My Lords I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have approved the North Atlantic fares adopted by IATA.

My Lords, can the noble Lord tell me the date of the approval, the amount and placing of publicity given and how the ordinary travelling public were to know that such approval had been given?

Not without notice, my Lords. I think the noble Baroness should bear in mind that the approval by Her Majesty's Government is not the only condition necessary to put these fares into operation. The fares have to be approved by several other Governments, including that of the U.S.A.; and I have already told your Lordships that the procedures in the U.S.A. are apt to take rather a long time.

My Lords, it amazes me more each time I ask this Question. Can the noble Lord please inform me, and through this House the general public, how people are to know that these fares are available a week on Saturday, which is April 1, when they have received no information to this effect? Secondly, can the noble Lord tell me for how long reservations have been made for these flights? And can he tell me, thirdly, how people have made these prior arrangements and reservations, or how it was possible to make them?

My Lords, to deal with the last question first, as I have told the noble Baroness before the fares to come into being on the inclusive tour basis were advertised in advance, with the caveat that they were subject to approval. The noble Baroness is right: there is a real difficulty here. But it is not a difficulty of the Government's making. If by any chance the approvals have not been given by April 1, then one possibility is that the existing fares will be carried forward for a time. In that case, so far as the existing fares are higher than the new ones, passengers will be liable to be charged the difference. That is only one possibility. This is unsatisfactory; but it is inherent in the length of time that it took to reach agreement in IATA.

My Lords, "unsatisfactory" is a conservative statement of the position. May I ask the noble Lord, seriously, whether he does not agree that this is a mockery? I have been asking him Questions about these particular flights from the end of last year. Is he aware that it was I who told him that the advertisements were in the newspapers, with the words, "subject to Government approval", when he told me that B.O.A.C. could not do this sort of thing? I have the references here. Is he now telling the House seriously that these fares will be available from April 1; that the airlines assumed that the Government would agree, and allowed people to book? Does he not think that the general public should be informed when cheap fares are available and when these can be booked?

My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, may I suggest that his difficulty, partly at least, is because the noble Baroness does not quite understand the method of approval of these fares? Is the noble Lord aware that all licences granted for the operation of services across the North Atlantic are in accordance with what is called "Provision one", which allows inter alia for the application of fares from time to time approved by IATA? Do not the Government therefore apply blanket approval to all IATA approved fares?

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend to a large extent. But any new fares agreed within IATA still need the approval of the Government. I am entirely sympathetic to the noble Baroness. I think that everyone has quite good reason for misgivings about the situation; but the fact is that in these particular negotiations endeavours were being made to introduce fares along the kind of lines that the noble Baroness has been suggesting. It was partly because of that that the difficulty in reaching agreement arose; and when agreement was at last reached there were also the changes in exchange rates last December, with the further necessity of harmonising the fares as between different nations at that time. It has been a very unfortunate conjunction of events, but this cannot be ascribed to any particular Government, because Governments act only when the fares come to them for approval.

My Lords, we must leave it at that; but the noble Lord is in a complete mess. Is he aware that the House is lenient with me because he is obviously in a complete mess? Can the noble Lord answer two simple questions? At what date did the Government approve these fares? Can the general public, through what the noble Lord has said to-day, assume that as from April 1 they will be able to use these cheap fares and that they can get tickets to-day?

My Lords, it is difficult to say what the fares will be, but there is every hope that they will be at the rates at which they have been booked. I am sorry that the noble Baroness should think that I am in a mess. What has happened is that all Governments have been put into a difficulty, and the whole of the public has been put in a difficulty, by arrangements which were quite beyond the control of Her Majesty's Government.

My Lords, may I have the date of approval by the Government? I did ask for that in my question.

My Lords, the noble Baroness's Question says:

"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have now approved the North Atlantic fares structure as agreed originally by IATA …".

My Lords, I am referring to my first supplementary question. May I have the date of approval?

My Lords, I thought, with respect, that I replied to the noble Baroness that I should need notice of that question.

My Lords, would it not appear that April 1 seems to be a very appropriate date for this?

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, the Government do not intend to introduce new legislation on abortion in advance of the Report of the Lane Committee.

My Lords, if the noble Lord will look at the Question carefully, he will see that I am not asking him to introduce new legislation on abortion; I am asking him to vary the rules laid down for operation by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. Is he aware that the Report of the Birmingham Pregnancy Advisory Service, which received a good deal of publicity when it appeared, alleged that there is a steady trickle of cases of women who are on supplementary benefit, or whose husbands are on supplementary benefit, and who have been refused an abortion in spite of the intervention of the B.P.A.S.? In these cases, if the woman goes forward to term she is entitled to free ante-natal treatment and free confinement, and in most cases the Supplementary Benefits Commission is responsible thereafter for the upkeep of the child. Is it not therefore quite stupid for the S.B.C. to refuse to pay any part of the cost falling on the woman or her family, including, in most cases, the cost of fares to take the woman to the clinic where the abortion is to be carried out?

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, must know, the Supplementary Benefits Commission does not exist for this sort of purpose at all. But the point is that his Question relates to abortion, and the facts are that we know that there are shortcomings and difficulties in relation to the Abortion Act. These have been referred to the Committee under the chairmanship of Mrs. Justice Lane and we think it right to await the outcome of their deliberations.

My Lords, the noble Lord is quite wrong. The Supplementary Benefits Commission—

Order!

Is he aware that the Supplementary Benefits Commission exists for any purpose laid down by Parliament? What I am asking him to do is to widen the power of the Supplementary Benefits Commission. If he is not willing to do that, will he at least explain why some Supplementary Benefits Commission offices pay the cost of the fares for women to travel to the clinic for an abortion and others do not?

My Lords, why on earth does the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, say that he is not asking for legislation when his Question starts:

"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will seek to introduce legislation …"?

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Conesford. I answered the Question as I thought it was on the Order Paper: we do not intend to introduce new legislation. I admit that I said "on abortion", but equally we do not intend to introduce new legislation concerning the Supplementary Benefits Commission where it is related to abortion.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, whether he has read the Question carefully, because the women who are described in that Question cannot possibly wait for the Lane Commission to report? Is he aware that abortions have to be done within a certain limited period? Is he further aware that, far from our waiting for the Lane Commission to report, these women should be given the highest priority because their need is very great?

My Lords, a great many women are being given the highest priority. There were over 54,000 women who received abortions in National Health Service hospitals in 1971. But there are difficulties, and we know there are difficulties; and we know, as obviously the noble Baroness does, that there are varying reasons for those difficulties. It was because of this that we set up the Lane Committee and we think it right to await their recommendations.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the women mentioned in the Question cannot get into the National Health Service hospitals?

My Lords, a great many women do get into the National Health Service hospitals.

Oh, really!

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord could clarify a point. Could he tell the House whether the Supplementary Benefits Commission at present has powers to meet the fares of the women concerned, in view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, says that some offices of the Commission do pay them and others do not? Secondly, could he say whether the Commission has discretion to pay the cost of abortions that are arranged by charitable trusts?

My Lords, there is no question of the Supplementary Benefits Commission paying the cost of an abortion. I am afraid I do not know the answer about the payment of fares; it was not in the original Question and I should like to go into it. If I may, I will write to the noble Lord and also communicate with the noble Baroness.

My Lords, can the Minister say whether it is the policy of the Government that women who are not well off and may be receiving supplementary benefit should have lower prospects of getting an abortion under the Abortion Act than those who are better off?

No, my Lords, certainly not. They have an equal opportunity within the National Health Service, which is what I am responsible for. I am sorry that the noble Baroness was not being as helpful as she was the last time we had this little debate when she suggested that family planning was really the answer to this problem.

My Lords, I agree that family planning is the answer. Will the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, be good enough to study the Birmingham Pregnancy Service Advisory Service report carefully, and in particular look at the cases in Appendix B which shows that there is no definite rule laid down for the Supplementary Benefits Commission as to whether or not it should pay the fares? Even if he is not willing to introduce legislation, at least this matter ought to be sorted out.

My Lords, I will certainly go into the question of the payment of fares.

My Lords, as the Lane Committee is not likely to report within at least nine months, is the noble Lord aware of the enormous amount of hardship which will arise in the meantime, and can nothing more be done to try to alleviate that hardship?

My Lords, we have an Abortion Act on the Statute Book, and we do our best within the means available in the National Health Service to meet the demand. I cannot go further than that.

My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that, as a result of the enormous number of abortions that are taking place in National Health hospitals, a considerable number of women who need to go into those hospitals for other forms of surgery are being kept out?

My Lords, yes. I am grateful to my noble friend for pointing that out. There are many problems in connection with this Act. This, I repeat, is a reason why we set up the Committee.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

None, my Lords. I understand that Miss Devlin told the French authorities that she was not a British subject. I further understand that she was travelling on an Irish passport.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that his Answer does not seem to me to reject the suggestion? Whatever our views may be about Miss Devlin, is not a more fundamental issue raised now? Is the noble Marquess aware that I should have objected if it were Mr. Enoch Powell or Mr. Ronald Bell? Is it not a case of the rights of Parliament, and an affront to Parliament, as well as to an individual?

My Lords, would the noble Marquess not agree that any representations to the French Government should suggest that it would have been a kind act of international friendship if they had kept Miss Devlin in France?

