Lords Sitting of 29 November 1979

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.
The Lord Caradon—Took the Oath.

MAGNIFYING LENSES: PURCHASE IN SHOPS
Lord RUGBY: 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 it ethical to deprive those with normal eyesight of their ancient right to select and purchase magnifying lenses in whatever form and for whatever purpose they choose, without statutorily compelling them to undergo eye tests by retail opticians.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's Question relates to the spectacles with magnifying lenses some people need for reading and close work, not to ordinary hand-held magnifiers, which are widely available. Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that the statutory restrictions on the testing of sight and the supply of optical appliances under the Opticians Act 1958 work in the best interests of patients by ensuring that the care of sight is entrusted to suitably qualified practitioners.
Lord RUGBY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for answering that Question. But are not Her Majesty's Government now perfectly placed to lend a sympathetic ear to that vast army of deprived and overcharged citizens by putting back reading spectacles where they rightly belong, on the shop counter, so that all may select according to their special and immediate needs and that citizens should be treated once more as responsible, intelligent human beings having minds of their own and able to decide precisely their own needs, including the absolutely
482
personal one of not undergoing consultative eye tests unless they so wish and without being deprived of the right to read?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, that is a powerful question. There has been a great deal of interest in this subject recently, and this is the second Question that we have had on the subject during this month. It is clear to me that many noble Lords are quite concerned about the matter generally and I wonder whether the noble Lord would think it might be useful to put down an Unstarred Question so that we can debate the matter properly.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the General Optical Council is made up of members of the profession and of the industry and there are no representatives of the consumers, but it is the consumers who are paying these enormous bills for spectacles and frames? Should they not be represented before being asked to pay £60, £70 and even £80 for a pair of spectacles, which is far above the level in any other country in the world?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: That is perfectly true, my Lords.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether I have understood the original Question correctly. I think the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, suggested that spectacles should be made available in shops to those people who may want them. If I am right in my understanding, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, to see that the Government reject that idea in every possible way. We certainly do not want to go back to the time when people went into shops and selected their spectacles, not knowing whether or not they were really suitable.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, it is just because there are such strong views on both sides of this matter that I thought it would be better if we could have a proper debate.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, would not price display, as the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, and I have urged, go some way towards reducing prices and

483
starting real competition? Can the noble Lord tell us whether the opticians' council has now come out definitely against price display and whether Her Majesty's Government are accepting defeat on that issue?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot answer that. I know that there has been a definite restriction on price display and there was recently a case where somebody got into difficulty over having displayed prices. The council still stick to the same line, but I should not like to say that we have come to any decision on the matter as yet.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, as the deafest Member of your Lordships' House, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will also consider this question in respect of hearing aids?
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I clear up one point on which I have some doubt: if my sight is weak in one eye and strong in the other, can I get a monocle on the National Health Service?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I am sorry I did not hear that question.
Lord MURRAY of GRAVESEND: My Lords, I am surprised at the reticence of the Government on this, in view of their shortsighted policies.

CAP PRICE FIXING AND PRODUCTION IN THE UK
3.12 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how, in view of the fact that the rate of cost inflation experienced by United Kingdom farmers will be far higher than in other parts of the EEC, they will ensure that CAP price fixing in 1980 will permit agricultural production to be maintained in this country.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES and FOOD (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have already introduced a number of measures designed to strengthen agriculture, and we will continue to take whatever action is necessary to enable the industry to make its full contribution to the national economy.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, will he not agree that the Government have done very well regarding the livestock farmers in the uplands of Scotland on the new rates of subsidy; but will he not further agree that the Common Agricultural Policy is really becoming rather an absurdity? Will he not agree that when some of our EEC partners can get a subsidy of 40 per cent., to a certain extent provided by the British taxpayer, and can flood this country with agricultural products, this Common Market policy is really not common at all? I do not like common things particularly! Nevertheless, I should like to have a Common Market policy.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful for the first part of my noble friend's question in which he said he was grateful for what has been done for livestock in Scotland. With regard to the second part of his question, we all recognise that the CAP has faults which we wish to see improved, and it is our intention to try and improve those faults.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that our present inflation problem has not been caused by and is not being accompanied at the moment by a rise in farmers' returns? I should like to ask him whether he will help us out in this matter, because we are in a very serious cash flow position with a continuing devaluation of the green pound, and this applies not only now but to the future should the pound fall, bearing in mind that we had a particularly rough deal from the last Government on devaluation of the pound.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I fully recognise the very real point to which my noble friend has referred in regard to farmers' cash flows. I can assure him

485
that the Government have done quite a bit over devaluation of the green pound; it was down 5 per cent. in June and another 1·1 per cent. in October. Allowances have been made for the wholesale and retail prices of milk, which have been increased. Certainly it is my right honourable friend's intention to keep agriculture as competitive as possible. I can only repeat to my noble friend that it is the commitment of this Government to devalue the green pound, over the lifetime of a Parliament, so that farmers in this country compete on equal terms with farmers in the Community.
Lord KALDOR: My Lords, does the noble Earl not agree that it would be in the interests of British agriculture to make it possible to pay our farmers guaranteed prices that are reasonable in the light of their own costs without at the same time having to pay higher prices for Europe as a whole? In view of the proposed increases in prices under the Common Agricultural Policy, should not higher subsidies be paid to our own farmers when it is necessary?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I think it is in the interests of both British consumers and British agriculture to have an efficient, productive and competitive British farming system. That has to be done in the context of the European Community, and it is our desire to ensure that certain aspects of the Community which we believe are unfair to Britain are put right.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, has the noble Earl in his first Answer reflected upon the illogicalities of some parts of the Common Agricultural Policy and the overweighting of the budget? Would he like to comment on the fact that the Government disagreed with the European Parliament when it decided to cut the Common Agricultural Policy budget?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, we are in agreement with any form of cutting of the budget—and indeed the Commission have proposed certain cuts in the budget already—provided that the cuts desired and requested are fair all round. The proposals made so far have not been fair for all Members of the Community.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that farmers' overdrafts in the last 16 to 18 months have increased by about 30 per cent? In view of the very high bank rate now prevailing, would it not be possible for the Treasury to allow bona fide farmers slightly lower rates of interest? After all, they are producing wealth, and this very high rate is a great burden on them.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that it is very worrying that farmers' overdrafts have gone up very considerably over the last few years, and that has not been matched by an increase in investment; in other words, their overdrafts have gone up because of the cash flow problem. With regard to my noble friend's second question, he will know that the Government support agriculture in many ways, but the way that he is suggesting—subsidised credit—is a form of support which at the moment it is not the Government's intention to introduce.
Lord WISE: My Lords, referring to the noble Earl's reply to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Kaldor, does he not agree that sheep farmers today selling lambs would undoubtedly he losing money were it not for the subsidy being paid under the United Kingdom guarantee system? Notwithstanding what happens to the French market, does he not agree that it is essential that this form of guarantee, or at least some similar form, is retained in any common sheepmeat policy in order to safeguard the interests of the British producer and indeed to ensure a regular continuity of supply of fresh meat into the shops?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I agree that the impact of the sheep farmer in the hills is extremely important and it affects the whole of the livestock sector of agriculture. That is the reason why my right honourable friend recently announced an increase of 37 per cent., in other words £20·6 million, in the livestock subsidies.

GATWICK AIRPORT SECOND TERMINAL: PUBLIC INQUIRY
3.20 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords,

487
I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how soon the public inquiry will be held on the proposal for a second terminal at Gatwick, and when they expect the Secretary of State to be in a position to announce a decision.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, the public inquiry into proposals by the British Airports Authority for expansion of the facilities at Gatwick airport will open at Crawley on 29th January next. The Government will announce their decision as soon as possible when they have fully considered the report of the inspector, but it is too early to say when this will be.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that very helpful information, may I ask whether he is aware of the now considerable concern at the protracted timing and high legal costs involved with these voluntary public inquiries over the provision of additional terminals at major London airports? Is my noble friend further aware of the anxiety expressed over the rapidly diminishing capacity at Heathrow—which I understand has dealt with over 28 million passengers in this last year—while it awaits the outcome of the fourth terminal? What has happened to the inspector's report?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I think that I can confirm to my noble friend and your Lordships that the Government are aware of all these factors. As regards the inquiry he put to me about the increased facilities for aeroplanes, the reports of the Advisory Committee on Airports Policy and the Study Group on South East Airports, have now been received and once printed will be published as soon as possible. The Government's conclusion on those reports will be made known without undue delay.
As regards my noble friend's inquiry regarding the fourth terminal at Heathrow airport, the Government will announce their decision on the Heathrow inquiry as soon as consideration of the inspector's
488
report has been concluded. It is our aim to reach a decision on this matter in good time before the Gatwick inquiry opens.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord two questions—one concerning Gatwick and the other relating to it. In view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, told the House on 23rd October that the Government would decide whether or not a second runway was to be constructed at Gatwick, may I ask whether the Government have yet reached that decision; and would the noble Lord feel able to agree that the construction of a second runway should precede the construction of a second terminal?
As regards the second question, which I think is more important, would the Government, if not now at a later stage, feel able to comment on the suggestion made by the British Airports Authority that they should convert the taxi-way running parallel with the main runway at Gatwick, so that it can be used as an alternative runway in case of emergency? Does the Minister know that, when I spent a day at Gatwick last month, I saw that taxi-way; I was told that even when converted it would not be able to take the big jets which would have to be diverted in case of an emergency; that the person who took me round was fully competent to make those points which I think are important? Would the Minister take those questions on board later if he cannot answer them now?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, all the points made by the noble Baroness are always interesting and important. In this case it would be wrong for me to give any opinions or suggestions as to what the Government might be thinking because we are awaiting advice. We are open-minded and we want to get the decisions, when we do make them, right.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that our noble friend is right in the suggestion that the public inquiry at Gatwick is voluntary—that is to say, there is no legal necessity to hold it? If that is so, why is it being held, and how much will it cost? And is my noble friend aware

489
of the growing anxiety of many of us at the appalling delays in going ahead with the provision of badly needed facilities both at Gatwick and Heathrow?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I am aware of that. How much it will cost the Government I am not quite clear about: it will depend on the length of the inquiry and the number of representations made to it. I think that West Sussex County Council will bear their costs, and other bodies who wish to make representations will bear their costs. I am sorry to say that I cannot answer the question more fully than that.
Lord PARGITER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the local authorities in the area have already been informed that there will be no second runway at Gatwick, but that what will be provided will be an alternative emergency runway which could be used only in cases of emergency?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I am not aware that any decisions at all on these matters have been made.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, in view of the fact that future levels of air transport are likely to be strongly influenced by movements in the price of aviation fuel, what information will be available to the public inquiry about which the noble Lord has asked, concerning this matter and about the relationship between the growth in the price of aviation fuel and the use made by passengers of air transport? That information may perhaps make extensions of the kind demanded unnecessary.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, if the noble Lord would like to put down a Question to me on that point I shall get the answer. I am not qualified to answer at present. However, any germane proposals which affect this inquiry can be raised at the inquiry itself.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, while on the subject of Gatwick, would the Government press forward the proposals for making better access to Gatwick from the
490
East, which is at present very inconvenient to the considerable populations of East Grinstead, Tunbridge Wells and places beyond, so that it is no longer necessary to drive four miles round through Horley before being able to get into the airport.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport is continually considering suggested improvements and no doubt when the time is ripe may come forward with some proposals.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, could the Minister solve for me something of a puzzle? In view of a Government paper published many months ago which visualized Gatwick accepting up to 25 million passengers with a second terminal, how on earth can a single runway deal with the movements in and out of an airport which will have 25 million passengers going through it?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I have asked the same question as my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye has asked me. I was advised that it would be possible if the planes were bigger. The airport can take larger planes.

CONSUMER AFFAIRS: CONSULTATIONS
3.26 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to establish closer and more direct contact with consumer views and interests, and how they plan to extend the range of consumer choice.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Consumer Affairs has indicated her intention to broaden the base of consumer consultation by forging more effective links with organisations with a large membership of consumers. The

491
Townswomen's Guilds, Women's Institutes, and in Scotland, Women's Rural Institutes have already been asked for their views on specific matters. The Government's policies to strengthen competition will have a marked and beneficial effect on consumer choice.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much for that reply. I hope that he will be successful and that he will extend as far as he possibly can inquiries to all organisations dealing with consumer affairs. I am quite sure that in that way there will be a good response and also good replies which will serve a useful purpose. I hope that this will continue and that many more people will become interested in that way.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord why his right honourable friend selected only two women's organisations. There are a very large number of women's organisations which have a very useful contribution to make. It is rather hard on the rest of them when they constantly see the Government always going to the same two groups.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, these mere two organisations specifically concerned with women's interests but, of course, all the bodies which my right honourable friend consults have some women on them and the views of women are taken very much into account as regard these matters.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his reply to the House is a load of balderdash? Is he further aware that the Government's policy, financial and otherwise, has acted so far completely against the interests of consumers? Is he aware that the Government's policy has at last forced the formation of a housewives union? Is he further aware that there is a rumour that the Prime Minister is applying for membership?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the noble Lord says that my answer is balderdash—so is his supplementary.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, are not the Government, in fact, taking steps in the opposite direction from that suggested by the noble Baroness, as they are with-drawing the funds which supported consumer advice centres.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, it is true that those funds have been withdrawn, but the same funds have been redirected to other consumer bodies who we think will be more effective.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, with reference to the women's organisations, is it not the fact that the Co-operative Women's Guild has a long-standing interest in consumer protection, and would it not be appropriate to consult them?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, they have been consulted.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PLANNING AND LAND BILL [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to relax controls over local government; to amend the law relating to the publication of information, the undertaking of works and the payment of allowances by local authorities and other bodies, the Commissions for Local Administration and the Commissioner for Local Administration in Scotland; to make further provision with respect to rates and to grants for local authorities and other bodies and for controlling their expenditure; to amend the law relating to planning; to make provision for a register of public land and the disposal of land on it; to repeal the Community Land Act 1975; to continue the Land Authority for Wales; to make further provision in relation to land compensation, development land, derelict land and public bodies' acquisitions and disposals of land; to amend the law relating to town development and new towns; to provide for the establishment of corporations to regenerate urban areas; to make further provision in relation to gypsies and their caravan sites; to repeal enactments about new streets; to make further

493
provision about road traffic and parking; to amend the law relating to children in community homes and the supervision of children and young persons; to abolish the Clean Air Councils and certain restrictions on the Greater London Council; and for connected purposes. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Bellwin.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL
Read 3a, with the amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
SEVERN-TRENT WATER AUTHORITY BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

LABORATORY ANIMALS PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare)The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords be named of the Select Committee on the Laboratory Animals Protection Bill [H.L.]:

Adrian, L.

Ashby, L. (Chairman)

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Halsbury, E.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Newall, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom.
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time.
That the Committee have power to appoint Specialist Advisers.
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee from time to time be printed and, if the Committee think fit, be delivered out.
That the Committee do meet on Thursday next at Eleven o'clock.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

UNEMPLOYMENT
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Select Committee:

Carr of Hadley, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

McCarthy, L.

