordships to debate this afternoon a report which was published only this morning, and in view also of the fact that interest has been shown in all quarters of the House in this important subject, will the Government do their best to facilitate a debate after the Easter Recess?
My second question—to which I do not expect an answer now—is this: Will the Government consider whether, if, as the O'Brien Report said in 1954, there is still a surplus capacity in our slaughterhouses at home, this could be used to "accommodate"—if I may use that word—at least some of the live sheep and cattle now exported to the Continent?
1.13 p.m.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: My Lords, I also apologise because my name is not on the list of speakers. I suppose that for the past five or six years I have been more closely connected with this subject than most other noble Lords. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for raising this matter. It is an extremely important issue, one that is often debated in various ways. I agree with him and hope very much that there will be a full debate in your Lordships' House because in this type of debate we tend to talk more sense than some other places.
I should like to ask the Minister whether he will do his best to speed up consideration of this problem as well as perhaps helping us to have a debate fairly soon. One matter is absolutely clear in this whole business of exporting, whether it is

1961
goods or animals. It is tremendously important to build up exports on a sound and firm basis. One of the reasons why the numbers have increased so much in the past year is because conditions have been looked after much more carefully. The trade have gone into this much more thoroughly. They have built up their contacts and the trade has grown in a way that I believe is broadly satisfactory to almost everybody.
I have two or three short matters to raise. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, about the comment in the report of what a good thing it is that the NFU, the British Veterinary Association and the RSPCA should have got together working closely on this matter. This is not new. I set up an exactly similar operation about three years ago and it began to work extremely well.
It may well be that the present situation regarding the balance of payments position is not as serious as it was when the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien of Lothbury, made his report; but this is not really the key to the question whether or not live exports should continue. The problem is much bigger than that. If the balance of payments problem is less, the problem of profitability on the hill farms and the farms that produce the sheep and the calves, in many cases from the hills, and also from the dairy industry, has become much worse. So on balance there are at least one or two arguments to be made.
Before I sit down I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that it is not just himself and his noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby who are keen to prevent unnecessary suffering—I think he expressed those words—to animals being exported or handled in various ways. Those of us in the business are all, for very good reasons, just as keen as other noble Lords to prevent unnecessary suffering. If one thinks of the auction marts to which my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood referred, they receive a much worse price if the stock they are selling is not properly handled. The farmer, if he does not look after his stock properly, gets a worse price. Also the butchers get bad carcasses. So everybody who is concerned in this trade is just as keen as the two noble Lords to prevent unnecessary
1962
suffering. This is a point worth making because some of the letters the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien of Lothbury, received—and certainly some that I used to receive—seemed to indicate that anybody who farmed did not care in the least how their animals were treated. The truth is the exact contrary. If one did not take that trouble there would be very few animals to look after.
1.17 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: As the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has said, the report which is the subject of this short debate was published only this morning. As the noble Lord said, he has had the opportunity to read only part of it. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, said the same. My noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby seems to have read the report completely. I must congratulate him on this. He has probably taken a rapid reading course and therefore has the advantage of many noble Lords. I cannot help agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, that the debate is somewhat premature. My noble friend was critical of the colour. He did not like the yellow. I can assure him that there is no significance in this colour. We wanted to avoid a political colour such as red. We also wanted to avoid the usual green. Apart from that, there is no significance in the colour of the report.
I thought that the noble Lord was a little disparaging about those who took part in the Committee. He asked me who they were. The group comprised administrators and veterinary surgeons employed in the State service. I should like to pay a tribute to them for their report and for the immense amount of work that they put into this. It may be helpful if I remind the House of some of the background to this report. Noble Lords will remember that the Government of the day—I think a Conservative Government—appointed the O'Brien Committee in 1973 to inquire into the exports of live animals for slaughter and to consider whether the welfare of such animals was properly safeguarded. The Committee concluded that a permanent ban on live exports was not justified on either welfare or economic grounds and that the most economic way to safeguard the animals' welfare lay in the implementation of

1963
common European measures, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys.
Following a free vote in another place at the end of 1975, the Government decided to allow the resumption of the trade under close veterinary control. Since that time, there have been a number of improvements to the welfare safeguards as a result of common EEC measures. In 1975, the EEC adopted a directive which required that animals must be stunned before slaughter. Last year, another directive was adopted which will give the force of Community law to the existing European Convention on the Protection of Animals during International Transport. This latter directive comes into effect on 1st August next. The United Kingdom has played a leading part in the Community's work for animal welfare, and I agree very much with the concern expressed by my noble friend and by the other speakers in this debate.
Criticism of the live export trade has, however, continued and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food decided in July last year that he would give close and detailed consideration to all aspects of the trade and would study the views of the principal organisations involved. The agricultural Ministers therefore set up a working party of officials, and they have produced the report which is published today.
The report, which is comprehensive and straightforward, provides essential information to enable Ministers to reach a decision. The report is the result of detailed study which has taken place over the last eight months and which has involved consideration of evidence from 36 organisations and individuals and also visits by officials to those countries to which live food animals are permitted to be exported. Noble Lords will see in the annexe to the report the number of societies and organisations who gave evidence, including, I am glad to say, the RSPCA and the National Farmers' Union.
It is a comprehensive and clear study of the welfare, economic and legal aspects of the trade. It rehearses the evidence and arguments which were put forward by the welfare interests and also by the exporting interests; and it discusses them in depth.
1964
It sets out the relevant legal considerations and it concludes that on the welfare aspects there are considerations both for and against the continuance of the trade and that there are ways in which control of the trade could be extended further.
The conclusion on the economic aspects is that the weight of advantage to the United Kingdom lies in continuing the trade. The legal advice is that difficulty would be experienced in justifying a ban on exports under Community law. The publication of the report is an earnest of the Government's intentions to introduce more open Government, since the report is an example of the material supplied by civil servants as a factual basis which Ministers may wish to use when taking a policy decision. The Government thought it right and useful for the report to be published.
Before the Government make their decision, particularly on a subject of such wide general interest as animal welfare, Ministers consider it necessary to allow time for Members of this House and of another place, the many interested parties and the general public, to consider the facts collected in this most useful and far-reaching report, together with their implications. The report considers that the considerations are complex and that the answer is by no means obvious.
I have listened with the greatest interest to the various points raised by my noble friend and by other speakers and I am sure their first reactions to this report will be carefully noted by Ministers. It is clearly much too soon to do more than welcome this publication this morning, and Her Majesty's Government will need to take account of the points of view expressed today and in the coining weeks before they reach their decision on this important subject.
I was asked by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and by other noble Lords, when a decision would be taken. As I say, it will need time to study the various implications, but it is hoped to make a statement in due course. With regard to a debate, as my noble friend the Leader and my noble friend the Chief Whip are sitting behind me on the Front Bench, and the Opposition Chief Whip is also present in the Chamber, I am sure it will be discussed between the usual channels. As I say, I am grateful to

1965
noble Lords for expressing their views, in so far as they have been able to do so, on this report. Those views will be carefully noted.