My Lords, I do not think I had better comment on the noble Baroness's last remark. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, I think that all these cases must be taken on their merits. Certainly in this case Miss Devlin made on approach whatsoever to any British authority, either in France or in this country, regarding her visit.

My Lords, in view of the fact that no one can sit in the House of Commons who is not a British subject, was Miss Devlin's statement incorrect?

No my Lords; I do not think that it was incorrect—although I think that is something which my noble friend at the Home Office would be better qualified to answer than I am. I understand that if Miss Devlin is a citizen of the Irish Republic, under the Ireland Act 1949 she is entitled to sit in the House of Commons.

My Lords, would the noble Marquess not agree that President Pompidou was a little premature in this matter? Could he not have had a referendum on the subject?

My Lords, does the noble Marquess believe—in fact, does any noble Lord believe—that Miss Devlin was unable to speak for herself?

My Lords, should we not now regard Miss Devlin as an export reject?

My Lords, is it not the case that, even if Miss Devlin said she was a citizen of the Republic of Ireland, as a Member of the British Parliament she is also a citizen of this country? And in that case, is it not the duty of Her Majesty's Government to make some protest when a Member of the British Parliament is excluded from another country?

No, my Lords; I do not think that that is necessarily so. Any Government is entitled to exclude anybody from entering its country if it wishes to do so. I do not wish to comment on the action of the French Government in this respect, but in this particular case, as I have said, there seemed to be no question at all that Miss Devlin was not anxious to involve the British Government in any way.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, lay-bys are not provided on motorways, but there are continuous hard shoulders for use in emergency. Service areas are provided for drivers to stop and rest. Separate picnic areas are provided at some of these service areas.

My Lords, out of courtesy, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer, but would he not agree that it is completely unsatisfactory? Is not the position that on our motorways—and I happened to drive on many of them last week, including the M.1, M.3, M.4, M.5 and M.6—there is not a single place where one can pull in except in the case of emergency? Is it not desirable that there should be opportunities for rest on the motorways? Might not more such opportunities contribute to road safety, particularly in circumstances like those obtaining on the M.1 last Thursday morning?

My Lords, I do not see how fog has any relevance to the noble Lord's Question. With regard to the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, I think he is aware of the fact that about every 25 miles—and this is the Department's policy—there are service areas in which drivers on the M roads can find all the facilities that they require. It is also the policy of the Department to reserve what are called in-fill sites in between these areas, and even now between the Watford Gap service area and the Newport Pagnell service area we are developing such a site. We develop wherever the need is shown. About every five miles there are intersections and anyone needing to go off an M road can do so there.

My Lords, is not this a question of encouraging people to rest after travelling distances on the motorway rather than one of needing to go off? While we can pull off if we so desire, would there not be greater encouragement to rest? Would the noble Lord not agree, probably from his own experience, how desirable it is on the continental motorways to pull into a very desirable piece of landscape and to rest for half an hour?

My Lords, I quite understand the noble Lord's point. But these motorways are designed for the transmission of traffic. This is a matter of planning half an hour ahead. The noble Lord must plan half an hour ahead when he is passing a service area. It is as simple as that.

My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the normal type of lay-by would be entirely unsatisfactory on the motorways, particularly from the point of view of joining the main stream of traffic? Already trouble is caused at the intersections where traffic meets.

My Lords. I am grateful to the noble Lord for putting that point, because the more accesses there are on motorways the more danger there is.

My Lords, if I may intervene on that point, would it not be more desirable to have a lay-by or picnic area that goes deeper off the side of the motorway than the shallow lay-by to which my noble friend has referred?

My Lords, when we first started these service areas they were only some 10 to 15 acres in size, which I agree with the noble Lord does not give much depth for picnic areas. In the new policy we have service areas of 30 to 40 acres, which allows for picnic areas. Five picnic areas are already in being, and two more are being developed.

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Third Report from the Select Committee be now considered.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now agreed to.

My Lords, may I say a word on this Report? Your Lordships will see that in Item 2 the Offices Committee recommend that as many Peers as possible should be issued with photographic passes on a voluntary basis. Your Lordships may recall that last week my noble friend the Chief Whip drew attention to the fact that photographic pass equipment was installed in the Royal Gallery and urged your Lordships to take advantage of this and acquire passes. I am very glad to say that as a result of my noble friend's statement about a hundred of your Lordships have in fact availed themselves of this facility. I should perhaps add that they include the noble Earl the Leader of the House, and that the result was a remarkable and flattering portrait on his pass. I should like, if I may, to take this opportunity to remind your Lordships of the help which every Member of this House can give to our security staff by acquiring one of these passes. Perhaps I should also add that the pass equipment is again installed in the Royal Gallery and will be available between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. on all Sitting Days this week. This is entirely on a voluntary basis, but I would urge those of your Lordships who have not yet received a pass to acquire one.

My Lords, the House will be very grateful for the words which the Leader of the House has just delivered on this matter. On behalf of my noble friends on this side of the House, I support his plea to noble Lords who may be present, or who may read our debates to have their photographs taken; and I hope that they will have the same degree of satisfaction as has been afforded to the noble Earl. I hope it will be understood that this is on a voluntary basis and in no way restricts a noble Lord's right to attend this House, whether or not he possesses a photographic pass. I think I am correct in saying that when the House of Lords Select Committee considered this matter we agreed that it would be for a period and that the question of whether or not the process should be continued would be subject to review. On that basis, we on this side of the House fully support what the noble Earl has said and appeal to all colleagues to have their photographs taken and produce their passes in order to assist the security forces.

My Lords, may I endorse what the two noble Lords have said, in particular because we have quite a large number of new people involved in the security forces and the police of this House? I am quite sure that this process will help them in the very difficult task which they discharge so courteously.

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl the Leader of the House and to the noble Lords, the Leaders of the Parties opposite, for what they have said in support of the Offices Committee's recommendation about security.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

moved the following Amendment:

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity of explaining to him, possibly a little more fully than I did at the Committee stage, the Government's view on this matter which I said I would look into. Before I do so, I wonder whether I may be permitted to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, as I understand that he has been chosen as part of a Parliamentary ski-ing team to ski against the Swiss. I wish him well. I hope he will use the same prowess in chasing his athletic opponents as he does his political opponents—and I hope he will do so with more chance of success. In this context I hope he will go like a human dynamo.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for his embarrassing reference. My only duty in this connection is to go downhill as fast as I can.

My Lords, I hope that will refer only to the noble Lord's athletic career and not to his political one.

The noble Lord has drawn attention very clearly to the point which he has in mind. There is no dispute that a new generating station will use less fuel than would the older capacity which would otherwise have been used. Quite rightly the noble Lord asks that these facts should be taken into account when calculating the Government contributions to the additional costs of the Boards. I can assure the noble Lord that there has never been any question of not taking such benefits into account, and this point was most carefully considered in reaching agreement over the advancement of Ince. Benefits will also he taken into account in all other agreements concluded by my right honourable friend under Clause 2.

But we must not overlook the fact that there are also serious risks of potential losses when bringing forward investment. First, it commits the Board concerned to an agreement on compensation which assumes that the station would have been ordered had there been no advancement of the project on a particular date. If circumstances were to change—for example, a reduced forecast of demand—it may well be that the Board would, when that date was reached, have decided to defer the order for the station: and to that extent the period of advancement in the agreement (which is to be used to calculate compensation and to define the Government's commitment) may be an underestimate. In other words, the Board may be advancing the order by a longer period than that actually agreed with the Government and the additional premature interest costs will therefore be greater than those assumed.

Secondly, by ordering early, the Board may be losing an opportunity to incorporate later design modifications which would have brought benefits in further reductions of fuel costs or increased reliability. Thirdly, there are premature and additional salary costs in the earlier manning of the station. Even the benefits themselves are to some extent uncertain in both timing and amount. For example, the commitment to a particular fuel in a station order would deny the opportunity to take advantage of any relative changes of cost and availability between fuels which may later occur.

For all these reasons, my Lords, it has been thought right in the case of Ince to conclude that these risks of potential losses offset the potential benefits. The agreement of the notional period of advance of 18 months also takes into account the uncertainty of the true period of advance. As the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, will no doubt acknowledge, the techniques of discounted cash flow can be used—and they have been used—to ascertain the likely outcome of the accelerated investment and to compare it with the original proposal, taking into account all the additional costs and benefits. The Government have agreed with the Electricity Council that in the case of Ince the method adopted of making payments to the Council of sums to cover the interest on the total capital which it will have to borrow over the period of advance is a simple method of calculating a contribution which is at once fair to both parties and at the same time is not a disproportionate sum for the Government to pay for providing so much employment so quickly. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that these benefits have been and are being taken into account together with the risks of additional losses. I hope that this assurance will enable the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment.

My Lords, we have had a most clear assurance from the noble Earl that the object desired in the Amendment is being met and will be met. I particularly note the fact and agree with the noble Earl that the 18 months is a very relevant point in this connection. Having regard to that ample assurance, I am grateful to the noble Earl and ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Windlesham, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.

My Lords, the four Amendments on the list are all Government Amendments and I am going to ask the House to agree with all four of them. I think they really are all technical, and although I am prepared to give a full description of them if need be, I do not think it is necessary. The one for which I now seek approval is No. 1, which is a Scottish Amendment. It relates to a drafting defect and brings into line the power of the Court of Session and the sheriff court to vary a Scottish order which has been sent overseas for enforcement. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.