Melchett, L.

Rochester, L.

Seear, B. (Chairman)

Spens, L.

Vaizey, L.

Wolfenden, L.

That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place.
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time.
That the Committee have power to appoint Specialist Advisers.
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee from time to time be printed and, if the Committee think fit, be delivered out.
That the Committee do meet on Tuesday next at half-past Three o'clock.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CHILD CARE BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
FOSTER CHILDREN BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

RESIDENTIAL HOMES BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, I intervene merely to say, first, how valuable it is that the work of consolidation is being continued at such a rapid pace and, secondly, to congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on his gymnastic performance.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. My minuet was almost interrupted.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ISLE OF MAN BILL
3.36 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This short Bill and the related agreement between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man on Customs and Excise and associated matters represent the outcome of several months of formal negotiations between our two Governments on the establishment of an Isle of Man Customs and Excise service. The Customs and Excise arrangement between the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man typifies the longstanding and close co-operation that exists between our two territories on matters of common interest.
United Kingdom customs officers have been employed in the Isle of Man since 1765. The general principle of the present Customs and Excise arrangement with the Island had its origin in the last century, with the passing of the Isle of Man (Customs) Act 1887, which gave Tynwald the power to impose, alter or abolish customs duties, subject to Act of Parliament. Confirmation by Order-in-Council was substituted later, by the Isle of Man
496
(Customs) Act 1955, and this was followed, in 1957, by the making of a formal agreement regarding Customs and other matters with the Isle of Man and, in 1958, by the passing of the Isle of Man Act.
Twenty years have elapsed since then, and it is understandable that the Island Government should have wished to reassess the position, to take account of developments and have regard to any wishes of the Manx people to assume responsibility for the management of this aspect of the Island's own affairs, and to review, in consultation with the United Kingdom Government, the operation of the Customs and Excise arrangement. It is against this background that the Isle of Man Government put forward this one proposal for change: that the Island should have its own Customs and Excise service instead of the existing agency arrangement, whereby officials of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise collect the customs and excise duties and indirect taxes in the Island on behalf of the Island Government.
Accordingly, the primary purpose of the Bill before your Lordships is to give effect to this proposal, by repealing and replacing the statute of 1958 and introducing the measures which the United Kingdom Government consider to be necessary in the United Kingdom to implement, on 1st April 1980, the new Customs and Excise Agreement, which was formally approved by both Governments and signed on 15th October, and which has been laid before your Lordships.
The measure now before the House, while meeting the wish of the Isle of Man to run its own Customs and Excise service, maintains all the essential features of the previous arrangement. This means, in particular, the continuation of the common customs area of the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man and the absence of a customs barrier between the two territories; and the maintenance of the previous arrangements for the allocation of the Customs and Excise revenue to the two territories. Under the new agreement, all the duties and indirect taxes, except the excise duty on beer, the general betting duty and value added tax on takings of gaming machines, which are already different under the previous agreement, will continue to be kept at the same levels as those of the United King-

497
dom; and any future proposal by the Island Government to vary the rates or coverage of a duty or tax, which is in harmony with that in the United Kingdom, will be subject to prior notice and to agreement by both Governments.
This Bill, in its primary, Customs and Excise, purpose, is concerned therefore purely to ensure the proper joint administration of indirect taxation under this customs union. Its purpose is to introduce the arrangements and procedures that are necessary in the United Kingdom to permit the Island to run its own service, and to enable the functions of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in the Island to be transferred to officials of the Island Government.
The secondary purpose of the Bill is contained in Clause 11, which enables the transfer to the Manx by Order-in-Council of functions conferred on the Lieutenant Governor under United Kingdom legislation. United Kingdom statutes on matters relating to the Isle of Man are, as your Lordships will know, comparatively rare, and the opportunity afforded by the present Bill has been taken to include this provision enabling the Isle of Man to continue the process, which has been under way for some years, of transferring, with the agreement of Her Majesty's Government, certain of the functions of the Lieutenant Governor to appropriate bodies of the Island Government.
It is, I feel, a happy association of events that the preparation and presentation of this Bill to Parliament should have occurred in the same year as the people of the Isle of Man have celebrated the millennium of Tynwald, the Island's legislature. The establishment of an Isle of Man Customs and Excise service has called for the enactment of parallel Isle of Man legislation, the Customs and Excise (Transfer of Functions) Bill, which has recently completed all its stages in the Isle of Man and has been submitted with a view to its being recommended for Royal Assent. The people of the Isle of Man will, understandably, be most happy to assume the responsibility envisaged in the present Bill before the House, and I feel sure that your Lordships will wish to join me in welcoming the Bill and in giving it a Second Reading. I beg
498
to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Belstead.)
3.42 p.m.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for having explained the purpose of this Bill to your Lordships. It is not often that we have the chance to discuss the Isle of Man in your Lordships' House, and even though this particular measure does not really provide an opportunity for a wide-ranging debate it is a particular pleasure—and the noble Lord alluded to this in his speech—that this rather rare opportunity to consider the Island's affairs comes this year when Tynwald is celebrating its millennium. I am sure that we all join again in offering our warm congratulations on this historic event.
In view of this it is a relief to me, and it will probably come as no surprise to the noble Lord the Minister, that I am able to avoid introducing a jarring note this afternoon about the aims of this Bill. In fact, I ought perhaps to mention to your Lordships that while I was at the Home Office my right honourable friend the then Home Secretary, Mr. Merlyn Rees, and I approved in March of this year the opening of formal negotiations with the Government of the Isle of Man on establishing an Isle of Man Customs and Excise service. So that although I cannot claim a proprietary interest in either the agreement or the Bill, nevertheless one has had something to do with the preliminary moves in that direction.
Those negotiations, which I believe went on over several months, led to the agreement, as the noble Lord said, on Customs and Excise and associated matters between the two Governments, which was signed last month, on 15th October, and presented to this Parliament earlier this month on, I think, 6th November. The negotiations led, too, to the preparation of this Bill. The agreement itself, as the Minister has mentioned, replaces the agreement of 1957 on the same subject, otherwise known as the Common Purse Agreement. As the Minister explained, the purpose of the Bill is to implement the agreement which reflects the wish of the Isle of Man

499
Government to set up its own Customs and Excise service, and to have transferred to it duties at present carried out by the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. I would join him in agreeing that that wish is indeed a perfectly understandable one.
It is important to emphasise, however—and I was pleased to hear the Minister confirm this today—that the Bill and the agreement do not seek to alter the other basic arrangements concerning Customs and Excise matters of the two Governments, and between our two territories. That is to say, under the Bill, as I understand it, the advantages to the Isle of Man and the United Kingdom of a customs union between the two territories would be retained, and the arrangements for sharing the Customs and Excise revenue would continue as before; and also there will continue to be in general, subject to some exceptions which the Minister referred to, common Customs and Excise duties with certain common tax rates, such as the preponderance of the value added tax rates. Those arrangements, I submit, are of benefit to both territories. Therefore, this is just one of the spheres in which the long-standing close co-operation and association between the Isle of Man and the United Kingdom are being continued.
Before turning to one other aspect of this matter, there is only one query that I would raise with the Minister. I see from the agreement that there is provision for the United Kingdom, through the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, to provide an inspection service—this is dealt with in paragraph 10 of the agreement—for the Isle of Man Customs and Excise service, if this Bill is passed and the parallel legislation from Tynwald goes through, and also to provide training facilities for the Island's officers. That is a matter which is referred to in paragraph 18.
I think that there is some reference, too, for day-to-day advice to be provided. That is mentioned in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the agreement. These certainly seem to be useful for everybody concerned in both territories, but I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is able to give any idea of the cost involved. I ask purely for information. I imagine that
500
the overall sum would be quite small, and, as I say, the three purposes mentioned arc wholly desirable to everybody concerned.
I do not need to dwell in detail on the background to these negotiations and to this Bill, but there is just a brief reference I would make to the background. Before it sought to engage in negotiations with the United Kingdom Government, the Isle of Man Government in 1976 commissioned PA International Management Consultants Limited— and your Lordships will he grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for having had a copy of the PA company's report placed in the Library of the House—to make a review of the Common Purse Agreement. That report by the company contained a number of recommendations in favour of ending the Common Purse Agreement.
Then in 1977 Tynwald appointed a Select Committee of Tynwald to inquire further into the matter. Again, it was helpful that copies of documents arising from those investigations were made available in the Library of your Lordships' House. In its first interim report last year the committee—that is, the Select Committee—put forward a proposal that the Isle of Man should have its own Customs and Excise service. It is perhaps significant that, although the Select Committee did not actually dismiss the possibility of seeking to abrogate altogether the Common Purse Agreement, it did not in fact embrace that idea. Indeed, it stopped a long way short of that rather extreme position. What it did was to recommend the sort of step we are debating now, and which is contained in this Bill.
I mention this because concern has been expressed, for instance, in another place in the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill—and elsewhere, including, I believe, some quarters on the Isle of Man—about what might happen if the Common Purse Agreement itself were abrogated; if the customs union, the common customs area, were ended. Fears have been expressed, for instance, that some people and interests might take advantage of the Isle of Man and seek to turn it into an undesirable tax haven, to the detriment, I believe, of the Island and the United Kingdom.
There is certainly nothing in the Bill which would give comfort or encourage-

501
ment to those who take the rather extreme view. What is I believe particularly noteworthy is that the Isle of Man Government and legislature have clearly not been prepared to be rushed into a course advocated by some interests. We on this Bench regard the Bill and the agreement as satisfactory to both territories, and we should be happy to see the Bill proceed and look forward to continuing close associations with the Isle of Man.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the words of the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for the succinct and clear way in which he explained this small Bill which covers a small but important area in the history of the association between the Isle of Man and this country. I presume to intervene because I wish to take this opportunity of saying how grateful and privileged I was to have been a guest of Tynwald on the occasion of their millennium which was attended by Her Majesty the Queen. I echo Lord Beistead's words, that it is a happy association of events that the Bill should have come to light in the same year in which the Isle of Man was holding its millennium; and with those words I warmly support the Bill's Second Reading.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I shall be very brief indeed. The object of the Bill is to transfer some of the functions of the present Lieutenant Governor to other authorities, and I completely agree with that. I would only add that I am rather glad this was not done 400 years ago because in the year 1611 the Lieutenant Governor of the Isle of Man then bore the very honoured name of Leatherland. I understand he was a very worthy person, but that was a long time ago, and in the traditions of the present day, the Bill seems to be doing the right thing.
3.53 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for the welcome they have given the Bill and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, for his welcome to it because although it is true, as he said, that he is unable to claim propriety for this legislation, he can certainly claim parentage
502
because it was during his time as Minister of State at the Home Office, that, together with the Home Secretary, the beginnings of formal negotiations with the Isle of Man Government were established by the noble Lord's right honourable friend.
The one question I need to answer is that put to me by the noble Lord as to the costs of the training facilities which we offer to the Isle of Man Government in respect of Customs and Excise staff. The situation is that under the existing arrangement the United Kingdom provides all the training facilities necessary for its Customs and Excise officers and will continue to make these facilities available to the new Island service. No addition to existing provision will therefore be required and any marginal cost involved in training Island service officials will be more than compensated for by achieving the common approach to the management of the joint administration of the Customs and Excise revenues envisaged in paragraph 18 of the new agreement. Although therefore I cannot tell the noble Lord the actual costs, certainly any increased costs are really not there or, if they are, they are marginal.
I wish finally to make it clear that what we are talking about in the Bill is indirect taxation and the setting up in respect of indirect taxation of the new Customs and Excise service for the Isle of Man. I am grateful to your Lordships for the welcome you have given to the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BILL OF RIGHTS BILL [H.L.]
3.55 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 4 [Derogating measures]:
Lord MORRIS Lord MORRIS moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 12, at end insert (" said ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, some may wonder, as indeed I have, how it is that I have the temerity to table amendments at so late a stage, particularly bearing in mind that I have made no contribution to the progress of the Bill

503
to date. However, I believe it would be sad if this of all Bills, fathered by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, were to be delivered in another place a little long in the leg and not as neat in form as might be. I regret that I had neither the wit nor understanding to appreciate earlier the points underlying the amendments which stand in my name. Indeed, it is the result of my failure to read this important Bill with proper care that your Lordships have now to be troubled.
This is purely a drafting amendment and the point underlying it is the question of consistency in drafting. Noble Lords will of course appreciate that where the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is subsequently referred to—twice in Clause 2, twice in Clause 3 and once in Clause 4(1)—the term "the said Convention "is used. Unaccountably, in Clause 4(2) the terminology used is" the Convention "and, as I say, it is to achieve consistency in drafting that I have tabled the amendment.
Lord WADE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris. I agree with the amendment and I suggest that it be accepted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Definitions]:
3.58 p.m.
Lord MORRIS Lord MORRIS moved Amendments Nos. 2 to 5:
Page 2, line 22, leave out from (" means ") to end of line 23 and insert (" Articles 1 to 18 inclusive and Article 60 of the said Convention; ")
Page 2, line 24, leave out from (" means ") to end of line 25 and insert (" Articles 1 to 3 inclusive of the (First) Protocol to the said Convention; ")
Page 2, line 26, leave out from (" means ") to end of line 27 and insert (" the Reservation made to the (First) Protocol (Article 2) by the United Kingdom under Article 64 of the said Convention.")
Leave out the Schedule.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe it would be of convenience to your Lordships if I were to speak to and move Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 en bloc. The House will of course appreciate that these four amendments affect Clause 5, the definitions clause of the Bill, and the schedule to the Bill, which of course is
504
consequential on the definitions clause. I believe that Clause 5 as drafted does not serve the Bill as a true definitions clause but serves solely as an arrow pointing elsewhere in the Bill to the definitions in the Bill necessary to interpret the Bill.
The effect of these amendments is to embrace the definitions of "Convention ", "Protocols" and "reservations" in the arms of a true definitions clause and to dismiss the schedule to the Bill. The amendments would further result in a Bill which is shorter by 48 words and 10 lines, with no substantive effect on the Bill. I ask for the guidance of noble Lords as to whether I should press or withdraw these amendments, and I especially need the guidance of noble Lords learned in the law and in particular seek the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, the Thomas Jefferson of our times. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord WADE: My Lords, once again I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for the interest that he has shown in the Bill. His comments are most helpful, and I am genuinely thankful for his interest. I have studied his amendments and I entirely agree that they should be taken en bloc. I have listened very carefully to what he said. It seems to me that the objective is the same, but there is one great merit in the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Morris; namely, that they have a brevity which in my view is commendable whenever possible. In this case it is for your Lordships to comment on the amendments as you think fit, but so far as I am concerned I would be inclined to recommend to the House that this group of amendments be accepted.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Morris, spoke to me about these amendments and I think that he ought to be congratulated upon his courage in plunging into the definitions field in the formalities of the Bill. What he proposes seems to me to make good sense and to add brevity and clarity to the Bill—both most valuable virtues.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, may I add to that tribute and in so doing possibly try to seek, with the remainder of the House some clarification on one issue which

505
I ventured to raise at the Committee stage and which may conceivably help the House with regard to the acceptance of the amendments under discussion. At the Committee stage I ventured to raise a general point regarding the effect of something which was happening else-where in regard to the convention to which this country is a signatory, which convention of course it is the intention of this Bill to incorporate into our law. I said then, as would be known to others of your Lordships, that a suggestion had been made that to cover the short-term situation the EEC should as an entity sign the convention to be incorporated in an Act if this Bill is passed.
I then asked the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, in the course of a general discussion, if he were able at that stage to aid the House in advising as to what the effect of that would be if indeed the EEC did sign the convention as an entity, because it seemed to me that then it might indeed become a part of our law without the necessity for this Bill. The noble and learned Lord Chancellor, with his usual courtesy and clarity, said that so far as he could see this was rather a hypothetical situation. He said that he would like to have notice of the question before he could give a comprehensive reply. I gave him that notice, and he was kind enough to indicate that he might deal with the matter today.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, on these amendments I can reply to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, only with the indulgence of the House; I should perhaps be out of order unless I was given that indulgence. I am not sure how definite the reply I can give will be, but I can give him some information which I hope will satisfy him, at any rate as a first instalment.
There is of course no provision in the treaties establishing the Communities which affords formal protection for the fundamental rights of Community citizens. That is the status quo. On 11th June this year the Commission published a memorandum suggesting that this should be remedied, first, in the medium term by accession of the Communities to the European Convention on Human Rights; and secondly, in the long term, by drawing up a catalogue of rights to be enshrined in the Community law. I understand
506
that the Commission itself believes that it is not possible to agree on the second alternative in the short term. It cannot draw up its own catalogue, and therefore I think we can drop it there for the time being. The Commission has therefore concentrated on the first of the two alternatives—accession to the European Convention. However, the Commission regards that as a first step in the direction of the long-term objective of a catalogue of rights.
The present situation is as follows. The memorandum has been sent to the Member States and institutions of the Communities and to the Council of Europe. The suggestion of the Commission is that Article 235 of the EEC Treaty could provide a basis for Community accession to the European Convention, although it has admitted that Article 236 might be more appropriate. I am told that we have reservations about the use of Article 236 for this purpose. The Commission's aim is to encourage discussion of the issues among interested parties. The Presidency have said that they intend to bring the subject to the Council of Ministers this year. This will provide an opportunity for a preliminary and general exchange of views.
As is quite clear from the very well-informed letter that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, sent me, the noble Lord and probably others of your Lordships are well aware that this is a somewhat complex matter. It is under consideration by the European Committee of your Lordships' House. My right honourable friends and I do not wish to arrive at decisions in this matter until we have had the benefit of the comments of your Lordships' Committee. However, as the noble Lord suggests, this could be a fruitful topic for consideration in the context of any all-party talks which the Home Secretary is proposing to suggest, or which we may hold here.
I do not think that I can really answer the specific question put to me. I see upon me the basilisk eye of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, but I do not think that one can really answer these questions until one knows in what form the Community itself accedes to the convention, and indeed whether it would be intra vires the treaty itself to do so. But when one has considered those ques-

507
tions and knows the form in which accession is proposed, one could, I think, give a more positive answer. At the moment I think that I was probably rather prudent to give a cautious answer in the first place. I think that that is the most I can do by way of helping the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, at this stage, and within the framework of these amendments; otherwise, I might trespass upon the indulgence of the House.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has been wise to be both prudent and tentative in this matter. When I attended the Council of Europe recently during the celebrations of the 20 years of the functioning of the court and the quarter of a century of the functioning of the Commission, my impression was that this matter was very tentative indeed. I had no knowledge that my noble friend was going to raise the matter. The House has indeed been very indulgent both to him and to the noble and learned Lord, but I make no complaint. This matter raises very important and very serious questions as to whether there should by virtue of our Membership of the EEC be extended to our law the application of the convention—a matter which is not directly pertinent to the terms of the Treaty itself. Attractive as these irregular discussions in your Lordships' House are, this is not really a suitable opportunity for a final decision, and indeed I certainly should not care to give one myself.
The LORD ADVOCATE (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, if we may return to the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, perhaps I may remind your Lordships that the Select Committee of your Lordships' House which considered the previous Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, considered with a good deal of care the question of the extent to which the convention and protocols should be set forth in the Bill, and reached the conclusion, as your Lordships will remember, that the only safe course would be for the Bill to include the whole of the convention and its protocols. Of course, that would produce a somewhat longer Bill than we have at present, whereas the amendments which have been proposed go in the opposite direction of shortening the Bill and cutting out all the excerpts from the
508
convention and protocols which the noble Lord, Lord Wade, I think, introduced at Committee stage. So the precise form in which such a Bill should be enacted from this point of view is obviously a rather difficult and important question, and brevity alone may not be the only consideration which should be borne in mind. I should therefore like to reserve the position upon this matter in the hope that, if we do have all-party talks on the subject, this would be a suitable matter for discussion then.
Lord WADE: My Lords, this being Report stage, with your Lordships' permission perhaps I may be allowed to speak again. So far as the wording of these amendments is concerned, I have studied it and compared it with the wording of the Bill as it stands at the moment, after it left the Committee, and I cannot myself see any difference in effect between the wording of the amended Bill and the wording of the amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Morris, has put before us. Therefore, I do not think there is any difference in principle at all. I would agree that the Bill as amended in Committee and as further amended, if it is, at this Report stage deals with the articles by reference to their numbers and not by setting out verbatim the content of the articles. That was a matter which I and others had to consider very carefully. But I think it only fair to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, to say that in my humble opinion there is no difference between his amendments and the Bill as we have it, except that he has devised a shorter way of putting the same thing. I hope I am right, but perhaps the noble and learned Lord on the Front Bench will consider that.
So far as the EEC is concerned, I had considered this. I would not pretend to be able to speak with the knowledge of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, but my own conclusion at the moment is that there are considerable doubts about the practicability of bringing this about through the EEC; and, in any case, even if it is possible, I think it will be an extremely slow process.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, I think it only remains for me to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for his very kind support and, in particular, for rebutting my own Front Bench so effectively. I

509
should also like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, for his far too generous remarks. Notwithstanding that, I must say I enjoyed every single word.
On Question, amendments agreed to.

FURSKINS BILL [H.L.]
4.14 p.m.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Since I understand that the matter caused the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor some difficulty, I think I should emphasise that the Title of this Bill is the Furskins Bill. The need for this Bill is that a new fashion has arisen in Europe, mainly in Germany and Northern Italy—a fashion for cheap, long-haired furskins. That fashion has had a result over the last three to three and a half years in this country. The value of fox skins, to take an example—and this is the largest section—has risen from nothing (that is to say, not worth skinning) to round about, and sometimes over, £40 a skin. The price of badger skins, since badgers are a protected species, is more difficult to ascertain, but I have heard of instances where over £60 has been paid.
I would emphasise that, so far as this country is concerned, this is an entirely new trade. I do not think that since we disposed of the last wolf there have been fur hunters in this country; and fur hunting is not a nice trade. It is snaring and trapping—both desperately cruel; and not really for a sufficient purpose. The means being used are, first, snaring. For myself, I find that the nastiest of all forms of trapping. I can remember my revulsion when finding in a snare a badger's paw which the badger had itself bitten off in order to get free. The stress of this sort of thing is extreme. The other means used is shooting at night with rifles, using spotlights. We are a fairly densely-populated country, and on any basis that is very dangerous. It is also, of course, generally, quite illegal, because I do not believe that the rifles being used in the great majority of cases are licensed, or anything like that.
Fur hunting is in fact not exclusively but very largely a poaching occupation, and
510
it is practised on a fairly large scale. I would emphasise again that it is something quite new to England. There is no English demand for these furs at all. I think perhaps English women, in their wisdom, have long ago decided that their attractions are not increased by hanging the remains of a tortured fox around their necks. In so far as the fur trade goes on in England, it is to a very large degree in artificial furs; but almost exclusively so far as natural furs are concerned they are ranch-bred furs. The movement against using trapped furs has been very successful, and I hope it will remain very successful. Here, there is no demand for these furs at all; it is purely an export trade.
How big is it? There are no statistics. It is extremely difficult to ascertain how big it is. All one can say is that every landowner I have talked to about it has reported finding snares on his land. The dispersion of snares, again unauthorised snares, has undoubtedly been very large. Furthermore, these snares do not catch only foxes, of course. They catch badgers; they catch dogs; they catch anything that may stray, such as cats. There have been complaints, again widespread, of cattle being wounded by poachers. This is a nuisance. Again, as to the size of this trade, in local newspapers all over the country there have appeared advertisements offering substantial sums for skins. And the middlemen—and I shall come to this in a moment—are issuing instructions to people who will get skins as to how to poach them and how to use them. These are being issued and I have a number of copies here.
It is of no use to forbid snares. You could not enforce the prohibition. With gin traps, as they have to be manufactured you could do something, not always successfully but often so; but it is useless so far as snares are concerned. So far as rifles are concerned, I believe their use is already forbidden and, therefore armed poaching is illegal. But that does not stop it; it goes on. The only way I can see to stop it is simply to take the profit out of it. This was something that did not happen; it was something that was unknown three and a half years ago. The profit motive has arisen solely because of this new export trade. If you stop the trade, you stop the profit and thereby can bring to an end this nasty little development in our countryside. It is

511
illegal, cruel and dangerous and is upsetting a well-established balance of nature. I believe that we in Britain can be very proud of the balance of nature that we have achieved. No similarly cultivated country supports so large a wildlife population or has created a mood that accepts the various denizens of the countryside in about the proportions which the balance of nature demands. Suddenly to put a quite new premium on attacks on a particular species (the long-furred species) upsets that balance; and upsets it, it seems to me, for a very unworthy reason.
My Lords, I think that this is a Bill whose provisions will be very easy to enforce. In fact, I think it will require practically no enforcement. At one level you have the hunter who is generally, but not always, a poacher. At the next you have the middleman. He is the man who inserts the advertisements, who issues the instructions and who goes round in a car collecting the skins. I know of two instances where this is a full-time job. In many other instances both the poaching and what follows is a part-time occupation. But at that point the skins go to the exporters. They are the really big people. They are people like the Hudson's Bay Company. To dispose of those skins, you need the exports and the access to the fur auctions. I do not for a moment believe that firms of that size will need policing so far as this new English trade in cheap, inferior furs is concerned. It is a very tiny item in the main fur business which is being conducted through the fur auctions and through the export system.
If we make it illegal—and from such communications that I have had, I have found that a good many fur merchants would not be sorry to see it made illegal—there is no question that they would accept such a situation. Nor do I believe that the hunters and the middlemen would be capable of organising an effective export and sales business of their own. You might have the odd furs going across in a lugger from Cornwall, but I think that the profit on the trip would be made from the brandy that they brought back rather than from the furskins that they would have taken. If you forbid the export, the profit will go out of these skins and they will drop back to the value that they had three or
512
four years ago—that is, practically nothing—and this rather nasty little incident will be at an end. Of the Government, therefore, I do not ask very much in the way of implementation. All I would ask from them is benevolence towards a small measure that may avert some danger and quite a lot of suffering. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Paget of Northampton.)
4.25 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, I put down my name to speak on this Bill in a spirit of gentle inquiry, because it appeared to me rather enigmatic and an enigma not the easier to penetrate because, on consulting all the various animal welfare societies, I could not discover that they could see much point in it or had been consulted about it or knew anything at all about it. Their reaction tended to be one of mild hostility if only because your Lordships and Parliament in general will be discussing a major Bill dealing with a number of subjects, including the welfare of wild animals, over the course of the next few months. This appeared in some way to detract unnecessarily from it.
On the surface, looking at the Bill as it stands, its provisions are, if anything, slightly objectionable from the point of view of these Benches. It is a restriction on trade and appears to be a restriction particularly on the traffic in fox skins which, because here in this country we are, mercifully, free of rabies, are in constant demand abroad. Their export therefore helps the balance of trade. There might be thought to be a case for the Bill as being a Bill for the preservation of species. While that seems laudable, the whole thing seems rather too heavy a hammer with which to hit this particular fly, because, in addition to the fact that we have the other Bill coming along, this one deals only with exports. Although the noble Lord has pointed out—and I listened with interest to this part—the demand which exists for our skins abroad, the virtue he attributed to British women for not buying furskin garments I found a little unsound because we have no guarantee at all that that may not be a fashion which will come to us in a year or two. There appears to be no difference in principle. Why, therefore, a ban on export and not a ban on trapping?

513
It is, I think, a very difficult Bill to support with any great enthusiasm. It is also a Bill which I would not want in any way to oppose outright. It is a tradition in this House that Bills are not opposed in Second Reading except for the very best of motives. I do not think that this Bill would do more than marginal harm if passed, although I cannot see that it will do any more than marginal good, either. What I suggest to my noble friends and also to the House is that in dealing with this matter it would be wrong to deny the noble Lord a Second Reading to his Bill, although we might in fairness ask that if this Bill gets a Second Reading, we should have the opportunity of looking at the big Bill that we are promised from the Government which deals, among other things, with this matter. It deals with trapping and various kinds of preservation of nature. We will see where we get with that, what we can put in and what we want left out. The Government Bill undoubtedly has a very good chance of becoming law because it is a Government Bill. That would seem to be the right way for your Lordships' House to proceed. Certainly it is the way in which we on these Benches—
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord permit me? I had very much in mind the Bill to which the noble Lord has referred. We went through it with great care with the Department. It was found that this simply could not be fitted in.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: I am grateful to the noble Lord. My Lords, since I had not by convention sat down, and since I have not urged rejection of the noble Lord's Bill, I shall have time to consider that point before we come to the Committee stage. I should be very surprised if this matter could not be fitted into the Bill, although I accept that the Government Department may not at this particular moment wish it to be incorporated into the Bill. That is a slightly different matter. Perhaps we could look at that afterwards. Meanwhile, I give about half a cheer for this Bill as I sit down.
4.32 p.m.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, before I begin my remarks I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northamp-
514
ton, for introducing this Bill, because it deals with a matter of principle in which I am very much in favour. As your Lordships are aware, I have spoken on a number of occasions on bills concerning animal protection in one form or another. It distresses me therefore, while agreeing with the noble Lord in principle, to say that for a number of reasons I cannot support his Bill. One is that I do not think this Bill can be enforced. I am of the opinion that it is useless to pass laws which one cannot enforce and which only catch the odd person who, through some foolishness or mistake, gets caught. When one reads the noble Lord's Bill, one must take further exception to it. We now have in his Bill a defined animal. We have protected animals and endangered animals and many more are described. Now we have a new classification, a defined animal.
I feel that the export particularly of foxes, which has been mentioned, is not good; but I cannot see where one is going to divide the line between what I assume the noble Lord means, which is a wild fox, and a fox which is bred on a farm. This Bill puts the defined animal in a clause in the Bill. Every other Bill which we have passed in your Lordships' House has always had a schedule at the end of it to which one can add or delete at any time. The wording of this Bill is not at all what it should be. The export of furs is not only covered by what the noble Lord has put down here, there is a much larger export of furs which is causing far more upset to the population: the export of dog and cat skins. I know that it is probably not the intention to include things like that in this Bill; but this is only a very small part of a fur trade export in dog and cat skins.
I cannot see how this Bill can be operated. I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, is quite right, when he says that the Government are producing a wildlife Bill—which unfortunately I have not yet been able to see—to cover all these matters. Therefore, I do not think this is the appropriate subject for a Private Member's Bill when we know that a Bill is coming from the Government. The noble Lord thinks that what is in his Bill could not be put into the Government's Bill. Personally, I think that that probably could be done. A number of your Lordships have extreme