My Lords, this Amendment is linked with No. 4, and they apply only to Northern Ireland. The Amendment in the Schedule enables an overseas order registered in a magistrates' court under the Bill to be registered for enforcement in the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland. The Amendment to Clause 8(2) secures that when an order is so registered it can be enforced only through the High Court. These Amendments bring the position in Northern Ireland into line with that in England and Wales. I beg to move.

My Lords, this Amendment removes a doubt that the arrears due on an overseas order which has been revoked might not be recoverable under the Bill. I beg to move.

My Lords, I have explained this Amendment, which is linked with No. 2. I beg to move.

My Lords, I beg to move, That the Draft Civil Aviation Policy Guidance, laid before the House on February 24, be approved. Your Lordships will recollect that the main objectives which the Civil Aviation Authority is required by the Civil Aviation Act 1971 to pursue in carrying out its functions under the Act are stated in Section 3(1), and that Section 3(2) enables the Secretary of State from time to time to give guidance to the Authority, subject to the approval of Parliament, under Section 3(3), on the performance of those functions. It is then the duty of the Authority to perform those functions in accordance with that guidance, The purpose of this Motion is to seek the approval of your Lordships for the guidance set out in White Paper, Cmnd. 4899.

The Civil Aviation Authority will start to exercise its functions on April 1. It will be taking over functions connected with aviation of a kind which are now being exercised by various bodies and by the Government themselves. There would therefore in any case be good reason to "amplify and supplement", as the White Paper says, what is contained in the Act, though your Lordships will observe that on most subjects the amplification is modest: in fact, it is confined to one paragraph per subject, except in the case of one subject. I do not want to imply in any way that the guidance given is unimportant; quite the contrary. But it is designedly expressed in broad terms so as to leave the Authority, as the Introduction says, "a wide measure of discretion". Thus, very little is said, for instance, about the extremely important functions of safety and air navigation services; but what is said is, I trust, clear, explicit and adequate.

The one exception I mentioned to this manner of treatment is to be found in paragraphs 10 to 20 of the White Paper, which deal with Air Transport Licensing. Experience has shown the need for more precise guidance than has hitherto been given. The Air Transport Licensing Board is to disappear: its functions are to be taken over by the Authority. When the Board was first set up under the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act 1960, it was given the general duty of exercising its functions under that Act—mainly the granting, refusing, revoking, suspending and varying of air service licences—"in such a manner as to further the development of British civil aviation." The Act left the Board itself to interpret the principles set out in it without guidance from the Government. This approach may have been right, or at least inevitable, at the time. But valuable experience has been gained since then. It is also now clear that the development of British civil aviation requires policy objectives and guidance to be given to an independent decision-making body, and that responsibility for policy in granting air licences, as it affects that development, should rest with Government, subject to the approval of Parliament. The new Civil Aviation Authority should of course be responsible for the execution of that policy; and the Act requires that it must be consulted about the policy which is to be contained in the guidance—as indeed it should be; for it should make it its business to keep in close contact both with the industry and with the public, and so should be in a position to know their needs.

It is, of course, not only in the course of its licensing functions that the Authority will require to find out what the public really wants. It will also need to do so, for instance, in regard to pricing. I am sure noble Lords will welcome the prominence given to consumer needs in the opening words of the Guidance. The Authority will be well placed to investigate complaints about services from members of the public who travel on business or for social reasons, and thereby to learn both of all that the public wants and also where the strengths and weaknesses of industry are to be found. So far as consultation is concerned—whether of the travelling public, of operators of air and other transport services, of tour operators, forwarding agents or anyone else—the Guidance gives the Authority a completely free hand in the way in which it maintains and develops consultative arrangements over the whole range of its functions that are appropriate. In some cases formal arrangements already exist or are envisaged. For example, on the very important matter of the use of air space, there is already in existence the Civil Aircraft Control and Advisory Committee. Section 27 of the Act provides for an advisory Airworthiness Board to be set up. To meet the particular needs of the various parts of the country and to maintain a balance between them, the Authority will be able to have recourse to the Regional Economic Planning Councils and the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish counterparts for advice. Indeed the Guidance (paragraph 20) specifically requires the Authority to take account of the contribution which both international and domestic air services may make to regional economic and social development in the United Kingdom. It also requires the Authority, in regulating domestic air services to have regard to their place in the total transport system.

I should not like this occasion to pass without expressing on behalf of the Government our sincere gratitude to the members of the Boards which are to cease to exist. Times change and organisation must change to meet the times. But all concerned with flying have good reason to pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, and the other members of the Air Registration Board, Mr. J. H. Lawrie and the Air Transport Licensing Board and also the members of the six Civil Aviation Advisory Committees.

As to aerodromes, the Authority is to advise the Secretary of State and others concerned as to their provision and development in such a way as to match the development of air services and general aviation. This brings me back to air transport licensing. It is here that more detailed guidance is needed to enable the Authority to act positively in the interests of British civil aviation. And it is here that the Authority will itself have to consider how far detailed control is needed.

Paragraph 13 states that the Authority should not reserve any particular type of operation exclusively to public or to private enterprises by reason of their being publicly owned. In other words, operators of scheduled services may break into the charter field, and operators of charter services into the scheduled field, subject to their having the necessary qualifications, experience and finance. But we must be careful not to waste effort, and, as paragraph 15 states, the British Airways Board—that is, B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.—should remain the principal pro- viders of scheduled services, and British Caledonian should be the principal independent scheduled air line.

In the light of the Edwards Report, which was accepted in principle both by the last and the present Government, it is difficult to see how anyone could disagree with these propositions. The Edwards Report recommended that there should be a new strong independent airline which would operate as a Second Force to compete in service and ideas. Where the difference arose was on how to bring an independent airline up to the minimum required strength in the first place. On taking Office, the present Government concluded that it would not be feasible to do so unless some routes were transferred from the public sector to provide the new airline with sufficient business from the start. This was announced on August 3, 1970. Subsequently arrangements were made for the transfer of licences and routes representing some 2½ per cent. or 3 per cent. of B.O.A.C.'s current revenue at the time of £200 million. Part of this package included the right for British Caledonian to run a service between Gatwick and Paris.

There is no question of any further transfer of routes in order to launch or sustain British Caledonian. For one thing, the Government will no longer have the powers to act as they did last year. For another, under paragraph 18 of the Guidance, adjustment on re-allocation of routes between airlines should take place only in order to further the rationalisation of route networks where transfer would be likely to promote the objectives and policies stated in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12—notably development of trade and tourism, strengthening the balance of payments, and suitability of particular airlines to engage in particular types of operations. So all that British Caledonian may expect is the limited degree of preference set out in paragraph 17, to enable it to develop its route network particularly during its formative years. But paragraph 17 makes it quite clear that this measure of preference is not to be interpreted as either automatic or complete, or necessarily permanent. On scheduled service routes the Authority is to give this preference when licensing an additional airline to serve an existing route or when allocating licences for new routes. B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. are well established and have entered the charter business as well as scheduled services, and it is surely not unreasonable that an independent airline should now be given this relatively small measure of preference in its formative years. For nonscheduled services the preference is limited to a case where the number or capacity of British airlines need for the time being to be restricted.

Noble Lords will have noted that the Air Transport Licensing Board have recently granted to British Caledonian licences to operate services to New York and to Los Angeles via Chicago. They propose to start to operate these services, I understand, in April, 1973, and April, 1975, respectively; in April, 1973, to New York and in April, 1975, to Los Angeles via Chicago. This is not a transferred route. It is an additional service. The Air Transport Licensing Board stated in their decision that they were in no doubt that their proper course was to grant the applications. Apart from the fact that they were satisfied that British Caledonian could finance the services and that they were most favourably impressed with the drive and skill of British Caledonian's management, they believed that the effect would be to increase the United Kingdom's share of the markets involved (which had been declining seriously) and that to some extent new traffic would be stimulated. I need hardly add that the Air Transport Licensing Board as an independent body were entirely free to grant or refuse the licences.

It is in the economic regulation of the industry that change is now so rapid and far-reaching. Nowhere is this more marked than in the increasing blurring of the distinctions between scheduled and non-scheduled traffic and in the growth of affinity group traffic, where the rules are proving to be unworkable and abuse is widespread. There are two things which need to be done: first, to endeavour to bring cheap air travel within reach of the widest possible public; second, to curtail the activities and the scope for the activities of the rogues and the "wide boys" who are putting the public at risk and bringing disrepute to the industry and the regulatory authorities throughout the world. The first point is being tackled by trying to bring about the introduction of a new charter concept based on an advance booking basis so that, in return for the benefits of cheap air travel such as can be achieved through charter arrangements, the individual member of the public commits himself to the booking some considerable time before the date he intends to travel. This objective is being pursued actively by the United Kingdom with the other countries principally concerned. We are making progress, but it is too soon to say when and to what extent we shall be successful.