515
ability for inserting into Bills things which nobody thinks can go into them. It has far more chance of operating in a Government Bill than in a Private Member's Bill from a Member of your Lordships' House.
All the way along, through all this legislation on animals, one of the matters which has worried those who are interested in animal welfare is the awful business which arises when these matters are left to Private Members' Bills. Now we have reached the situation where at last we are to get a Government Bill on this matter. I hope that all aspects of animal welfare will be taken over by the Government and the principles which the noble Lord has enunciated in this Bill can be put in the Government's Bill. Therefore we need not go through this Bill in considerable detail, although the principles contained in it can be incorporated in the Government's Bill. I am very sorry that I cannot support the Bill, but I should be very happy to support the principle and the detail if we can get them in a Government Bill.
4.39 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, we have heard two speeches or observations upon my noble friend's Bill. Both were very disappointing. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, suggested that we should wait for the Government Bill which was going to be more comprehensive and probably more satisfactory. The best is often the enemy of the good; and, moreover, it is a mistake to await Government Bills in the hope that they are going to be better and bigger than other Bills, because very often they are not.
I thought the noble Lord who has just spoken began to examine the Bill in critical detail without referring to its message. If a Bill contains a message that I want to give, I will support that Bill. It is the message that matters when we are discussing Bills introduced by Private Members, because we know the problems and obstructions that beset those who introduce Bills under the Private Member's Bill procedure, whether in your Lordships' House or in another place. Of course I agree with the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, that it is desirable, where possible, for Governments them-
516
selves, to introduce Bills on this and other matters, so that we have Bills properly considered, adequately drafted and given the time in Parliament to reach the Statute Book.
I have played my part, if I may say so modestly, in bringing to the notice of the political parties in the last 12 months the need for political parties to embrace different aspects of animal welfare. Those efforts have been quite successful, because the present Government is more committed to measures of animal welfare than any previous Government of any political complexion. This is something of an achievement and is, I think, an indication that political parties are responding to growing public opinion.
I would remind your Lordships that the Labour Party brought out a policy document entitled Living Without Cruelty. This was an exceptional measure of far-reaching reform in the field of animal welfare which was contemplated by one of our principal political parties. Animals are now in politics and what we now want to see is animals in Government legislation. Anything we can do to encourage the Government to include measures of animal protection and welfare in Government legislation should be done.
My noble friend's Bill does that. It may be of only marginal benefit: many small Bills can be only marginal in effect. It may be difficult to enforce but, my Lords, when have we ever stopped passing Bills that cannot be enforced? I shall not mention some of them for fear of being accused of creating prejudice; but indeed Bills have been passed by Parliament to create, to foster and to further a climate of opinion. I am sure your Lordships can think of a few measures of that kind. If we rejected all measures that could not be fully enforced, a great deal of legislation would never pass through Parliament. If we were to repeal laws which could no longer be enforced, we should have quite a lengthy list to repeal. But we believe that in many cases what is embodied in the law is desirable in the public interest. It does a great deal more good than harm. It may not be fully enforceable but, in a law-abiding community, we at least hope that people will still do their best to support the law.

517
I support this Bill because, to my mind, it fulfils the three aims I am enthusiastic about in your Lordships' House: I wish to curb the commercial exploitation of animals; to try to stop cruelty to animals; and to be zealous in the conservation of our wild life. This Bill makes a contribution to all three.
My noble friend has referred to the cruelty involved in supplying the animals for this trade and he referred to the torture of the snare. I have asked a Question recently about snares and the Answer given was that there will be provision in the new Government Bill for putting restrictions upon the lawful use of snares. At the present time, I understand that the snare is unlawful only if it is used to snare deer. One can use it, apparently, to snare all other animals. It is a cruel method of catching animals. My noble friend referred to badgers which chew off their own feet in order to escape from the torture of the snare. People go on to land that does not belong to them. They are trespassers and they lay snares. The landowner is unaware that they are there, and not only wild animals but domestic animals may be snared by this unlawful means. So we certainly look to the Government's Bill—this Bill that is to be bigger and better—to do something really effective about the use of snares.
I have a special interest in the badger. I have badger setts very near my home and I have badgers as supporters in my coat of arms. I was told when I went to the College of Heralds that it was unique to have badgers as supporters in a coat of arms, but on further investigation they discovered that some obscure municipality in County Fermanagh in Northern Ireland had badgers in its coat of arms. I was told that my badgers must have either crowns or collars. I thought badgers in crowns would look ridiculous, so I settled for badgers with collars, and the heraldic description of my badge is that they are "gorged with collars ". And so they are in the coat of arms that I was privileged to choose.
There is a very active group called the Gwent Badger Group. They are vigilant in protecting them from this prevalent practice of unlawful digging for badgers which is going on in many parts of the country. The most distressing part about
518
the protection of badgers was that hardly had your Lordships' House protected the badger from unlawful killing than a clause was introduced into a Bill to enable the Minister of Agriculture to order the destruction of badgers which were suspected of carrying the infection of bovine tuberculosis. Something like 10,000 badger setts—I may be wrong and perhaps it is 1,000. but it is at any rate a very large number—have been destroyed in the West Country in order to try to rid that area of bovine tuberculosis. We can ill afford, therefore, to have badgers unlawfully destroyed when so much destruction is going on lawfully by order of the Ministry of Agriculture.
In many cases, as your Lordships probably know, foxes and badgers live together, because foxes very often inhabit discarded badger setts, which are far better homes for them than any they can dig for themselves. So, when people are found to be digging for badgers, they nearly always claim that they are digging for foxes—digging for badgers being unlawful, but digging for foxes not being unlawful. In a number of cases, those who are accused get away with lying about their real purpose, though quite a number are convicted and heavily fined. But one must not dwell too much upon badgers in this connection.
I am glad that my noble friend referred to his belief that women no longer think they they are made more attractive by having the skin of a tortured fox around their necks. I hope that that is true, also. Yet I am bound to say that the adornment of women, and much that they desire to enhance their beauty, can be regarded as a serious obstacle to the humanitarian treatment of animals in very many directions indeed; not only as regards wild life, but in laboratories as well. So I find this Bill one that I can support enthusiastically. It conveys the message that I want to give. I am the more enthusiastic because it has been introduced by my noble friend, who is a new entrant into the animal protection lobby in your Lordships' House. We have had our differences about foxhunting and hare coursing, but here is a new political unity which should surely give added weight to the Bill that my noble friend has introduced.
I therefore support the Bill and I ask your Lordships to carry the message.

519
Let us have no nonsense from our Front Bench about this Bill not being enforceable, nor any other excuse for withholding support from it, because I want to say to my Front Bench that they are committed by their party allegiance to a very wide range of animal protection and conservation. They are committed to the civilised treatment of animals, to a new rapport between the human species and other living creatures. I hope that I shall hear from our Front Bench the same enthusiasm that I am trying to import into this debate in support of my noble friend's Bill.
4.53 p.m.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, made much use of the word "conservation", and I wonder what he means by it. I am possibly fairly well-known in your Lordships' House as being a conservationist, but, again, none of your Lordships has thought fit to question me on what I mean by the term. There is a great difference between the word "conservation" and the word "preservation", which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, used, and I suggest to your Lordships that one is the end result of the other. "Conservation", to me, means the use of renewable resources to the benefit of mankind, whereas "preservation benefit of mankind, whereas" preservation " is where this use has become so damaging to the resource in question that blanket controls are necessary to prohibit any interference, whether this is talking about animals, plants, oil or fish. The word "conservation" is used for oil in exactly the same context as I have just described to your Lordships. The word "conservation" is used for fish in exactly the same context as I have just described. There are momentary preservation orders put on stocks of fish in the North Sea or elsewhere, but only so that the fish can then build themselves up again to be used as a resource for mankind.
With this idea in mind, I am not happy with this Bill, because all the species on the noble Lord's list—again, I agree with my noble friend Lord de Clifford that, technically these should be in a schedule and not in the main part of the Bill; but that is a Committee point and something
520
that can be dealt with at that stage, if we get that far—are defined by the Department of the Environment as pest species. The badger is a little different, because it is what I might describe as a semi-pest. In other words, it is already protected in this country under the Badgers Act 1973, under which it is an offence to have in your possession a recently killed badger or the pelt from a freshly skinned badger. That is already illegal and this Bill will duplicate an existing provision in our legislation, which I do not think is a good thing.
Secondly, it is illegal under Section 2 of the Badgers Act cruelly to ill-treat any badger; and I should dearly love, as would the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, to make this a general facet of all our wildlife legislation where it applies to preservation, as, for example, the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976 or the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975, both of which I regard as preservatory rather than conservatory. However, as I was saying, I should like to see the cruel ill-treating of any species of animal out-lawed in this country.
As I understand it, this is one of the planks of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Paget, but this Bill does not do anything about it. In its long Title, this Bill prohibits the export of skins of certain animals, but nowhere does it say how those skins are obtained. I agree that, at the moment, they are very often cruelly obtained but, as I say again, I can find nowhere in the Bill where this cruelty is dealt with. This, again, is something that one could possibly put into the Bill at a later stage, as are various other things.
For example, I see that Clause 4(1) refers to the "Minister", whereas in any other piece of legislation that I have seen we refer to the "Secretary of State ". That, I agree, is nit-picking. However, it also does not make any allowance for the Minister, the Secretary of State or whoever it may be, to be advised by anyone at all. He is, at his sole discretion, allowed to put defined animals into the schedule which does not exist. As I said, a lot of these are Committee points and, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said, it is a convention in your Lordships' House, one that I made use of in an

521
extremely shaky Bill which I presented to your Lordships last Session, to allow Bills of this nature a Second Reading so that they can be amended, tightened up and, if necessary—as in the case of my own Bill—completely re-written during the subsequent stages.
But there is one point where this cannot be done to a Bill. The one thing that one is not allowed to do to a Bill at any stage is to change the long Title. The long Title has to be fully descriptive of the contents of the Bill. The long Title of this Bill is "to prohibit the export of skins of certain animals ". That is a fixed entity. One cannot do anything about it. I am subject to correction, but I have done a certain amount of checking up and I think that that is correct. Skins cannot be exported under this Bill, if it becomes an Act of Parliament.
On the other hand, items made from skins could be exported and, more importantly, the live animals, which are all perfectly able to be caught in a cage trap, could also be exported. However one changes the wording in the Bill, one cannot get away from this long Title. That is why I feel that, although it could be tightened up to a considerable extent and made very useful, the Bill will not achieve the objects which the noble Lord, Lord Paget, and, I am sure, many of us wish it to achieve. I would therefore suggest to your Lordships that on this unusual occasion it is not a fit subject to get a Second Reading in your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Paget, has heard several speeches—and for all I know he may hear a few more from the two Front Benches—suggesting that this Bill could be considerably tightened up. I am wondering therefore whether he would take kindly to the suggestion that at this stage he should withdraw the Bill, tighten it up, and present it in this Session of Parliament as a No. 2 Bill, or with a different title—then we could take it from there—notwithstanding the fact that the Government's own Wildlife and Countryside Bill, which has been referred to several times this afternoon, is also, as I understand it from the discussion documents, dealing with the cruelty side of the noble Lord's point.
522
There have been six discussion papers, which, as I am sure my noble friend on the Front Bench will be telling us, are available to your Lordships from the Department of the Environment. One of these, No. 3, has already been amended. One of the points in discussion paper No. 3 is a list of pest species of mammals and how they could legally be killed or caught. Apparently, Appendix 9 will make it illegal to use all sorts of what until now have been definitely cruel but definitely not illegal methods of killing animals. I shall not read out the list because it is very long. However, snares—which are one of the noble Lord's pet hates, and quite rightly so—are included, as are traps, in certain cases, and poison.
I would suggest to your Lordships that poison and snares are not specific. You can catch and kill a wide range of animals but not necessarily the animals that you want to catch and kill. In many instances they are also very cruel. In my opinion, the snare is always cruel and poison is very often cruel. As I understand the Government's proposed legislation, one will not be allowed to use any method to kill animals which are not on the pest list. If, therefore, an animals gets in by mistake because you have set your snare badly, or have put your poison in the wrong place, or done so just by accident, you will be guilty of an offence. This is a very good thing.
For all these reasons, I do not think that the Bill, laudable as it is, will achieve the objects that it sets out to achieve and which the noble Lord, Lord Paget, has expressed so clearly.
5.4 p.m.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Paget will be delighted that his Bill has caused quite lively interest. Noble Lords have spoken against the Bill and in favour of it, and there were those who were half-way between. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, will recollect that he introduced a Bill for the preservation of certain botanical species and that at about the same time I introduced into your Lordships' House a Bill for the preservation of animal species. In both cases, the Bills took up a lot of time. I recollect that I made three Second Reading speeches with regard to my

523
Bill. I see that sitting immediately opposite me is the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton. We have faced one another on several occasions in the most amicable way.
Throughout all this discussion your Lordships' House has taken, in my opinion, the most enlightened view about the doubts that we as a community have concerning all living species. In the end, a Government Bill was introduced which combined Lord Beaumont of Whitley's Bill with mine and produced undoubtedly a better Bill. Unfortunately we do not have with us today Lady Stedman who piloted that Bill through your Lordships' House. I think that this House can take a pride in what it has done with regard to living things, both animal and vegetable.
We are faced today with another step in this direction. Lord Paget has produced a Bill with which I am sure all of us agree so far as its intent is concerned. The question is whether the actual working of the Bill will be satisfactory in order to achieve that intent.
The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, pointed out that there was no schedule to the Bill and that only Clause 5 sets out a certain number of species. Clause 4(1) states that:
"The Minister may by order prescribe any animal as a defined animal for the purposes of this Act ".
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has pointed out that this is unusual in Bills of this sort and that normally there is a schedule. This is a matter which can be taken up later. It is also somewhat unusual for the Minister or the Secretary of State to be responsible by order for prescribing any animal without having to consult a committee. In the case of all Bills of this type that we have passed on previous occasions it has been stated that this is to be done on the advice of a committee. I should not feel very happy if the Bill went forward without there being any suggestion of a committee to deal with this matter.
When one begins to look at the details, one finds that in this Bill it is only the end product that is referred to. The noble Lord, Lord Paget, has said that by putting severe financial constraints upon the dealers one is able to cope with the problem. It seems to be very strange to
524
deal simply with the sale outside this country of a furskin and not with the act, which is what the noble Lord wants to hit at; namely, the cruelty to the animal concerned in the first place. In other words, it is the snaring, it is the coursing, it is the hunting which can be the cruel things.
Surely the final sale of the skin, especially if it is a sale across a frontier and not a sale inside this country, is not in itself the evil which the noble Lord is trying to hit at. The evil which he is hitting at—and I personally sympathise and agree entirely with him—is the cruelty involved in the first place. Therefore one ought to have something in the Bill with regard to the mode of killing the animal.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said that in your Lordships' House one cannot alter the Long Title of a Bill. I am assured that this is not correct. It can be done; it can be done if one moves an amendment to the Bill which so alters the nature of the Bill that the Long Title inevitably has to be altered. In fact I am told that this has been done on more than one occasion in your Lordships' House. If that is so, it seems to me that we have a method of dealing with this Bill without the stamp of rejection at Second Reading. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that it is an exceptional step for your Lordships to take; to reject a Private Member's Bill at Second Reading. I would not wish to propose that this Bill be rejected at Second Reading, although I think that a lot of modification is required in the Bill.
To take an example, I would wish to have, instead of the present Clause 1, a different Clause 1 altogether and such a different Clause 1 as would include the cruelty in killing the animal and would involve an alteration in the main title of the Bill. Therefore, if my information is correct—that your Lordships by custom have been able to change the Long Title of a Bill because of emendations made to the main clauses of the Bill—in my opinion this would be the appropriate step to take. But I should like to assure the House that the intent of the Bill is something about which most of us feel strongly. I certainly do and I sympathise entirely with my noble friend Lord Paget of Northampton in having a Bill of this type put forward. At the same time I could not, with a

525
happy conscience, support this Bill at all subsequent stages because I think in its present form it requires considerable amendment.
So I hope, my Lords, that it will be possible for us to deal with this Bill in such a way that we show quite clearly our desire in this House to preserve animals in a state in which they can be—so far as we know—contented and that when they have to be killed, they are killed in a humane way. At the same time, we want to be sure that any Bill is satisfactory and workable.
5.14 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, as we would expect of him, the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, has introduced this Bill with his accustomed skill and persuasiveness and, as he is surrounded by friends on all sides of the House, he knows that he is able to win a certain amount of emotion just by speaking to the House. We all sympathise with him in most of the things he says, although we do not always agree with him. He has produced a Bill which has produced some extraordinary bed-fellows. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, pointed out, he and the noble Lord, Lord Paget, are not normally considered to be bedfellows on the matter of the killing of foxes. I believe that in another place the names of Heller and Kimball are linked, which is an even more unlikely couple! But that shows what an extraordinary Bill we are dealing with.
Nevertheless the noble Lord did not ask much of the Government—only our benevolence. Perish the thought that I should want to hurt the noble Lord, but I fear that our benevolence is not on show this evening. We are not fond of his Bill; we cannot support his Bill, because we think there is already adequate legislative control under the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976 on the international trade in furskins from animal species, which are threatened with extinction by such trade. This, as my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale pointed out, is supplemented in the United Kingdom by the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975, which bans the sale of any species indigenous to these islands that is in danger of extinction.
526
Further, I am advised that there are no good conservation reasons why any of the species listed should have this type of protection and the fox is certainly on the increase and can stand a high rate of culling. We would have great difficulty with our European partners showing a reason, notwithstanding Article 36 of the Treaty of Rome, why we should intervene with trade—a trade which may even be beneficial to some species since, among the pressures on some of the rarer ground nesting birds, are the predations of foxes, pine martens and polecats.
We recognise that snaring should only be used where there is no acceptable alternative and, in the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, which has been referred to by several noble Lords, we are including provisions restricting the use of snares to species causing pest damage and to authorised persons. This will make the "poaching" referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Paget, illegal. As for the sale of skins, that has always been a legitimate source of finance to pest control firms and pest control officers and has made their terms for undertaking work for farmers less expensive. To remove this source of revenue will only serve to increase the costs to the farmers and landowners suffering from the predations of these species. There are a number of other reasons why we feel this Bill is defective. Even if it was desirable to bring in these controls, there would need to be arrangements to allow the re-export of furs legitimately imported, but the Bill makes no such provision, and as my noble friend Lord de Clifford said, equally, there need be no objection to the export of furskins from animals reared in captivity for this purpose, but the Bill will not allow this.
On particular points, the noble Lord, Lord Paget, spoke about the essential of financial restraint. I must tell him and other noble Lords that as the Bill is at present drafted Her Majesty's Customs and Excise would not be required to enforce the prohibition. The police would have little opportunity. The proposal to ban snaring (except for authorised persons) is more enforceable. That is an important point.
I was asked whether the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976 could be widened to cover more than just the endangered species listed under the

527
Washington Convention. This is proposed. Then, in principle, the ban on exports of any fur would be possible. I agreed entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, when he queried whether the praise bestowed by the noble Lord, Lord Paget, on British womanhood was quite correct. I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that women's fashions are a volatile thing; they do not like being out of fashion and I notice that their principles change somewhat if fashion dictates. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, on the whole was lukewarm towards this Bill because he, too, saw the difficulties in connection with it.
My noble friend Lord de Clifford emphasised—as I do again—that our Government Bill is on the way and I think that to use parliamentary time unnecessarily on half measures, which I have pointed out are not effective anyhow, is really rather a waste of time. We then get to the very powerful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who is always interesting on these matters. He seldom pulls his punches and he showed a lot of enthusiasm for this Bill. I agree a great deal with some of the points he made. I think my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale answered all his points on the badgers, mentioning the various legislation which is in effect. On the point of snaring, I would point out that the Council of Europe Berne Convention on Conservation of Wildlife and Natural Habitats requires snaring as well as other indescriminate methods of killing to be banned generally, but it is allowed to be used for pest control. The Wildlife and Countryside Bill which we have been talking about will prohibit snaring for badgers altogether, and for other species it will only be allowed by authorised persons for pest control.
I would congratulate the noble Lord on his heraldic achievement; I am still proud to have an illustrated copy of it which he gave me some years ago when he first took it out, knowing that I was interested in that subject. I am not sure that I wholly agree with his estimate of what badgers would like. I personally would rather be a crowned badger than a collared badger, but that is perhaps a matter of personal taste. I would also
528
like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for the kind words he said about this Government's good intentions as regard welfare in the animal kingdom. There is a need, as he said, for political parties to advocate animal welfare. I think all parties in this House have a very good record on this, and I think also in the country at large this is the case.
My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale added a note of real expertise with a heavy douche of common sense, and I would endorse everything he said. I would like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, on his first appearance, so far as I remember, on the Front Bench. It is a most delightful thing to see, and with his youth I would anticipate that he has a bright future ahead of him! He started on conservation of endangered species, protection of one form or another of wildlife, many years ago, and I have been very happy and have learned an awful lot from him—I apologise for the word "awful"; it is not the right adjective and it is not good English. Having seen the noble Lord talking to a certain noble friend of his outside the Chamber, I suspect he may have been getting advice from him and I fully admire the source he went to for advice. I am advised that, as one would expect, his advice was right, but at the same time I am advised that the changing of the Long Title is unusual and is not a habit to be encouraged, though it is definitely a possibility. My Lords, I think I have dealt with all the points raised and it only remains for me to say in conclusion that I hope the noble Lord, Lord Paget, will see fit to withdraw his Bill for the reasons I have given, as the Government really would not wish to see it become an Act of Parliament.
5.25 p.m.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, I much regret not feeling inclined to take that advice. I still believe that this is a Bill which can carry a limited benefit and is designed and confined to that limited benefit. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said it might have been included in the Government's Bill that is to come. That we certainly considered, but we found that it was right outside the Long Title of that Bill. My Long Title is very narrowly confined; that is, with express intent. It does not refer to

529
cruelty, it does not refer to the method of killing, it does not refer to anything of that sort, because I am quite sure that nothing of that sort we do in a Bill is enforceable. This Bill says one single thing—you shall not export these skins. And if you do not export these skins there will be no profit in them. This is the simple proposition.
This snaring of badgers, foxes, polecats and these other long-haired furs just did not happen three or four years ago to any extent. It was used in areas where it was required to control, to protect wild farms, to protect sheep in many areas. It was not used in order to get the skins and the animals killed were generally not even skinned. Just three or four years ago we got this fashion. We get this new market being catered for by poachers without any regard to control or to humanity, largely using methods which are already illegal, largely, as in the case of the badger, on animals which are protected. It is an offence to be found with the body of a newly-killed badger, but it is not an offence to export the skin of a badger which may not be so newly killed. It needs this reinforcement if you are going to make these provisions effective. It is a simple matter of taking the profit out of the transactions.
Let me put it in the very simplest terms. Three years ago this, which we all agree is an evil, did not happen. Three years ago a new market, provoked by a new fashion, emerged. In those three years the values of these skins have jumped from nothing to £40 for foxes, £60 for badgers. It seems to me quite reasonable to assume that if you stopped that market—and it is exclusively an export market because there is no market for these skins in this country; they are not used here; they are not wanted here—you would stop this particular evil, which is unbalancing the wildlife in quite a number of areas in this country. That seems to me the sensible, the logical and the direct thing to do. I would certainly object
violently to my Long Title being altered at Committee stage, because I do not want to expand the Bill one bit beyond the way I have put it, to take away the cause of this evil which we have all seen and acknowledged.
When one talks of enforcement, there is no problem of enforcing the prohibition of exporting—no problem here at all. It is not the poachers who exports. It is not even the middlemen who export. Within the fur trade these furs are unusable until they get into the hands of the big houses and go to the fur auctions. It is the fur auctions that provide the export trade. Cut them off from that trade—and by making it illegal you do so automatically because these are big, respectable firms for which these cheap British furs are a tiny corner of their trade—make it illegal, and there is no market. There are no enormous profits in it. It is not like drugs. It is not the type of thing in which one can create an illegal export market. It would be far too expensive to do so within the profit levels that exist. Just cut off the market and the Bill automatically enforces itself.
I very much desire to continue with the Bill because nothing which I have heard from the House has in the least convinced me that it is not the rational way to deal with the matter. I believe that the more noble Lords think about it the more they will come round to the conclusion that here is a specific evil, a new evil, which can be dealt with quickly and independently of other legislation by a very simple provision. Wider Bills can go on, but I believe that if we care about this evil of snaring and poaching in the countryside, this little Bill should go through.
5.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2a?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 35; Not-Contents, 17.

CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Enniskillen, E.

Jacobson, L.

Ampthill, L.

Exeter, M.

Kinnoull, E.

Ardwick, L.

Hale, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Aylestone, L.

Halsbury, E.

Mancroft, L.

Brookes, L.

Hankey, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Castle, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L. [Teller.]

Meston, L.

Croft, L.

Minto, E.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Shinwell, L.

Newall, L.

Phillips, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Strathclyde, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Romney, E.

Suffield, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Sackville, L.

Wise, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Galloway, E.

Northchurch, B.

Craigton, L.

Henley, L.

Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

de Clifford, L. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Teviot, L.

Denham, L.

Morris, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion for Second Reading agreed to accordingly: read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
5.41 p.m.

DUMBARTON DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL GREATER GLASGOW PASSENGER TRANSPORT ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL KILMARNOCK AND LOUDOUN DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL SCOTS EPISCOPAL FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons and read 1a; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
PAPUA NEW GUINEA, WESTERN SAMOA AND NAURU (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
5.43 p.m.
Lord NEWALL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second
532
time. The purpose of this very small but highly important Bill is to amend the present statutory restriction on the number of races that can be held at a greyhound race meeting. The present number is eight and the Bill proposes that this figure should be increased to 10. I am not a regular racegoer, but I am convinced that the public want 10 races, because very often eight seems to be too few for an evening out. Therefore, I wish to reduce one of the restrictions which unfortunately hampers the sport of greyhound racing.
On this matter I am very pleased at the recent statement made by the Secretary of State for the Home Office in a debate in another place on 29th October, where he stated at column 847:
"I also concur in the Royal Commission's proposals for some modest increases in the permitted number of races per meeting and in the number of meetings allowed each year ".
Perhaps I should remind the House that the final report of the Royal Commission on Gambling, which was published in July 1978, recommended that the number of races be so increased together with a small increase in the number of special betting days which could be held during the licensing year. At present the number of special betting days is fixed at four and the Bill proposes that they should be increased to six, mainly to cover the recently-created hank holidays. An enabling power is provided for the Secretary of State to designate further special betting days for any future increases in public holidays and for other reasons.
The circumstances affecting the operation of greyhound racing in this country, which is the second largest spectator sport in Britain after soccer, were fully explained to the Royal Commission by the National Greyhound Racing Club. The Commission accepted all its statistics and

533
many of the statements submitted by the NGRC, and indeed stated:
"… the evidence we have received reflects the industry's view that since 1951 it has fallen on hard times ".
Some clubs have closed their tracks and attendances have shown a steady decrease over the years.
The Betting and Gaming Act 1960 legalised the operation of betting shops, whereas previously horse and greyhound racing operated the only legalised betting cash outlets in this country. As greyhound racing stadia are situated in areas of high urban development, they are more easily affected by the public patronising the betting shops in the high street; if the public lose, they are disinclined to go grey-hound racing. What is more, the book-makers make a larger profit from grey-hound betting as opposed to horse betting because there is no betting levy.
I report these points merely to show that a considerable degree of sympathy existed with the Royal Commission over the plight of greyhound racing, and also in the Home Office, in that the few minor recommendations of the Royal Commission for the benefit of greyhound racing should be implemented. The background as to why the figure of eight races was originally chosen stems mainly from the Betting and Lotteries Act 1934. It must be recognised on all sides of the House that the social conditions at that time were vastly different from present-day life. In many ways the 1934 Act was experimental in nature, and since then other forms of betting and gaming have had the benefit of more modern legislation.
In 1934 eight races related roughly to the number of horseraces being held at that time and endeavoured to control the amount of cash betting that could be made available to the public. The special betting days were also established at the same time and the figure of four was chosen because it related to the number of bank holidays at that time. Since then there has been the introduction of two further bank holidays, so it is thought right that the figure of four should be increased to six. Possibly in the future there might he some extension of the number of bank holidays, and so provision has been made for the Home Secretary to increase the number of
534
special betting days not only for bank holidays but for any other reason that might be deemed necessary at the particular time.
Greyhound managements have always been able, subject to certain restrictions, to select the days when they would hold their special betting days. It is not always necessary to relate them to bank holidays. In many cases the major races of the year, such as the Greyhound Derby, are held on special betting days which suit the local circumstances of the race-course and its patrons. The figure of 20 races on the special betting days follows the proposed increase in the number of races per meeting, which are presently related to 16 on these types of days. In practice, managements generally have a matinée meeting of eight races with an evening meeting of the same number of races or, alternatively, have an extended race meeting of, say, 10 to 14 races.
Therefore, hopefully, this Bill will improve the profitability of the sport of greyhound racing, because it is not possible at present to obtain sufficient assets to guarantee the survival of each stadium. Looking, for instance, at the position of Wembley, which is a national institution and the national football stadium, it can be kept going only by the regular operation of greyhound racing and certainly not by the comparatively few football matches which are held there.
Owners of greyhounds expect a reasonable return from prize money, but it must be remembered that the availability of prize money is limited not only by the present restrictions on the level of operating expenses from the totalisator but also on the very low charge which is made to on-course bookmakers, who will benefit greatly from the extension of races. At the moment they only have to pay five times the entrance fee, which is really a very small fee. For your Lordships' information, the turnover on the grey-hound totalisator is approximately £75 million per annum compared with on-course bookmakers who, according to the Customs and Excise figures, have a turnover of £120 million per annum. I mention this point only to show that there is a need to maintain the second largest spectator sport in the country by providing