The second point is being met by the introduction of the Civil Aviation (Air Travel Organisers Licensing) Regulations 1972. The prime purpose of these regulations is to ensure that the Authority has the power to regulate the organisers of air travel, whether of inclusive tours or affinity groups or any other form that may come to be adopted. The objective is to put a stop to the activities of the rogues and to ensure that the air transport industry as a whole is regulated in a positive and constructive manner. Because of the need to get international acceptance of the new concept and of the time that would be involved in introducing it, the interim measures announced by the Minister for Trade in November, 1971, will continue meantime. These will take the form of close vetting of the bona fides of groups which airlines wish to carry. Here, as in other areas, it will be necessary for the Department and the Authority to work closely together if the new arrangements are to be successful.

The Guidance is intended to indicate the strategy of civil aviation which the Authority is to implement for the benefit of British civil aviation as a whole and for the travelling public. I believe it succeeds in its intention, and I wish the Authority and its Chairman, whom most of us know very well, Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter, all success. I beg to move.

My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, as we always are, for explaining whatever business we are dealing with in such a careful and thorough way. I am bound to say, however, that in connection with this Guidance I am reminded of an occasion before the Second World War when I took a German friend of mine to see cricket at Lord's. We had been sitting there for an hour or two, and I turned to him and said, "What do you think of it, Erwin?" and he said, "Oh, they do no harm." In much the same way I read this document. To a blind man it would make pretty poor guidance; to Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter, however, the generality and the platitudinous nature of its phrasing, together with the contradictions that are to be found in the document, can leave a scope which I am sure Mr. Boyd-Carpenter, with his keen mind and mature judgment, will use very well indeed. This is certainly the way in which I think the new Authority ought to be run, with a minimum of tight guidelines, and I take the opportunity of congratulating Mr. Boyd-Carpenter on the opportunity he has to serve the public in this way. He takes over at a fascinatingly formative period for civil aviation, and I wish him well.

It is, as I have said, possible to criticise the document. Why, for example, does the document use print to say that:

"the Authority shall discharge its functions efficiently and economically"?

Does anyone imagine that it could be told to discharge its functions "inefficiently and extravagantly"? I am glad to see that at the outset it is stated, as the noble Lord said, that "Civil air transport exists by serving the public". This is a much better emphasis than the noble Lord was able to give when he was instructed, during the passage of the Bill in this House, to oppose certain of my Amendments to the Bill which would have given the public the right to make representations to the Authority. It is much better to say that at the outset of the Guidance than to say, as in the Bill, only,

"to further the reasonable interests of users of air transport services"—

and then only subject to a good many qualifications.

However, under the heading "Consultation" the document allows only a line and a half for its guidance about appropriate consultative arrangements over the whole range of its activities. Nothing is said in that paragraph as to how the Authority shall take into account the public interest. I feel that a mistake has been made in not putting fairly and squarely, in terms, upon the Authority in the Bill a requirement to consider the public interest. Again, under the heading "Research" nothing is said of the public, or the user of air transport services. Is it intended that the Authority should engage in research of the public taste, reactions and trends? One would have hoped so. I believe it is possible, from at least one of the appointments recently made, that this may well be the case, but again I should have liked to see it spelt out in rather more detail. Of course, research on an adequate scale, and proper consultation, costs money; and that brings me to the next paragraph, No. 29, on finance.

Have the Government had no second thoughts at all about financing the Authority? Are they still saying that after 1977–78 all these activities—regulation of public services, enforcement of safety regulations, the necessary consultation and research—should be paid for directly by the industry? Why should a service provided by a Government Department be met out of Government revenues, and then, when this same service is placed over to a statutory authority, the costs be imposed upon the industry? Is not this a relic of the old outdated pre-Upper Clyde "lame duck" philosophy, when it was thought that everything ought to stand on its own two feet? Here we are talking about a public body which, by its very nature, cannot make profits and ought not to be expected, over the whole range of its activities, to pay its way. I make one prophecy here: that in due course the Authority will say that the financial obligations placed upon it cannot be met unless economy is practised, to the detriment of the air travelling public and to the national economy.

There is another contradiction inherent in the Guidance document. It is stated that civil air transport exists to serve the public, but it is also stated that in its direct or indirect planning of the scheduled operations special preference should be given to British Caledonian Airways. I was very grateful for what the noble Lord said about the background reasoning of this decision to give preference to Caledonian Airways. I said, both in this House and outside, that a measure of competition can be right.

I have always accepted the proposition that there could be occasion where private enterprise independent companies would have a part to play. I believe that the Government are entitled to say that a company other than those owned by the British Airways Board should be considered for scheduled service licences. Indeed, this is what the Government of which I was a member actually said, and I stand by what it put in the White Paper. But it is mistaken, not least in the interests of British Caledonian Airways itself, that this particular private company should be singled out in this way. I certainly have nothing against the company. It has an excellent reputation for service; and I add this comment—and I have some sadness in saying it because I suppose I can claim that I had a greater part to play in the establishment of the Airways Corporations possibly than anyone else in the House, with the conceivable exception of the noble Lord who now sits on the Liberal Benches. I sometimes feel nowadays that it can be said that those who serve Caledonian Airways think more of what they can put into the company than what they can take out, which sometimes is not the case with the employees of the two Corporations.

Nevertheless, my Lords, having said all that, I still say that the Government have made a mistake in enshrining in legislation, and in writing out in this document, the preference which should be given to a particular independent operator. I believe that Mr. Adam Thomson has brought a lively and original mind into aviation, but suppose (of course I have no reason to believe that there is any possibility of this) that Mr. Thomson decided to take his great ability to another company; and suppose that another company proved its capability of serving the country. Is the Authority then to be tied down to what is stated in this document or to what appears in the Act of Parliament? I hope that when the noble Lord conies to reply, as I expect he will, that he will be able to emphasise again that the overriding principle here shall be service to the public and not maintaining the viability of any particular operator.

I have already referred to the wonderful opportunity that Mr. Boyd-Carpenter and his colleagues now have in this formative period of air transport. I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, to give an assurance that the Authority will now be allowed to exercise its influence, within the widest interpretation of this document, without being pre-empted by Government decision on matters of importance. Among other things, I have in mind the question of airport planning. As the noble Lord said, the Authority now has some responsibility for airport planning. The reason this is stated in the Bill is because the noble Lord accepted an Amendment during the Committee stage in this House, and I was very pleased that he did. But may we take it that the Authority will he consulted before any irrevocable decision is now taken about Foulness? May I also ask whether it will be the Authority which will effectively take any decision about the future of Northolt? As the noble Lord knows, there has been a very interesting proposal made by B.E.A. which would enable Northolt to provide relief for Heathrow to give an excellent service for the short haul traveller in this part of the country, without adding to noise nuisance in the area. A decision here will mean an overall judgment which the Authority should be well able to make, and I ask the noble Lord whether the Authority will be permitted in effect to make the recommendation leading to this decision.

One is tempted to use this occasion to give advice to the new Authority. I shall not yield too completely to that temptation, but I should like to say, with the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that it has a great task before it in clearing up the mess which has arisen between the charter operator and the scheduled service operator. It is essential, in the interests of the travelling public and the economy of the country, that we should have from Britain a reliable, efficient scheduled service. But of course it is possible, and it has been proven possible, for the charter operators to come in and cream off a good deal of the traffic. If this process is allowed to continue too far, then it will be quite uneconomic to provide the sort of scheduled service which an industrialised country like our own will need. This, to some extent, is the fault of the airline operators themselves who charged too much for the regular fare and then found it necessary to resort to all these gimmicks in order to fill up the rest of the seats or else left it to the independent operator to undercut them with the charter services. This is a matter which I know is now receiving attention from those who will have responsibility in the future, and there I wish them well.

I should also like to say that I hope that full attention will be given to the need for planning airports. I think we made a mistake in the past in concentrating too much in Heathrow. It was always said that the needs of the interline passenger—the one who came over to this country from New York, possibly, and then wanted to go on to Paris—should be paramount and that therefore it was necessary to concentrate everything into the one airport. I am quite certain that that was a mistake. I am quite certain that in the future we have to develop the provincial airports; and I am quite certain that it will be necessary to enable Gatwick, for example, to develop its full potential. All these are matters which, in large part, will be the responsibility of the Authority in the future, and here again I wish it well.

My Lords, I must at the outset declare an interest, because I am employed by one of the smaller U.K. independent companies which are directly affected by the proposals in the White Paper. Like most people who work in the industry, I read the document before us to-day hoping, I suppose, to detect the promise of some bonanza in respect of licences, which are of course the lifeblood of the independent industry and without which most of us would wither away. Needless to say, I was disappointed. While it is true to say that the State Corporations will continue to enjoy a measure of protection particularly on the major trunk routes, and while it is also true that the new Second Force will enjoy protection though to a lesser extent, it seems to me that the position of the independent sector outside the Second Force has not been so clearly defined as one would have wished. However, there are some encouraging words and, maybe, after a period of adjustment following the birth of the C.A.A. in a few weeks' time, things will settle down and the independents will find themselves able to secure sufficient licences to operate profitably, without unduly diluting the traffic carried by the State Corporations or the Second Force. If that is so, perhaps the object of this first policy guidance document will have been fulfilled. However, there are a couple of points which I should like to mention.