535
for a modest increase in the number of races that can be held on any special day. There are only 130 of these betting days in a licensing year and it is necessary for the promoters to be able to maximise their assets whilst they are being lawfully used for betting purposes.
By increasing the profitability of greyhound racing it is hoped that more prize money can be made available to owners and, just as important, that kennel hands can be paid a good wage. Greyhound racing does not have the benefit of the special levy which is available only to horseracing. Regrettably, neither the Commission nor the Home Office feel that this levy should be extended to include greyhound racing at the moment. I hope that the Home Office will take a different view when they give consideration at a future date to the position of the greyhound on-course bookmakers.
Finally, I should like to say that the most that this Bill can do is to help the greyhound tracks still operating to keep on running. Above all, the Bill does not seek to depart extensively from the overall control which Parliament has seen fit to impose on greyhound racing, although it does seek to relieve one of those restrictions which, in the course of years, has become onerous and pressing. It is for this reason that I commend this Bill and ask your Lordships to give it a unanimous Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Newall.)
5.51 p.m.
Viscount WARD of WITLEY: My Lords, I intervene briefly to support this Bill. Although I am no longer connected in any way with greyhound racing I was from 1963 to 1972 President of the National Greyhound Racing Society of Great Britain, and, when that was wound up, I was chairman of the policy committee of the National Greyhound Racing Club from 1972 to 1977. From my knowledge of the sport during those years I have no doubt whatever that it is adversely affected by two serious handicaps. First, there is the effect which, since they became legal, betting shops have had on race course attendances. It is said that off-course betting on greyhounds is now
536
running at £400 million a year. Secondly there is the outdated legislation going back to 1934 which keeps the sport virtually in a straitjacket.
This Bill is not of course concerned with the first of these problems, but it does aim to bring up to date certain provisions of the old legislation. Indeed, it seeks to implement some of the recommendations which I myself submitted to the Royal Commission on Gambling in 1976 on behalf of the Greyhound Racing Club. Both the proposals in this Bill were recommended by the Royal Commission, and in my view should go quite a long way to help the promotion of greyhound racing, because more prize money will be made available to owners and to trainers. I am therefore glad to add my support to the Bill, and I hope that it will find favour with your Lordships.
5.53 p.m.
Lord MANCROFT: My Lords, I, too, should like to add a few words of support to the Bill which has been moved in such an able way by my noble friend Lord Newall. Before doing so, however, I am duty bound to declare an interest, in that I am the present chairman of the British Greyhound Racing Board, and therefore directly connected with this Bill. The Royal Commission had evidence presented to it by the noble Viscount, Lord Ward, whose support I also welcome, and I went to give verbal evidence after-wards. I cannot have done it very well, because we did not get anything like as much as we wanted from the Royal Commission. Indeed, if I am not being discourteous, they treated us, we thought, in a rather cavalier way. They did not even bother to come and look at a greyhound racing track. I think one or two of their staff did, but if the whole commission came they must have come on my night off.
They treated us in a cavalier way because they emphasised, we thought a little unfairly, the commercial side of the sport rather than the sporting side. Of course in every sport there is now an increasing commercial side. You do not call it entirely philanthropic when you buy a centre-forward for half a million pounds. There is nothing entirely uncommercial about the National Stud or the New-market sales. So we agree that there is

537
naturally a commercial element in this. But we have had, as the noble Lord, Lord Newall, pointed out, financially rather a rough time of late. We are having difficulty in keeping ourselves viable. We are doing the best we can. We are trying to put our house in order and make ourselves as democratic as possible, consulting as many interests as possible. This little Bill—and it is only a little Bill; it is not what we would like; we would like something much bigger, but we have not been allowed to do that—will help the sport to make better use of its resources and will assist its viability. I hope your Lordships will give it your support.
5.55 p.m.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I must declare an interest. I am not going to weary your Lordships with a detailed account of my connection with betting, which started off I think at about the age of 12, when I had 3d each way on China Cock which won the Liverpool Spring Cup, and I thought I would never be poor again. It has taken me through all the vicis-situdes of being a member of the Totalisator Board, chairman of the Horse Race Betting Levy Board, and president of BOLA. The interest I have to declare tonight is that I own greyhounds. I had a runner last night, not, unfortunately, successful, and I have a runner tomorrow night. Like all other owners of greyhounds, or racehorses for that matter, hope springs eternal. No owner of a greyhound or of a racehorse ever commits suicide, because he is always hoping that the next one will be a winner.
Secondly, I have been accorded the distinction of having had one of my dogs, which was made favourite—not with my money, I regret to say, in any substantial amount—doped. I only learnt it a few days ago, but I suppose that it is a mark of distinction that one of one's dogs is doped. I thought in that connection that the trainer of the dog behaved with great integrity and competence, and I think it enables me to say that, on the whole, greyhound racing is as straight as it can possibly be made, though I think there is room for improvement—there is always room for improvement. I think too that there ought to be some organisation which carries on investigations into malpractices when something occurs that seems to need investigation.
538
The other thing is that, as an owner, too, I was fortunate enough to be a member of the syndicate which owned the winner of the Greyhound Derby, and I suppose no owner of greyhounds can ever want more than that. It is because I am interested in greyhound racing, and because I go to watch greyhound racing as a sport and not for profit, that I am speaking tonight in support of this Bill. There are one or two things I want to say in connection with it. I would say that I am in enthusiastic support of it, but not for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Newall.
I am not optimistic enough to believe that the proposals in his Bill, which are part, and only part, of Recommendation 44 of the Royal Commission's report, are going to produce very much more money for prize money. It does enable me to say this in support of something that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said: I thought that the Royal Commission, I will not say cavalierly, but a little mistakenly dismissed greyhound racing on the grounds that it was more commercial than horse racing. I have great respect for Lord Rothschild and for the work of the Royal Commission, but I thought that that was just a load of nonsence.
To own a greyhound today with any claims to ability will cost somewhere between £1,000 and £2,000. To get a good dog with any hope of winning an open race will cost £2,000 at least, and the price is going up all the time. But there are dozens of people, of whom I am one, who are content to own dogs that can only win graded races. To suggest that a person who would pay several hundred pounds for a greyhound that can only race in graded races is involved in greyhound racing in the hope of making a profit is quite ridiculous.
What the Royal Commission said in one place was that greyhound racing evolved from commercial practices. I think that that is broadly true, but it is part of the fun of the game to go and watch one's dog run, and one meets other people who are doing the same thing and comes into friendly contact with them. By and large there are hundreds, indeed thousands, of people throughout the country who regard racing as a sport, and to pick them out and say, "They are engaged in a commercial operation for profit ", while those who have the bank

539
balances to go to Newmarket and bid for a yearling—and the average price is £30,000—and say they are engaged in sport, is to my mind plain nonsense.
I would assert therefore that there is a substantial case here at which the Home Secretary and Government should look, but they will not; and let us consider why. It is a poor compliment to Lord Roths-child and the many distinguished ladies and gentlemen who made up the Royal Commission, who worked for a long time and at considerable cost—it cost £500,000—that the report is published and four months later an announcement is made that a special unit is being set up at the Home Office to study it, composed of one lady from the Police Department, and then months later, allowing for a change of Government, a debate takes place in another place in which the Home Secretary is careful to say that he will do nothing about anything if he can possibly avoid it because obviously in the competition for Government time he and the Home Office have lost out.
It is true of horseracing, lotteries and casinos; all these recommendations of the Royal Commission will collect dust on the shelf until, like the previous Royal Commission report, a decade on, some Administration or other will be forced to do something about it. Then what will happen? The civil servants will take down this report of the Royal Commission and put it into operation, but by that time the circumstances which were operating when this Royal Commission were sitting will have passed. That is what happened the last time and that is what will happen again.
With regard to greyhounds there are not many recommendations. There are a few, and Recommendation No. 44 is one of them, What the noble Lord, Lord Newall, has done, and wisely, is that he with his advisers have picked out two of them which he thinks are runners and which he thinks he might be able to get away with, and he has probably judged rightly, although judging by what happened to the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, in connection with linked bingo, which had a very easy passage in this place, who knows what will happen? That went to another place and was objected to last Friday, so the signs are not all that
540
good even for the least contentious measure, though in my opinion the mixture is just about right in terms of getting it through.
However, in saying that, we must not let the Government get away with it. Clearly they have a duty to do, although they are not performing it. Whether we like it or not, we are moving into an age of greater leisure, and whether we regard greyhound racing outside the stream of our national culture or whether, as I believe, it is a very pleasant way of passing some of one's leisure time and meeting people with whom one has a common interest, whichever view one may take, one must not forget, as Lord Newall pointed out, that it is the second largest spectator sport in the country, and it is going to stay there. Furthermore, on a wider basis, if the Government go on, as it seems they will do, to sweep the Royal Commission's report under the carpet, they run very great risks indeed, and the risks are not run only by the Home Office but by the Government and nation as a whole. The taxing of betting and gaming now produces £400 million a year, and the one thing you cannot do with a cow is to go on milking it unless you feed it. This particular cow must be fed with thought and planning and having regard to the social consequences, not only of what you do but what you leave undone, and I regret to say that is what the Government are engaged in.
We are concerned here with the second minor recommendation of the Royal Commission; Lord Birkett was concerned with Recommendation No. 219 and this is part of recommendation No. 44. They will do nothing else, leaving it to the enterprise of Private Members of this House and another place to put forward Bills which they think may reach the statute book; the Government will leave it like that. That is quite disastrous on the broad front because it leaves social problems which should be tackled, and they will not go away. They will be the worse for having been left and some of the social evils which the nation has avoided through the Butler legislation of a decade ago will, as sure as night follows day, raise their heads again. Therefore I support Lord Newall's Bill: I am critical of the Government's lack of action and I believe a great deal needs to be done.

541
The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said that greyhound racing in this country was having hard times, was doing the best it could and so on. But that is only part of the story. In 1958 in Ireland a different course was taken from the one which has been pursued in this country. I cannot speak Gaelic and therefore cannot possibly pronounce the title, so 1 will simply call it the Irish Greyhound Association. As greyhound racing in this country has gone down, attendances, money bet, prize money, the value of greyhounds and the development of an export industry there have all gone up. Why has that been the case? The answer is that the Irish Government—not a Socialist Administration by any manner of means—decided to set up a board, as a result of legislative action, and that board has taken control of greyhound racing with the immediate result that, whereas the really top-class greyhounds used to be bought in Ireland and brought here to race, no longer is that the case. The top-class greyhounds now are racing in Ireland because the prize money, tracks and amenities are that much better. As we go down, they go up, and this Administration, who believe in laissez-faire even to the point of not getting their hair cut, will do nothing; so greyhound racing in this country must inevitably go down, in terms of quality and as a breeding industry which produces valuable currency—that applies not only to Britain but to the United States, where it is on the way up and prospering.
There is another reason for it. The NGRC in terms of its evidence claimed to speak for the industry as a whole, but it did not. The proper name for the NGRC is the Greyhound Track Promoters' Association; it is concerned primarily with the viability and prosperity of the greyhound tracks. Of course, it is true that if the greyhound tracks are not viable they cannot provide increased prize money, but there is another side to that story. The Greyhound Association engaged in property speculation and lost a great deal of money. One reason why the NGRC and greyhound racing is now having a rough time is that the industry—the ordinary working chap who goes racing—is paying off the debts of the property speculators who still own the greyhound tracks. That is the story and it cannot be denied. The past buries the past, but we must not forget—and
542
certainly the Government should not forget—that a Conservative Administration in 1958 introduced the legislation of 1960. They could have introduced that legislation a long time before, but they did not.
So if greyhound racing in this country is not as prosperous as it ought to be, if horse racing here runs into difficulties, if the sporting facilities in this country are not what they ought to be, the fault, dear Brutus, lies not in the stars, but in ourselves. We have had successive Conservative Administrations who have not done their duty any more than this Administration are doing their duty. The speech of the Home Secretary in another place was a disgrace. They have had months, indeed years, in opposition to study this problem. The Home Secretary did not understand it. His officials do not understand it. They do not listen. They do not learn.
Therefore I believe that the difficulties of greyhound racing, and indeed of all British sports, will not be lessened under this Administration. The matter will be left and left until it can be left no longer. In the meantime, industries such as the breeding of greyhounds and racehorses, as well as the building up of amenities which can be enjoyed by our young people, will be left as they have been left in the past. May I say that the record of the Labour Party is not very much better. The speech of the late Home Secretary, Mr. Merlyn Rees, in another place was in terms of nonsense a dead heat with that of the Home Secretary. The difference between the two is the difference between 11½ and a shilling. This is a field which the Labour Party ought to regard as their own because it is the ordinary chap who pays the piper, even though he does not call the tune.
So I support the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Newall. I shall support him in the Division Lobby, if there is a Division. I shall support him at the Committee stage. But do not let it be thought that by supporting the Bill I am in any way indicating that I am satisfied to go away and say, "That's the end of the story ", because it is not.
6.12 p.m.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Newall, has performed a service to the House in