Ever since the last war, no matter which Party has been in power, it has been the policy to support and protect the State Corporations especially on the major routes. This policy has generally commended itself both to the public and to the industry. During the 1950s, the growth of the charter inclusive tour traffic showed the Corporations that there was another market which they had hardly touched, and those new markets were largely developed by the independents. For ten or fifteen years that traffic continued to grow with no serious restraint by the licensing authorities, except in respect of tariffs. That development was confined almost exclusively to the independents and up till recently the Corporations took no part in it. By the late 1960s, the traffic carried, certainly on the major holiday routes, by charter airlines far exceeded the traffic carried by the State Corporations, and it was at that point that the Corporations—first of all, B.E.A. and, subsequently, B.O.A.C.—formed their own charter subsidiaries.

I am wondering whether the birth of the B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. charter companies has really been in the national interest, and whether some restraint ought even now to be placed on the charter activities of both State Corporations and perhaps also on the Second Force, British Caledonian. Of course we are all aware of the need for the major State airlines to secure a proper return on their investment. The taxpayer is just as exacting a shareholder as any other, and is entitled to see his money wisely invested and efficiently used. But the shareholders in independent airlines are also entitled to expect that the Government will not unfairly subsidise the State Corporations, particularly in a field of activity which has been traditionally theirs and which their companies have developed over a period of years.

The form of subsidy which causes me concern is perhaps indirect. But I submit that the subsidy which has been paid, particularly to B.E.A. in respect of the purchase by them some years ago of Trident aircraft, has a general effect on their activities and puts them in a specially advantageous position when they form their charter subsidiaries. Additionally, B.E.A. Airtours, which is the only major operating charter company among the State Corporations at this time, have the advantage of being within the B.E.A. group and thus derive special benefit from the purchasing power of B.E.A.; for example, in respect of their fuel supplies and also in the provision of ground equipment. They have thus been able to offer lower charter prices to tour organisers, and this has had a depressant effect upon charter rates generally. My own view is that B.E.A. Airtours should not have been allowed to encroach upon the charter business, traditionally the prerogative of the independents, unless at the same time the authorities had been willing to grant more scheduled services on major trunk routes to the independents. I believe that that in itself might have been undesirable. I think a better solution would have been to define more carefully the spheres of activity of the two sectors of the industry, thus preserving some degree of protection for the independents in the charter business while at the same time protecting the State Corporations on the scheduled business.

The B.O.A.C. charter company, which was more recently established, is also, I think, regrettable and less satisfactory. They must be the only United Kingdom airline ever to have been authorised to commence operations with no personnel, no aircraft, no crews and no work. I was present at the hearing for the "E licence, and it seemed inconceivable to me at that time that the A.T.L.B. would grant the application. But since they have done, one can only assume that there are two licensing laws, one for the independents and one for the Corporations. The independents have to work very hard to secure their licences, while the Corporations, it seems, have only to ask and they receive. I understand that the B.O.A.C. charter company recently suffered the ignomony of having turned down their application to the C.A.B. for approval to operate charter flights to the the United States, presumably because, as I have said, they have no aircraft, no crews and no personnel, though perhaps now they have some work.

As your Lordships will know, once a British airline has been licensed to operate an international route by the United Kingdom authorities it has then to secure traffic rights from the foreign Government involved, and this is usually done for the operator by the Department of Trade and Industry. I am concerned that the D.T.I. fail to take a sufficiently strong stand in these matters, and that United Kingdom airlines are tending to suffer thereby. In the case of my own company, we were licensed by the A.T.L.B. to operate a service between the United Kingdom and a destination in Northern France up to a maximum frequency of 21 services a week. The French authorities, in their wisdom, allowed us a total of only four, which makes a mockery of the licence granted to us by the United Kingdom authorities, and which of course makes it all the more difficult to develop a viable service. I sincerely hone that the new Authority will not hesitate to bring all proper pressure to hear upon foreign Governments in the matter of reciprocal traffic rights, including, if necessary, restriction upon the flag carriers, so that we may all be allowed to develop our services to the full.

Finally, my Lords, there is one special point which I hope that the noble Lord will be able to answer when he comes to reply, or, if not, perhaps he can write to me on it. The multilateral agreement on the commercial rights of nonscheduled air services has been ratified by almost all European authorities except Italy and Greece. This fact causes very considerable difficulties to the smaller independent carriers seeking to operate what we know as exempt charters to those countries. When we come to ratify the Treaty of Rome, I suggest that we ought at the same time to invite the Italians, especially, to ratify the multilateral agreement. I understand that the Italian Government in fact signed the agreement, but the Italian Parliament declined to ratify it. It is a bone of endless contention between the Italian Government and the British independent carriers, and it is a matter which ought to be resolved at an early date. I hope the noble Lord may be able to throw some encouraging light on this matter in due course. My Lords, with these qualifications I express the hope that your Lordships will approve this White Paper.

My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn for so clearly describing the use of this Guidance this afternoon. It seems to me that those responsible for producing this Policy Guidance faced a difficulty—the difficulty of either putting too much into it, and thus tying the hands of the Authority, or putting too little into it so that it is accused of being meaningless. I believe that this Guidance has in fact been drafted with a fair balance, and for that its authors are to be congratulated. The Guidance deals of course with an immensely important new Authority. Its success depends on the growth of our civil aviation. It has been set up as a bold concept, recommended originally by the Edwards Committee and based, I believe, very much on the lines of the Australian Civil Aeronautical Board. It is all-embracing; it grants licences, deals with safety, deals with airports and, above all, has a duty to the consumer. My Lords, although this Guidance is important, it is of course only a Guidance. I believe that many of the fears and anxieties that were expressed in another place will be found in practice to be unreal, for the success lies not in the words of this document but in its interpretation in practice. Success depends on the Chairman, on his board and his staff, and one naturally wishes them every success.

My Lords, from what one has read and from what one has heard—and particularly from what one has read of the proceedings in another place—there are two major, contentious points in the Guidance. The first is the future of the State airlines and the second is the future of the majority of the independents. I was glad this afternoon that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, did not go hack to the old argument of the once-and-for-all transfer of routes; the "barefaced robbery and confiscation" argument that one had heard before. The acceptance of the transfer of the routes to the British Caledonian Airways is, I believe, a proper one, for any major independent must have a viable structure. I believe that the Government were right to take that decision, and are right now to leave the future of the licensing in the hands of the Authority. But, my Lords, the criticism I have of paragraph 17 is on the use of the word "preference" in relation to the British Caledonian Airways—preference over State airlines and also preference over other British independent airlines. I believe that there is a case for criticism of this word "preference". If we could strike out this word to-day, I believe that we should do so.

The case for the independents rests not only under paragaph 17 of the Guidance but also under paragraph 15. Many noble Lords will perhaps have received from the independents a memorandum setting out what they consider discrimination against them. The independents include such airlines as Britannia, Court line, Dan-Air, Laker Airways, Lloyd International and Donaldson International, and involve some 83 aircraft and some £73 million worth of investment; and last year they carried some 4·7 million passengers. They face not only the threat of what they consider is discrimination under paragraphs 15 and 17 but also the uncertainty in the charter market and uncertainty arising out of the affinity groups and, in the future, the exempt charter groups. Because it is known, though difficult to prove, that other countries do not in fact always follow the rules of the charter groups, I regard it as very important that both my noble friend's Department and the Authority should get together and work out as quickly as possible their advance charter plans, which one read about in another place. I hope that my noble friend may perhaps be able to touch on this question of the advance charter plans when he comes to reply. I believe this is very important, in order that the independents can remain competitive against the increasing world competition.

My Lords, I welcome many of the other paragraphs in the Guidance, particularly those dealing with the consumer interests, aviation safety, environment, information, and particularly paragraph 28, which deals with consultation—consultation with the users and consultation with the operatives. It is interesting to remember that when the Air Transport Licensing Board was in operation—it is still in operation—it received an average of from 6 to 12 letters a day which it termed its "consultation". It would be interesting to see what machinery will be set up by the Authority to deal with consultation, which I believe is a very important aspect of the Authority's work. My Lords, I will conclude by generally welcoming this Policy Guidance paper. I believe it essential that the Authority should be given this guidance. The document gives flexibility in independence, and I wish the Authority every success.

My Lords, this Policy Guidance Paper gives us an opportunity to discuss the way in which the Civil Aviation Authority is to operate. My noble friend Lord Beswick gave us a story about taking a German friend of his to watch a cricket match, and described his attitude to the game as being that "presumably it was not doing any harm". I am not quite certain about that remark in connection with this particular Paper. I am reminded of an anecdote by the late Lord Cherwell when he was Professor Lindemann in the University of Oxford in connection with his experiences during the World War. A consignment of shells had arrived at the Royal Aircraft Establishment and were carefully marked "Top" and "Bottom". There was an accompanying note which stated that in order to avoid confusion, the bottom had been labeled "Top". I rather feel that there are some matters in this Paper which are not quite as simple and clear. In fact, listening to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, it has been made quite clear that the independents themselves do not feel that this Policy Guidance Paper is quite as helpful as they would have liked it to be. Naturally, he expressed himself with a certain amount of caution in this matter. I cannot help feeling that if he had been sitting on these Benches he would have expressed himself very much more forcibly.

I think that in this Paper there is a complete and basic failure to state what one is really expecting the national airlines and the independents to do. The independents are largely ignored; because reference is made almost entirely to the British Caledonian, which is treated almost as a new sacred cow, as something very special and which is to be given preference, even, in some cases, over the national airlines. This seems to be a most extraordinary attitude. It looks as though someone had said that at all costs one must provide a peculiar form of competition; that it is so important to have competition that one must subsidise this competition, one must set it up and nurture it. That is surely utterly and absolutely wrong. If there is any value in competition, it is that it does not require special nurturing. All that it requires is a free field in which to operate. That is not what is given in this Paper at all. So it seems to me astonishing that we have a Policy Guidance Paper which does not lay down any clear policy at all—except to say that British Caledonian is to be given preference. I find this a most extraordinary way of laying down policy.

We have all agreed that there should be a Civil Aviation Authority but, surely, we expect this Civil Aviation Authority to operate in its own way and to be able, once established, to lay down the terms under which things are done. This should not he a matter of taking a route from one airline and handing it to another. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, as he will recall, stated most emphatically in our previous debates that there was a package that was being negotiated; that a set of air routes was being handed over to British Caledonian and that that was the end of the package deal. Now we find that British Caledonian are to be allowed to operate on the Atlantic routes. Of course, the noble Lord may say that no actual transfer of routes is being made; but let us look at these Atlantic routes. I am not an expert in these matters but I have taken the trouble to inquire about it and I am informed that it is almost impossible to make a profit on the North Atlantic routes; that, in other words, if we allow British Caledonian to operate on the North Atlantic routes, all that we are doing is reducing the profitability of the others.

Are we then saying that it is reasonable and sensible at this time to set about making the State airlines less profitable than they now are by allowing British Caledonian to operate on the North Atlantic route? This seems madness. If, on the other hand, we are dealing with routes in those parts of the world which are not being operated by the State airlines, this is a perfectly legitimate field for the private airlines and I would accept the point made by Lord Trefgarne. I think there is a good deal to be said for allowing the independents to deal with the charter flight business. They have shown themselves capable of this and have developed it. We should, however, realise that if we want to maintain scheduled flights we must restrict, and not increase, the number undertaking them; for the more scheduled flights there are, the less profitable they will be. Therefore it becomes utter nonsense to allow British Caledonian to have scheduled flights across the Atlantic. I would say that the guidance in this Policy Guidance Paper is not worth anything to the Civil Aviation Authority. So far as the various independents are concerned, and so far as the national airlines are concerned, this Guidance Paper is something which one hopes will soon be scrapped.

My Lords, I apologise to the Minister for having been at another meeting and for not being able to hear his opening speech. I should not like this guidance document to pass without wishing well to Mr. Boyd-Carpenter in his tremendously important new task. I was fascinated by the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down because I think there is a great deal in what he says about the fallacy which exists over the use of the word "competition" in civil aviation operation. I do not dispute that Caledonian should have a place alongside the Corporations on scheduled routes; but not so much for the fact of competition as for the purpose of comparison. B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. on the international routes have all the competition that is required. Indeed, it is very hard to-day to compare a British Corporation scheduled service with the service rendered by a foreign company between London and the same destination; because the very slope of the seats you sit on, the degree of comfort afforded to your posterior, is controlled by IATA. The thickness of the sandwiches and the materials with which they are made are controlled by IATA. The competition between British and foreign airlines is already there. On the other hand, it is good that British Caledonian should operate scheduled services; because then we can get the comparison—not the com petition—with the State Corporations as regards statistical costs of operation per seat mile, engineering costs and all the other technical costs. Therefore I am disposed to support the conception of British Caledonian operating certain scheduled services.

When it comes to the North Atlantic I am afraid that I cannot differ very much from the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones. All the operators on the North Atlantic are losing money at present. Jumbo-jets are flying with very low load factors and I cannot see that putting another operator alongside B.O.A.C. is going seriously to increase the British percentage of the total transatlantic traffic. Indeed, I believe that it may well reduce the individual percentages of the Corporation and the percentage which British Caledonian will need to make it a viable proposition.

I think the Authority has one tremendous task; it is to reconcile the conflict, which is growing all the time, between scheduled routes on the one hand, which cannot maintain viability if too many passengers are creamed off for passenger tours and charter work, and, on the other hand, the package tour which satisfies the public and gives cheap holidays, cheap transportation. If the Authority tries to maintain the viability of the scheduled services to too great an extent by pushing up the cost of the package tours to the public, I can assure the Minister and the Government that there will be such an outcry from the public that any such policy would not be maintained for very long. The public want cheap travel—and why not? They ought to have it. On the other hand, you have, I repeat, the task of keeping the scheduled services viable. It is a horrible conflict which the Authority has to reconcile, and I believe that the only avenue by which reconciliation may be achieved is by lowering costs, by a constant effort by all the operators of scheduled services—particularly scheduled services—and by package tour operators to lower costs so that the public will not be offended by the defence of the scheduled services which the Authority will have to give.

My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, that operations should, as it were, be made into compartments; that the State corporations and Caledonian should not be allowed to enter the package and charter field. Of course they must. Indeed, it is B.E.A. air tours which has been a strong supporting link for the Corporation and its ability to maintain unviable services, such as those in Scotland and other services which are maintained for social reasons.

When on the Board of B.E.A. I used to look at the results of subsidiary companies in which we had an interest. I can well remember seeing that the most comfortable investment that B.E.A. had at the time was a percentage holding in Malta Airways. They constantly paid a fine dividend and gave share bonuses. The reason was that they did not own any aircraft or operate any services at all; all they did was to take 10 per cent. off everything that B.E.A. did. Aviation is not really a very paying proposition unless it is carefully looked after and operated in the most economical way. I conclude, my Lords, by saying that I believe that this serious conflict between maintaining the viability of scheduled services and the very necessary expansion of charter and package touring which the public demand can be solved only by satisfying the public and maintaining viability with increased efficiency and ever-lowering costs.

My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, sits down, would he confirm that he is saying that B.E.A. ought to be allowed to continue their charter operations in order to make sufficient profit to subsidise the Highlands and Islands services and other unprofitable services?

Certainly, my Lords, and in order to help keep going less profitable services of the scheduled variety. That would be eminently suitable and right.

My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that B.E.A. Air-tours have been constantly depressing charter rates on the basis of the great purchasing power which the Corporation has, particularly in respect of fuel and ground handling services?

Certainly, my Lords. Let them have every advantage and go to it, and good luck to them!

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has already drawn our attention to the ambiguity of much of this document. May I, therefore, ask for clarification of one sentence, the last sentence in paragraph 21, where it states that until the Authority has had time to make its report

"in seeking fuller recovery of its costs"

in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland it

"should be careful to avoid prejudice to the continued operation of those air services which are essential to the region's economic and social development."

Does that mean that part of the air services are considered to be essential or that those air services which are in that region are all essential? I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will be able to recognise that there is no unessential service in the Highlands and Islands and that they are all essential to the economic and social development of the area. I hope that he will give that instruction and guidance to the Authority. We do not want a lessening of numbers or efficiency; we want more if we are to proceed with the development of the area for tourism, for oil, for industrial development or for any other purpose. Therefore I would ask for clarification of this sentence which, as written, seems utterly ambiguous.

My Lords, I am grateful for the reception that the Policy Guidance has had. I think it inevitable that it should have been regarded as pretty obvious; the noble Lord said "platitudinous", but perhaps that was a bit harsh. But it would be a great mistake not to recognise that in fact it is a very complicated document. The paragraphs interlock, with different considerations which have to be taken into account; and they all have to be taken into account simultaneously on any case that they affect. I do not think that this has been sufficiently understood during the discussion on the document.

The noble Lord spoke of some of these as contradictions, but they are not; they are balancing factors which have to be taken into account in both cases. They are the realities of life in this sphere and are far from simple, as my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye knows from experience, and as do those who have held office in the Ministry of Civil Aviation in the past: the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and others. The noble Lord started by dealing with the question of consultation and the position of the consumer. On the matter of consultation, as I tried to indicate in my opening speech, there are many different kinds of bodies which have to be consulted. The attempt was made in the past to have one single, central, consultative body and that did not work very well because the interests were too divergent. But there are many different kinds. To be a consumer is one aspect of people's lives. Many people operate both as consumers and as producers. As the noble Lord has said, what the document seeks to give in a sentence and a half is the widest possible discretion—in fact complete discretion—to the Civil Aviation Authority in how it achieves consultation with the various interests, including of course the consumer interest. As I said, the consumer interest is placed right in the forefront of the Guidance, in the very first sentence. I should not have thought for a moment that someone like Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter would neglect that aspect in any way. Nobody could be Minister of Pensions and National Insurance for six and a half years and ignore the position of the ordinary man in the street: and in this case that means the travelling public.

We intend that the Authority should have flexible arrangements, and the Government have scrupulously avoided telling the Authority how to do its work. They have indicated what has to be done, but have not told the Authority how to do it. The important point is that the Authority should maintain and develop close consultations wherever that appears to be desirable. The Authority should be able to enjoy the confidence of those concerned and to develop and maintain consultative machinery appropriate to the particular functions and circumstances.

The new air transport licensing system provides an opportunity for revising the arrangement for consultations and air services to and from the regions. I do not know which of my noble friends it was who mentioned it, but the consultative body at the present time, so far as complaints are concerned, is the Air Transport Licensing Board, and the number of complaints that they have been receiving average a mere half dozen a year. The complaints tend to come to the Department of Trade and Industry, but in future the place for the complaints to go will plainly be the Authority. I daresay those complaints that come to the Department will be diverted to the Authority where appopriate.