543
explaining his Bill with such clarity. In fact, he has matched the clarity of the final report of the Royal Commission on Gambling, which in presentation at least was a masterly report, and which set out in its two volumes a vast amount of highly complex material—fact and argument—in such a splendidly clear way that even someone with a knowledge of gambling as meagre as mine could follow.
I confess that I have attended a greyhound meeting only once in my life. It was when I was taken to one of the annual Greyhound Derbys at the White City 30 years ago. I found it most exciting and thoroughly enjoyable, but I suppose that I have to admit that it probably could not have taken possession of me exactly because I have not been to a meeting since, nor have I placed a bet on a greyhound race since then. It is probably my loss and nobody else's. It is also perhaps a little inconsistent of me in not having pursued it, in at least one sense, if not more, because I can be taken to have been going to the dogs constantly over the past few years, living, as we do, on the Isle of Dogs.
So your Lordships will appreciate that I feel more inadequate than usual after hearing from noble Lords with vast experience and expertise, and with connections with the sport over many years. I have in mind my noble friend Lord Wigg, and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, as well as the experience of the noble Viscount, Lord Ward of Witley.
As the noble Lord, Lord Newall, has said, the Bill itself proposes some modest changes in the law—changes which would be mainly in line with recommendations made by the Royal Commission itself. Those recommendations formed part of the evidence to the Commission of the National Greyhound Racing Club and, I believe, of the more broadly based, more representative, body associated with it, which came into being while the Royal Commission was actually sitting—the British Greyhound Racing Federation.
Before saying something about the individual proposals themselves, I should like to say a word about the background against which the proposals are put forward. Whether one supports it or not, greyhound racing is indeed a major spectator sport. As the report itself
544
recognises, and as the noble Lord, Lord Newall, mentioned, it is indeed the second most popular sport in the country. So the sport is here, and is established. That being so, unless one is aiming to abolish it altogether, it seems right that it should be enabled to operate in a satisfactory way—and this seems to be partly Parliament's job—and should include suitable conditions for those taking part in it as well as a reasonable living for those running it.
The report of the Royal Commission clearly shows that the industry has dwindled over the years, as one or two of your Lordships have mentioned tonight, and indeed some of those in it have come up against problems and even hardship. It would appear that part of the purpose of the proposals in the Bill would be to help, if only in a comparatively small way, the sport to be rather more soundly based, as well as to provide a better service to its supporters.
I should like to add in passing a reference to Chapter 10 of the Royal Commission's report on greyhound racing, which has also been alluded to by one or two of your Lordships this evening, and which seems to have come in for a certain amount of criticism elsewhere as well, not least for the distinction that it draws between horseracing and greyhound racing. This is in paragraph 10.10 of the report. If one were to paraphrase that paragraph, I hope not unfairly, it seems to emerge from that chapter of the report that the Royal Commission is regarding horse-racing as more of a sport, while regarding greyhound racing as a commercial operation only. As we have heard from some other quarters, there is also criticism that the Royal Commission was biased in favour of horseracing. This matter has been mentioned tonight by my noble friend Lord Wige and by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft—
Lord WIGG: It is very important to get this right, my Lords. The paragraph from which the noble Lord quotes—paragraph 10.10—says that greyhound racing is organised on commercial lines, and in another place it says that it evolved on commercial lines. But because it is organised that way, or it evolved that way, it does not follow—it is a non sequitur—to assert, or to accept the idea, as the noble Lord seems to be going on

545
to do, that as a whole greyhound racing is less of a sport than is horseracing. I know them both intimately, and I give the noble Lord an assurance that if he will pay one or two more trips to greyhound racing tracks and visit the New-market sales, he will quickly alter his views.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for his intervention because it gives me an opportunity—should the point that I was making not have been made sufficiently clearly—to point out that I was in fact by no means accepting the interpretation that in my view the Royal Commission has appeared to place upon those two sports; and to draw that distinction between the two. It is not of course for me to judge the extent to which that is or is not justified, but that somewhat gratuitous sideswipe at greyhound racing (as some people have regarded it, understandably) appears to have caused considerable resentment among supporters—and understandably so. Some of those supporters seem to feel it was a pity that the Commission took that unnecessary line, especially as many of its recommendations—there were not many in toto, of course, concerning greyhound racing, but many of those recommendations—were approved and, indeed, suggested by the sport itself.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I should like to make the point again. I think it is being unfair to the Royal Commission to say that they took that view. They made two statements of fact, both of which, I believe, are correct. One was that it evolved, if you like, on commercial lines, and the second was that it is organised on commercial lines. But it does not follow, and they did not say that it did, that it was commercial. That is what people are putting into it. It does not necessarily follow that it is more or less commercial, if I may put it that way. The Royal Commission just made those two statements; but what has happened is that the Press have got hold of this and it has been repeated time and again until it has come to be accepted as a fact. With great respect to the noble Lord, I would suggest that if, after this debate, he reads the two paragraphs again—and he can talk to me if he likes—I think he will come to the conclusion that the Royal Commission
546
were just making two statements of fact and were not drawing the conclusion which he has been drawing.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, if what my noble friend, with his experience, says is right, then that may well come as some considerable reassurance to some people; but it was certainly my impression that it was not only the Press which had been led to take that view, to put that interpretation on what was said; it was indeed some people associated quite closely with the sport itself.
My Lords, I should like to turn briefly now to the individual proposals in the Bill. Some of the points I would make are perhaps Committee points, if there is a Committee stage, but the noble Lord, Lord Newall, might value the opportunity to have this sort of notice of them in advance, anyway, so that he can consider them if he wishes to do so. I apologise to your Lordships if a little repetition is necessary, but it is better to say precisely what it is one is talking about in the Bill before one makes a comment upon it. Clause 1 would first of all increase, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Newall, the number of races on which betting may take place on any day—that is, any ordinary day—from eight to 10. That is in line with the recommendation of the Royal Commission at paragraph 10.48, it was advocated by the club and the federation, and it is referred to in the report at paragraph 10.47(iv). Then, Clause 1 would increase the number of races on which betting could take place on any special betting day from 16 to 20. I understand that that particular recommendation does not appear to have been made by the Royal Commission itself, and it does not appear to have been put forward in the evidence of the club to the Royal Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Newall, has gone some way, I think, towards explaining that, but I am wondering why that did not form part of the evidence to the Royal Commission, and perhaps that is something which we can have a further look at if we are given the opportunity.
I also see that under the present law—that is to say, specifically, the 1963 Act—there are two limits to the races on which betting may take place. On any normal day (if I may call it a normal day) it is eight races. The Act also states that the

547
meeting must last for not more than four hours. On any special betting day, it is 16 races. The Act also says that the meeting must last for not more than eight hours. To the uninitiated, among whom I must put myself, it might have seemed logical, if the number of races were being increased, to propose increasing the number of hours of the meeting, the duration, as well; and I was wondering why the opportunity was not being taken to seek changes there, so that the maximum duration was kept in line with the number of races on which betting was permitted on normal and special days.
Then, my Lords, Clause 2 of the Bill deals with the only other proposed changes in the law. It would, as the noble Lord, Lord Newall, has explained, increase the number of special betting days from four to six, for the reasons he has given; and it empowers the Secretary of State to increase that number further by order, which order would be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure in your Lordships' House and in another place. The proposal to increase the number of special betting days from four to six was recommended at paragraph 10.48, it was put forward by the club and the federation, and it is referred to at paragraph 10.47(ii) of the Royal Commission's report. But in referring to those proposals the Commission makes it clear that the increase suggested was,
"… to cover the recently-created Bank Holidays ",
and that the power to order further increases was,
"… to cover any future increases in public holidays ".
But the Bill itself does not make any reference to bank or public holidays, and so does not seek to restrict the increases simply to those covering such holidays. I wonder whether that is intentional, and, if so, why; or, if not, whether it might not be right to put in a reservation of that kind.
My Lords, the Royal Commission, in recommending the proposals in this Bill (save for one exception to which I have referred) described them as harmless and as providing for flexibility. It is obviously a matter for your Lordships to decide upon, and from this Bench I would only add that I certainly would
548
not wish to urge your Lordships to deny a Second Reading to this Bill, which seems to have the interests of the sport at heart.
6.26 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I am sure we are all indebted to my noble friend Lord Newall for the helpful explanation that he has given of the purpose of this Bill and of the way in which these modest changes will assist greyhound racing. He was ably supported by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who is able to speak with such authority on greyhound racing; and also by my noble friend Lord Ward of Witley, who speaks with such knowledge and with great conciseness on this subject. In parenthesis, I felt, if I may say so, that both my noble friends put the situation with admirable brevity.
In your Lordships' House there is very much expertise on this particular subject on all sides of the House, and it is therefore with much pleasure that I come forward to represent the point of view of the Home Office. As my noble friend has said, the restrictions on greyhound racing date from 1934—the date of the Act referred to by my noble friend Lord Ward of Witley—when the greyhound racing tracks provided the main opportunity for cash betting in urban areas. By limiting the number of greyhound race meetings and the number of races per meeting, it was possible to limit the opportunities for cash betting; but now that there are licensed betting offices in every town, providing ample opportunity to place a cash bet, the restrictions on greyhound racing no longer have the same significance. Moreover, the financial situation of the greyhound racing industry has suffered considerably from the introduction of off-course cash betting.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary, in a debate in another place on the report of the Royal Commission on Gambling, said that he knew that many of those concerned with greyhound racing were disappointed that the Royal Commission had not recommended a greyhound racing levy, but he agreed with the Commission that a case had not been made out. He did, however, concur with the Royal Commission's proposals for some modest increases in the permitted number of races per meeting, and in the number of meetings allowed per year, which he

549
understood would help significantly the profitability of the sport. I totally reject the point of view, suggested to your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has done nothing. He has made very positive proposals. However, at the present time the Government are unable to find time for legislation which they are at present framing. I am now able to confirm that the Government support the principle of this Bill. Indeed, it would have been the Government's intention to make these changes in more general legislation on gambling when opportunity permitted.
My noble friend Lord Newall referred to the power that the Bill would give to the Secretary of State to increase further the number of special betting days. Perhaps I might explain that the power is in fact to vary by order the number of special betting days, not necessarily in an upward direction, although I appreciate that the greyhound racing industry would have strong views on any decrease.
My noble friend also referred to the very low charge which can be made to on-course bookmakers at greyhound race courses. The charge is limited to not more than five times the normal entry fee for members of the public. While in theory the charge is inflation-proof, since it increases as the price of admission increases, it is claimed that admission charges for the public have to be kept as low as possible so as not to deter custom and that the bookmakers benefit considerably from this.
Reference has been made in a considerable number of speeches this afternoon to the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission considered both the National Greyhound Racing Club's representations on this point and the National Association of Bookmakers' opposition to any change. They rejected the proposal that by increased admission charges the bookmakers should provide more financial support for greyhound racing. They recommended instead some relaxation of the restrictions on greyhound racing such as we are considering today—which is Recommendation No. 44. If these charges are made in the near future they will provide, in advance of more general legislation on gambling, an indication of the financial assistance that the greyhound
550
racing industry can expect from additional races.
As your Lordships will be aware, there is no prospect of Government time being available for a Bill on gambling this Session. But the Government are in agreement with the principle of this Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Newall and are prepared to support it.
A number of points were raised by your Lordships, especially of criticism of the Royal Commission in its findings. I think it would perhaps he inappropriate in a Second Reading debate to dwell at any length on this but I must deal with the particular points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. He raised a personal issue in regard to one of his sporting interests and, although this whole issue is outside the terms of this Bill, he made a very positive suggestion, which was that an organisation which might pursue an investigation into malpractices should be considered. This is not part of the purport of the Bill, but I have no doubt that the NGRC will consider this. His further point was that the prosperity of the greyhound racing industry in Ireland was due both to prize money and to the fact that their legislation and the arrangements in Ireland promoted the industry to a greater extent than we do in this country.
My Lords, I hope that from what I have said it is clear that the intention of the Government is both to support this Bill and to introduce legislation on betting and gambling in a more major Bill in a future Session. We look forward to the further stages of the Bill if your Lordships' House accepts it this afternoon.
Lord NEWALL: My Lords, I shall be brief. I should like to say how grateful I am to noble Lords on all sides of the House who gave the Bill such a good welcome. I am particularly indebted to my noble friends, Lord Ward of Witley and Lord Mancroft who, with their great experience and knowledge, have shown that this is a worthwhile Bill. I was very encouraged by the welcome given by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. I think we can all agree that this Bill does not go far enough and that there is a long way to go; but we must take it step by step to cover the things which we think can be dealt with satisfactorily. I was interested in the historical aspects that the noble Lord raised.

551
The noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, brought up one or two slightly "Committee" points; but I agree that there may not be too many opportunities to discuss them and I would mention one of them. It is not necessary at the moment to hold the four special betting days on Bank Holidays. That is clearly laid down and therefore there is no need to make any change in that at the moment. Lastly, my noble friend Lord Sandys also gave the Bill a very kind welcome from the Home Office. For that I am grateful and I trust your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

THE TORNADO: DEVELOPMENT AND POTENTIAL SALES
6.35 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on the present Tornado programme and its potential sales, and on the possibility of a future development programme. The noble Earl said: My Lords, in raising the subject of Tornado tonight with my noble friend the Minister, I was to have thanked in advance a number of speakers whom I had understood might be taking part, but I suspect they have already left. Tornado is a unique product and has won already a number of "firsts" in the annals of our history. It is the largest single military project ever undertaken by our aerospace industry; it is the first swing-wing aircraft built by the industry; it is one of the few that has escaped the axe of cancellation; it is the first and perhaps the most important fully collaborative European venture, with Germany, Italy and ourselves as partners; and, lastly, it represents the cornerstone upon which our air defence and strike capability will depend over the next decade.
The questions that I should like to put to my noble friend tonight—and I hope that he has a full brief—are really to up-date us on the flight-test programme, its timing for delivery to the RAF, its potential sales abroad and its potential for development. This is perhaps a tall order in a short debate but I hope that my
552
noble friend can cover as much information as possible. I should like also to seek briefly information on the Harrier aircraft about which I have given notice. Anyone who has studied the origins of Tornado will recall that it was conceived 15 years ago through the ingenuity of British designers who had just experienced the cancellation of TSR.2. At that time Tornado was known as the MRCA. Later it became the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft and finally, that having been dropped, it became what is now Tornado, under Panavia.
Its design specification is both highly complicated and demanding. It is demanding because it has to serve the specifications of three air forces. It required a brand new engine, the RB.199, which has been developed by Rolls-Royce and certain European partners. Perhaps my noble friend can say whether the development of that engine now fully meets the required specification. It has immensely complicated and sophisticated equipment which has been provided by equipment companies of all three partners, except for one item which is the terrain scanner. It speaks very well of the capabilities of the home equipment companies. The demand on specification is very wide and for that reason there ar two versions: the ADV, which is the version the RAF have requested, and the IDS which all three partners have requested.
From all accounts, this aircraft is already turning out to be a formidable strike aircraft with its unique flexibility and all-weather, air-to-surface capability. Flight testing, as my noble friend will confirm, began some five years ago. It would be interesting to know from him how up to date the position is and whether he is able to comment on the recent tragic loss of one of the aircraft over the Irish Sea, and perhaps to reassure us of the programme generally. On the production and delivery side, one understands that the production is split between the partners, although assembly is in Germany and England. Production, one reads, is gathering momentum.
Perhaps it is pertinent to refer briefly to an article which appeared in The Times today, reporting the views of the Chief of the Air Staff. I am sure that my noble friend has seen this. Briefly, the article