My noble friend Lord Kinnoull also raised a point on consumer interests. Here I may say that complaints about individual airlines and air travel organisers should be addressed to the Authority. There will be nothing to prevent the Authority from investigating complaints and, in the light of its duties and functions, it will be expected to do so. We did not think it right to try to establish some body purporting to represent consumers as a whole in advance of the setting up of the Authority. I should say in parenthesis that a large number of bodies were consulted over the Guidance. The Act itself requires the Authority to be consulted before guidance is given and there are a great many other bodies of all sorts—local authorities and so on—which were consulted.

The Government believe that the best means of protecting the public is to ensure that, so far as possible, they are offered a choice. There has been a good deal of criticism on this matter, curiously enough the most severe—I might also say extreme—coming in the last two speeches. I think it has been generally accepted that it is in the public interest that there should be room for innovation, experiment and new ideas in competition, and that the public should have a choice between services offered to it wherever this is economically possible. Of course it is recognised, as my noble friend rightly said, that it is not possible in all cases, and it is expressed in that way in the Guidance.

The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, raised a point on finance. Grant will be paid to the Authority under a number of heads. One of these will cover all the Authority's regulatory activities—economic, safety and technical. It will in due course be expected to recover its costs under this head from its customers, including Government Departments, as it will under other heads, but within it it will be free to formulate its charging policy and settle the incidence of the charges of each activity. This does not mean that the Authority will automatically cross-subsidise within this head. In working out its charging policy it will obviously take into account the views of those from whom its revenue will derive. If the Civil Aviation Authority is to perform its functions adequately and achieve the degree of independence which both sides of the House regard as desirable, we must leave it free wherever possible to formulate its own charging policies.

My Lords, if the noble Lord is finishing that point, does he really mean to say that the weights and measures officers are not independent and are not discharging their functions properly because they are paid for out of public funds? I cannot understand why he should say that to achieve independence it is necessary for them to pay their way.

My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will not think it irrelevant for me to say that the weights and measures authorities do not in the main make charges—I do not know to what extent they do—for their functions. There is a section in the Act—I think it is Section 6—which lays down that the Authority should pay its way, taking one year with another.

My Lords, that is a point that we are criticising. The noble Lord is not entitled to say that both sides of the House are in agreement on this. They are not. I am saying that to enforce public regulations the cost should fall upon the public exchequer, and one should not extract it from the aircraft industry or the airline industry.

My Lords I am afraid that on that point we must agree to differ, because in this case the Government's policy is that in the long run—though not at once—the Civil Aviation Authority should pay its own way.

The noble Lord also raised the question of aerodrome planning. I think the important thing to mention here is that the Authority will be responsible for advising the Government, aerodrome owners and others concerned, as to the provision and development of aerodromes to match the development of air services and general aviation. The Authority will possess the main expertise in the field of aviation safety, and in consequence aerodromes will be looking to the Authority, as until now they have been looking to the Department of Trade and Industry, for technical advice on the development plans. The Authority, as the noble Lord knows, will also have the specific duty under Section 33(2) of the Civil Aviation Act to consider the requirements for the development of new and existing aerodromes and to make appropriate recommendations to the Secretary of State. We have been over the question of Foulness in a recent debate, and I do not think I should touch on that matter again. What the Civil Aviation Authority choose to recommend is a matter for them, but so far as the Government are concerned, they have taken a decision on this matter. As to Northolt, this is a military aerodrome and its future is therefore the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence. But again there is nothing to stop the Civil Aviation Authority from expressing opinions on this, although it has no power to determine the fate of an aerodrome owned by somebody else.

The noble Lord also referred to the preference for British Caledonian. I do not think I need say more than I said in my opening speech. As I said, the preference is neither automatic nor complete, and the decisions of the Authority are to be taken in each and every case in the context of paragraphs 10, 11 and 12, the main points of which I mentioned in my opening speech. The noble Lord also raised the question of research. Paragraph 27 of the White Paper requires the Civil Aviation Authority to "support an adequate programme of research and development on matters within its responsibility". It has the duty of ensuring that it has the knowledge, techniques and equipment to handle the problems presented to it by new and possibly unconventional types of aircraft, to control with safety the ever-increasing volume of traffic and to tackle the complex economic problems that arise. If there is any further point that the noble Lord wishes to take up I shall be glad to discuss the matter with him.

My noble friend Lord Trefgarne raised the question of the opportunities for the Corporations and other airlines. I do not think he is right in saying that paragraph 17 means that other independent airlines will be denied opportunities simply because a measure of preference—and it is only a measure—is to be given to British Caledonian. Paragraph 17 makes this clear by telling the Authority also to look at certain other paragraphs for guidance. For example, paragraph 13 makes it clear that British airlines should be free to compete in charter operations and the Government have not stood in the way of the British Overseas Air Charter Ltd., or B.E.A. Airtours. I understand the noble Lord's point of view on this matter; and of course, the Civil Aviation Authority is there to control civil aviation as a whole and to see that what is done within the civil aviation field is fair. Paragraph 11 tells the Authority to try and ensure that all efficient British airlines have the chance to operate profitably.

My noble friend mentioned the question of charter rates. This is something for which the Civil Aviation Authority will be responsible: it must satisfy itself as to the financial resources and arrangements for airlines and air travel organisers. It will be able to study charter rates, and to take such action as it thinks fit to safeguard both the public and the industry. My noble friend also raised the difficult question of the ratification by Italy of the multilateral European agreement. It is a fact that Italy has a perfect right not to ratify, if she wishes, and there is no way of compelling her to ratify; but this has no particular relevance to the E.E.C. The United Kingdom and others have expressed interest in Italian ratification. The Italian reply is that this matter awaits the decision of the Italian Parliament.

My Lords, I apologise for interrupting my noble friend. Can he say whether there is a prospect of the Italian Parliament ratifying the multilateral agreement? A great burden would be lifted from our shoulders if they did.

My Lords, I should like to look into that further. I have not so far had a chance of looking at this point before, but I will do so and write to my noble friend. On the other point he raised, concerning licensing by the French licensing authority, this is of course, a governmental authority. Both the D.T.I. and the Civil Aviation Authority will be dealing with the foreign licensing bodies.

On the question of opportunities on the North Atlantic routes, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, and my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, said that the Guidance was not as clear and helpful as it might have been. He seemed to imply that the only positive piece of policy was that British Caledonian should be given a preference. So far as the North Atlantic routes are concerned, the first point to consider is that British Caledonian had made an earlier application for this route which very nearly succeeded. The Air Transport Licensing Board said that it was not quite satisfied as to Caledonian's financial position. Since then the company has amalgamated with British United; it is going to operate from a separate aerodrome, and it is not going to start until April 1973. B.O.A.C. has not been developing as fast as was expected and until recently Britain has been, to some extent, losing its share of the traffic on the North Atlantic route. The reason for giving a preference here is to help with the balance of payments and also with the share that Britain has of the North Atlantic routes, as well as to give British Caledonian a chance. The company is of course familiar with the American market and itself runs charters on the West Coast.

My Lords, would the noble Lord explain that a little further? Does he really mean that it is better to get something into the balance of payments even if there is a loss made on the routes concerned?—because it seems to me that it is almost inevitable.

My Lords, these are matters which the Air Transport Licensing Board have had to consider in the past and which in each case the Civil Aviation Authority will be considering in the future. The Air Transport Licensing Board gave very full consideration to this matter and has published its latest report. It concludes by saying:

"… we wish to record that our decision was based entirely on the commercial and other merits of the proposals placed before us".

I hope that I have covered the various points which have been put to me.

My Lords, there was one further point which I raised with my noble friend, on advance charters.

Yes, I am obliged to my noble friend. My Lords, this is a point over which I passed lightly in the course of my opening speech because it is essentially a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority and the airlines to deal with. As I said, Britain has been doing all she can to persuade other countries of the advantages here. Some progress has been made, but I am afraid I am not in a position to go beyond saying that.

Finally, there was the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. On this, as a purist in these matters, I agree. The sentence of which he speaks is this:

"Until that time …"—

that is March 31, 1974, within which time the Authority is to look at the Scottish Highlands and Islands services—

"… the Authority, in seeking fuller recovery of its costs in this area, should be careful to avoid prejudice to the continued operation of those air services which are essential to the region's economic and social development."

I am not certain myself whether a comma was intended to be put after "services". I do not think there is any indication that any of the present services is redundant. What is intended here is simply to give a warning to the Authority, that in spite of the need for it to make progress towards meeting its costs from its revenue, and in spite of the fact that of course the aerodromes and the national transport services are very costly in relation to transport in these areas and there is a heavy annual loss, those and similar considerations are not to prejudice the operation of the services in the next two years. With these explanations I hope that noble Lords will be willing to give their blessing to this Order. I am sure that the Chairman designate, Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter, will take the most careful account of all the helpful points that have been made in this interesting debate.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In doing so may I say that I have no vested interest to declare other than perhaps that I am following the tradition of a very distant ancestor: Noah. In moving the Second Reading of the Bill I do not think I can do better than by quoting from the prospectus inviting certain people to start the Zoological Society of London in 1825:

"Rome at the period of her greatest splendour, brought savage monsters from every quarter of the world then known, to be shown in their amphitheatres, to destroy or be destroyed as spectacles of wonder to her citizens.