553
states that the Royal Air Force is short of fighters and needs them quickly. This is perhaps a somewhat dramatic summary of that article. It went on to surmise that these words meant either that there should be an increase in orders for the Tornado or that there should be an earlier delivery date, or both. I hope my noble friend will take this opportunity to expand a little more on what was recently said in another place by his honourable friend about the present delivery dates of the ADV version, and whether industry would find it possible to deliver earlier than is at present expected.
The training of the Tornado squadrons is not a wholly unemotive subject, particularly for those who live in areas where low flying is permitted. One understands that all the training of Tornado squadrons will take place in Britain, from a base in Suffolk. Again it will be of interest to know whether it is expected that there will be an increase in low flying with this aircraft during the training programme or whether the offer which I understand has been made by the Canadians to allow Goose Bay to be used will in fact be accepted.
Turning to the potential export sales, and our current hopes, it will be of interest to know what the position to date now is regarding the United States and indeed other countries. Is there any talk of a NATO fleet requirement on a similar basis to AWACS, or will this involve some joint development programme in the United States? Sales outside the joint development countries are clearly quite vital to the real success of this project. Can my noble friend say when, if one took the gloomy view that no sales were coming, the present production line would finish and when is the critical time when a stretched or modified version of this aircraft has to be considered?
This leads one on to ask my noble friend whether his department now see a necessity to keep designing new airframes when we have reached the stage where manned aircraft have attained the limits of their performance, so that what is required now is the strapping on of an updated missile system rather than a new airframe.
Turning briefly to the Harrier development, one understands that the Royal Air Force has reached an apparent crossroads
554
where they must decide which choice to make on the next version. They have the choice of either the British updated version, known, I believe, as the M5, or the United States McDonnell Douglas version, the AV8B. One is also led to believe that considerable benefits would follow to British industry if the United States Marines were to purchase the AV8B and that an RAF order would obviously help to cement the Marines' order. This is no new argument of persuasion in military aircraft procurement. But it does seem that the concept of the Harrier is proven and that it has an undoubted future and role, and, if McDonnell Douglas are sincere in their desire to collaborate, one hopes a compromise will be found for the benefit and success of the Harrier development. I believe that McDonnell Douglas must now recognise that a compromise is essential on both the technical and design features if the goal for both British Aerospace and the desire of McDonnell Douglas are to be achieved, I hope that my noble friend will say something on this issue.
My final brief and simple point is this: there has been talk in the past of a fighter gap requirement for the Royal Air Force, and perhaps the best option is to buy an existing military aircraft off the shelf from across the Atlantic. I hope that my noble friend can tonight give an unequivocal assurance that Her Majesty's Government are not considering doing any such thing, but will stick with the Tornado. I hardly need to remind my noble friend of the consequences of buying off the shelf in the case of the F1–11 aircraft, when a bill of £450 million was picked up by us taxpayers on its cancellation.
6.45 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I find this extremely interesting because I remember the debate we had on this very issue when the roles were reversed, and my noble friend Lord Winterbottom faced a barrage of criticism that night—I thought most unfairly—especially by spokesmen from the Liberal side. I am not an expert on aircraft although I was an anti-aircraft gunner. Every time I see these planes become airborne I shudder to think of the damage which can be done. They are very fine aircraft. The Tornado has shown already that it is not only a fine aircraft

555
from the point of view of the defence of this country; it is a very fine aircraft which can earn us a lot of money. I have a copy of the Financial Times report, an excellent article, dated 22nd March this year, by Michael Donne, their aerospace correspondent. It says:
" More than 70,000 workers in more than 500 companies are engaged in this £8 billion tripartite European programme to build over 800 multi-role combat aircraft through the 1980s for the RAF, the Luftwaffe, the German Navy and the Italian Air Force. The first production model is due to fly this summer ".
This shows the importance of it not only from the point of view of the United Kingdom but for defence within NATO. I am glad that there has now been a change of heart. Many people criticise Tornado, although senior chiefs of staff, who are experts, have always had faith in this aircraft. I am glad they have. I know that the noble Earl has quite rightly probed the Minister, as he did the previous Minister and he has asked for certain assurances. All I can say from reading the material on this is that it is an aircraft of which we should be proud. I do not think that we should waste any more time of the House tonight. This is a very good aircraft. It will provide both defence and attack, and all of us who wish well of our own security hope that it will succeed. There are also the other benefits, to which I have referred, for this country and others as well. I hope that no one will indulge in niggardly criticism of a very fine project, which I hope and trust will succeed.
6.47 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of DEFENCE (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal): My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Peart, for the very robust ending to his speech with which I heartily concur. I also should like to congratulate my noble friend. He must almost have achieved a record of packing in a number of technical questions in a short speech. I can assure him that I am adequately briefed, but like the noble Lord, Lord Peart, I do not want to trespass too far on the patience of the House by going too deeply into all the questions he has asked—even supposing I knew all the answers or was at liberty to give them, even if I knew them.
An important point worth making right at the outset is that we are inclined to get
556
a little gloomy about international collaboration and this project is an excellent example of a successful part of tri-national collaboration in as about a difficult an area as can be found. It enables me to stress the importance that we attach to making a success of these kinds of programmes while without in any way under-rating the difficulty of achieving success.
The noble Lord, Lord Peart, pointed out that here we have a programme for 800 aeroplanes. It is generally conceded that multi-national programmes do slightly increase the total development cost because of the international nature of them. Nevertheless, when you spread that over 800 as opposed to something like half—that size of an order—the unit cost must benefit from it. This kind of international collaborative effort enables us to maintain the essential research and development capabilities which we need and we can share in the development of a far wider range of equipment and techniques than we could achieve if we did it alone.
We get the benefits of spreading the development costs over a longer production line and in that way we achieve economies of scale in production and we fill the objective of getting common equipment, which has all kinds of advantages from the operational point of view and from that of logistic support. We also have an advantage from the training point of view. So here we have a very modern, very sophisticated aircraft, which is sometimes known in the Ministry as "an all-singing all-dancing aeroplane ", rather irreverently. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, is quite right: It was called the multi-role combat aircraft. Inevitably, in the best Ministry of Defence jargon, it acquired various initials such as MRCA, IDS and all the rest of it which they always enjoy doing. It is now called the Tornado, which makes it more manageable and also a little more appealing, I think.
The problems should not be under-rated—the problems which have been successfully surmounted in producing this aeroplane. As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said, it is a two-seater, variable geometry aircraft, powered by two RB.199 engines. It is intended to meet the needs of the RAF, the Italian Air Force, the Luftwaffe and the German Navy for some years ahead. As far as we are

557
concerned, this will be the most numerous aircraft in front-line service from the 1980s onwards. It represents a considerable improvement in the RAF's capability and will assist the maintenance of their effective contribution to NATO.
The Mark I version which is known as the IDS (the inter-diction and strike and reconnaissance aircraft) is the first one. This is the collaborative one: this has the terrain-following radar system for automatic flight at very low levels, which is considered essential for getting in under the enemy radar. In this role, this aeroplane will replace the Vulcans and the Buccaneers in the strike attack role and will replace the Canberra in the reconnaissance role. Coming to the mark II, the air defence variant, this is only a variant in the United Kingdom at the present time. This aeroplane has a new air interception radar and it will carry both medium- and short-range air-to-air guided missiles. In this role, the Tornado takes over from the Phantom and the Lightning for the United Kingdom and the surrounding seas, and indeed in the Central Region of Europe.
So we are confident—and I am happy to say that we are confident, because we had better be!—that in the 1980s the RAF will be able to rely on the Tornado to fulfil all the roles for which it was designed and it will be the mainstay of the fleet. The order currently is for 385 aircraft for the RAF, of which 220 will be the IDS and 165 will be the ADV. I am sorry, my Lords, I am falling into the "initial" trap which I always try to avoid.
Your Lordships will be aware that this Government have been concerned recently with tackling the problem of improving the air defences of this country. As my noble friend said, steps were announced in another place by the Sectetary of State for the RAF on 27th July. Studies are still continuing to identify the possibilities of longer-term improvements, which would certainly include the possibility of an increase in the number of front-line fighters. Studies are also going on into the possibility of speeding up the introduction into service of the F2 version of the aeroplane; but this is not a simple matter and it will be a little time before we are able to give a decision on that. However, I think I can give the noble
558
Lord what he calls the "unequivocal assurance" that he is looking for. Regarding the purchase, or leasing, as has been suggested, of American fighter aircraft, we do not believe at the present time that this is a realistic option. One of the reasons for this is that we have a pilot shortage and it would take time to provide the training and the logistic support that would be required if we were to bring into service a new aeroplane. So I have to re-emphasise the RAF's total commitment to the F2 Tornado, which is the aeroplane they want and which they believe is most likely to meet the threat. The question is how quickly an adequate number of these aircraft can be brought into service.
As regards development, this is proceeding satisfactorily. There has been the inevitable slippage, but basically this is now going well, and I am happy to be able to tell the noble Lord that, despite a very regrettable accident to one of the experimental aircraft—the development aircraft—it has been possible to spread the development programme over the other aircraft and that the delays resulting from that accident are thought to be minimal.
Of the IDS version, which is the one currently being developed to the production stage, there are five development air-craft operating in the United Kingdom, at Warton and at Boscombe Down, six development aircraft in Germany and three in Italy. Between them they have done over 3,000 hours, and the official test centres of the three nations arc involved in flight testing leading to the initial clearance of the aircraft for use by the Services.
What the jargon calls "the flight envelope" has now been extended out to beyond Mach 2, with excellent flying characteristics being reported throughout the envelope of speed and altitude. There has been at the same time all the testing of the very complicated avionics, and it is believed that this will be a potent weapons system and also a very valuable addition to NATO. The assessment of the weapon carriage and delivery systems is still continuing, and this covers the very large range of armaments which is to be carried by the aircraft of the three nations. We believe that the combination of the weapon system and the terrain-following radar will provide us with an aircraft

559
with a capability of exceptionally accurate delivery. But the detailed weapons system may vary to some extent from country to country.
Production of the IDS was started in mid-1976 and the first production air-craft made its maiden flight at British Aerospace Warton in July of this year. That aeroplane is now at the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment at Boscombe Down, where it is undergoing compatibility testing of the production systems. A further 18 aircraft are now in the final stages of assembly. Contracts have been let for the first three batches of production aircraft, totalling 314 aircraft, of which 146 will be for the Royal Air Force. I do not think I should apologise for trotting out all these figures, because I think that that is really what the noble Earl was after, but I accept that they are reasonably indigestible. We hope that initial deliveries of aircraft to the Services of the participating nations will commence during 1980, so that training of Service personnel can begin.
This leads me on to another rather satisfactory aspect of the collaboration on this project, because the training of Service personnel, as the noble Earl mentioned, is to take place at the Trinational Tornado Training Establishment, the TTTE, located at RAF Cottesmore. This, in itself, is a NATO collaborative exercise and the collaborative character of the project is reflected in the support area, where spares and the aircraft's ground equipment are being procured on a common basis. In some cases, there will be a single manufacturer who is producing individual items for all the aircraft to be procured by the three nations.
So far as the ADV—which is the exclusively British aircraft—is concerned, full development of that began in 1976 and the first prototype aircraft made its maiden flight on 27th October this year. It reached a supersonic speed in that flight—I think that the pilot must have been a brave man—and it is displaying very good characteristics. The two other prototype aircraft will fly during 1980, and the F2 Tornado will enter service in the mid-80s with the fourth batch of production aircraft. As the noble Earl said, the aircraft is being developed by the firm specially set up under German
560
registration, called Panavia. This consists of British Aerospace, Messerschmitt-Bolkow-Blohm of Germany and Aeritalia of Italy. Development and production of the RB.199 engine is being under-taken by Turbo-Union, which is a consortium of Rolls-Royce, Motoren and Turbinen Union of Germany and Fiat of Italy; and, of course, there are very many aerospace companies right across Europe which are involved as sub-contractors to these various main contractors.
As the noble Lord, Lord Peart, pointed out, this has great importance for industry in this country and I have some figures on that. The airframe assembly and other work will involve at peak some 12,000 employees at the BAe factories, mainly at Preston in Lancashire, while the engine work will involve up to 8,000 workers at Rolls-Royce. A further 10,000 will be involved on equipment, plus further work on avionics.
So far as sales abroad are concerned the programme, with a total of 809 air-craft, does not depend upon making sales overseas, but, clearly, it would be a highly satisfactory development if we were able to sell the aircraft overseas. No orders have currently been taken for the aeroplane. However, it is only just beginning to show what it can do. I think that there is a certain amount of interest being developed in this aircraft, and we have every confidence that this interest is likely to increase. It is an expensive aeroplane and many nations think that they would like a cheaper aeroplane for some of the other jobs which they visualise being able to do. What very often happens nowa-days, regrettably, is that you start out to design what you think will be a cheaper aeroplane, but by the time you have finished you begin to pinch yourself and wish that you had bought what looked a very expansive aeroplane at the beginning.
Engine development is going on satisfactorily. The engine was specially developed for the aeroplane. It is a very advanced design of engine, a very versatile engine, and we believe that this will also have sales potential outside the Tornado project itself. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, wrote to me apologising for the fact that he could not stay to the end of this debate. He was particularly interested to know what

561
benefits we expected to derive from sub-sequent sales of technology developed for the aeroplane, and I think that this is possibly one. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, extended his Question somewhat and I shall try to do the same, if I do not trespass too much on the patience of the House.
The question of stretching the Tornado is something that is quite a possibility. It has become a habit lately, because of the difficulty of developing new aircraft and new airframes, to consider the possibility of a major mid-life improvement to an aeroplane, and with a successful development like this that is clearly an option which could have considerable attraction. Beyond the Tornado—and this is another point which the noble Earl raised—I think we envisage there is still going to be a further aeroplane. We are in active discussions with the Federal Republic of Germany and with France about a future tactical aircraft for the 1990's and a particular requirement of that aeroplane is a high degree of agility. This is one of those examples where it is hoped to get a simpler and cheaper aircraft, but one wonders whether we may find ourselves asking, "Why don't we live with the devil we know? "
The noble Earl mentioned the Harrier. This is almost a question for a debate in itself because it is quite a large subject. The RAF continues to be entranced by the possibilities and the importance of an aircraft which does not rely on lengthy runways, and I venture to believe that this is an idea which is increasingly commending itself to our allies in NATO, who are getting more and more nervous about what they call the airfield denial weapons which are currently in development. The Air Force is determined to stay with the Harrier, and with the concept of short take-off and vertical landing, up until the end of the century.
As the noble Earl said, there are two possibilities for upgrading the existing Harrier. On the one hand, we have the British Aerospace Mark 5 design, which
562
incorporates the "big wing", and on the other the McDonnell Douglas AV8B. Reaching a decision between these two—and there is no possibility of the RAF taking both of these aircraft into service; I really do not think that that is a possibility—has, regrettably, been made that much more difficult because the McDonnell Douglas prototype aeroplane with the new wing crashed recently, and this has delayed the evaluation. But one hopes that one or other of these Harriers would certainly be taken on by the RAF. As yet, it is impossible to say which it will be. Again we hope that we shall be able to work out a collaborative programme with the Americans.
Noble Lords will have heard noises about the US Marines saying that it will not be put into their programme unless we buy it. We should very much regret it if the AV8B were taken out of their programme, but clearly we cannot commit ourselves until we know which of these is going to be the most satisfactory for RAF use.
I have necessarily ranged somewhat wide of the Question. That is the fault of the noble Earl who asked the Question, not mine. Nevertheless, I apologise; I have done my best. We believe that this is an example of the effective use of the resources in the defence budget, and we shall do our best to continue to seek cost-effective ways of meeting the very real and increasing threat which we see. We believe that the Tornado is a shining example of what can be achieved if there is sufficient determination regarding a collaborative programme.

SCOTTISH EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
SALE OF GOODS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.