It would well become Britain to offer a very different series of exhibitions to the population of her metropolis, animals brought from every part of the world … as objects of scientific research not of vulgar admiration, pointing out the comparative anatomy, the habits of life and methods of multiplying races of animals."

That is a rather significant statement, my Lords. The most famous of all zoos then was founded 150 years ago not just to satisfy the idle curiosity of its visitors but to educate them and to encourage scientists to learn more about the animals in the society's menagerie. Most people think that to capture animals in the wild and subject them to the strains involved in that, and in transport to some collection in a far away country, can be justified only if such results are obtained, and that merely to exhibit them as spectacles of wonder is not enough.

The London Zoo was followed by other zoos founded by scientific societies; in Bristol in 1836, in Edinburgh in 1860, and then by a few started by public companies and private individuals as commercial enterprises for private gain. The number increased very slowly. By 1914 there were six; by 1945 there were 14; but since the war the number has increased enormously. Exhibitions of wild animals have become big money and by 1971 there were about a hundred zoos; 20 of them run by non-profit-making bodies, like societies and municipalities, and some 90 commercial ventures.

In some of these zoos the administration is admirable, the animals well cared for and the objectives similar to those which inspired the founders of the London Zoo. In some, however, the conditions are deplorable; the animals are neglected, in many cases not perhaps from deliberate callousness but from lack of the necessary knowledge. In some zoos the animals are looked upon as being expendable, bought at the beginning of the summer, housed in buildings in which they could not survive the winter when the zoo closes, or partially closes. The Universities Federation for Animal Welfare inspected 72 zoos in 1970–71. They classified 13 as poor to bad; 33 as fair to good and only 26 as very good. A special investigation by the Sunday Times reported a sloth bear in an undrained enclosure, a gibbon in a cage too small for it, a lion cage facing on to a deer enclosure, so that both species were constantly under stress, goats in a paddock littered with broken glass and cages full of rotting food.

This proliferation of zoos is not only a British phenomenon. It is world-wide, and has resulted in increasing pressure on the populations of wild animals. All over the world animals have been captured in increasing numbers for the pet trade and for zoos. In some cases—for example, the great apes—this has brought some species to the verge of extinction. To capture a young gorilla or orangutan the mother must be killed. About three out of four young apes so captured die before they reach the zoo or research institute which is their final destination. Thus four mothers and three young apes will die so that one can be sold. The more reputable zoos realise this and increasingly are keeping their animals in viable breeding groups and trying to build up strains of exotic animals who will breed readily in captivity and reduce the pressure on wild populations.

A good zoo will pride itself on the fact that most of its animals have lived long in that zoo, breeding regularly. Only the more disreputable ones will buy a succession of animals for exhibition only. Unfortunately there are a good many which do. About eight years ago a group of the more reputable zoos, realising that a bad zoo in which the animals were obviously neglected could bring all zoos into disrepute, founded a Federation, admission to which was obtained only after a team of inspectors had been satis- fied that an applicant zoo reached the necessary high standards—standards very similar to those set out in Clause 5(2) of the Bill now before your Lordships. The Federation was neither a trade protection society nor a closed shop. It was founded not to further the interests of its members against rival zoos or Government interference, but to raise the standards of all zoos for the benefit of the animals in their care. Membership is of course voluntary, and the only benefit it brings is the cachet of having passed the test. About one-third of all British zoos belong to the Federation. A few have tried but have failed. The remainder, some of which are well run, have remained outside and there is no control over the standards of these two second groups.

As I have said, my Lords, there are too many bad zoos, and there is too much unnecessary animal suffering. I regret to say that the industry as a whole has failed to put its own house in order, so it should be, and must be, done by legislation. Experience among zoos has shown that it is not possible to define physical standards in the way of the size of the cage, ventilation, temperature, humidity, rations and so on, which will inevitably result in satisfactory conditions for various species of animals. The only method by which such conditions can be ensured for exotic animals in zoos, as with domestic animals on farms, is inspection. A good stockman will rear healthy stock in difficult conditions; a poor one, as your Lordships will undoubtedly know, will fail with all the physical conditions in his favour, and inspection by an experienced stock owner will tell him whether the stockman is good or bad.

The principle on which this Bill is based, therefore, is that only zoos which are found on inspection to reach the appropriate standards will be allowed to make a charge for admission, though provision is made for a period of apprenticeship. A Zoological Gardens Council is to be set up under Clause 1 and is to establish two registers: The register of Approved Zoological Gardens and a probationary register. Under Clause 3, every zoo which is in existence on the appointed day will be entitled to be placed on the probationary register for three years, before the end of which time it will have to satisfy the Council, after inspection under Clause 5, that it has attained the standards necessary to qualify it for entry on the "Approved" register. In my view, three years should be long enough for any zoo which is capable of reaching the required standards to do so. In the same way, any new zoo started in the future will on application (assuming, of course, that the Bill is passed) be put on the probationary register for one year and will have to qualify for recognition on the "Approved" register before that year has elapsed. Once the Bill is in operation proprietors of new zoos will know the standards on which the Council insists, and should quickly qualify for admission to the register of Approved Zoos.

Clause 7 obliges the Council to inspect all zoos on the register of Approved Zoological Gardens at intervals of not more than five years, to make certain that satisfactory standards are being maintained. A zoo which has allowed its standards to fall will be put on the probationary register for one year, which should give ample time to raise standards once again to those which would enable it to become an approved zoo after re-inspection. Clause 9 provides for appeal to the courts by the proprietor of any zoo against a decision of the Council; and Clause 8 gives the owner the right to demand another inspection either before or after an appeal to the courts. Clause 10 provides that people who have been disqualified under other Acts from keeping animals for offences against them should similarly be disqualified from keeping them in zoos. The remaining clauses are concerned with various administrative matters, definitions and the like.

My Lords, the constitution of the Council is set out in the Schedule and follows precedents set by other similar registering bodies. It provides for four members nominated by the Minister, four by the appropriate professional institution—in this case, the Federation of Zoological Gardens; two by veterinary surgeons, and one by a society concerned with the conservation of animals in the wild. The membership of the Federation is to be restricted under the Schedule to zoos which are on the register of Approved Zoological Gardens, and every zoo will be entitled as of right to membership of the Federation. Once this Bill is passed, therefore, the Federation will be an electoral college of all approved zoos, which need meet only once in three years to nominate the four members to represent approved zoos on the statutory Zoological Gardens Council. Like many another voluntary body, its pioneering work of raising zoo standards will have been taken over by a statutory one.

I have had an opportunity of hearing and considering certain suggestions that have been made and which probably we shall have to consider, some of which suggestions have been incorporated in this particular Bill. As your Lordships will remember, I asked for leave to introduce a Bill—the original Bill—and was given that leave; but since then some of these proposals made by various organisations and people concerned have been incorporated into this, the No. 2 Bill. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

My Lords, it is with some trepidation that I rise to add a few words to your Lordships on this Bill. I am well aware of your Lordships' kindness to those speaking for the first time in your Lordships' House. First, I must declare my interest, in that I have the honour of being on the Council of the North of England Zoo at Chester, which is one of the largest, most modern and successful in the country. I am no scientist or zoologist, but just one of the "locals" and extremely interested in the future of our zoo. We are a charitable trust. We have over a million visitors a year and we make a respectable profit, which is of course ploughed back.

I would say straightaway that I think this is a very good Bill, one which one might say has been produced just in time, when there is such a proliferation of small commercial zoos, quite unsupervised in some cases, springing up all over the country, and even dying down again. I and my Council agree with all the points in this Bill, with one reservation concerning a matter which I hope may be amended at a later date. We are a scientific, educational provincial zoo and have done much remarkable work in the breeding and preservation of many rare species, such as the chimpanzee and orang-outang which breed regularly with us. I am rather worried that the Zoo Federation, who would have the right to nominate four representatives to the Council of Zoos, may, through some mischance, find that the large, scientific and educational zoos are not adequately represented on the Council: in fact, they would be overwhelmed by sheer weight of numbers. I feel that this could be disastrous, to say nothing of discouraging.

We did in fact belong to the Federation of Zoos, although we are not now members, and we had their inspectors round to Chester Zoo. There was one criticism: that there were cobwebs in the Elephant House. Would it be possible for the noble Lord, Lord Janner, to consider this point: that all types of zoos should be represented on the Council, the large, non-profit-making scientific ones, the small ones, most probably commercial, the bird farms and the safari parks? I will not go into detail at this point. My Lords, many years ago my tutor at school wrote on one of my essays: "Too much padding, Tollemache." That is an admonition I should not like to have repeated to-day; but I would once again thank your Lordships for your courteous reception of my remarks.

My Lords, the question of the control of zoological gardens was first raised in your Lordships' House some two years ago by the late Lord Mansfield. He urged the Government of the day to set up a Committee to investigate the conditions existing in many collections of exotic animals and to report on what legislation was necessary to ensure the proper standards of general and veterinary care, and also to advise whether some form of licensing of zoos was required. He was unsuccessful in his representations. We should therefore be all the more grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Janner, who has not allowed the matter to rest but seeks in this Bill to introduce a system of licensing and inspection of zoological gardens, zoological parks and any collection of animals to which the public are admitted on payment.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Tollemache —whom I should like to congratulate on his maiden speech—I, too, find this a wholly admirable Bill. I hope that Lord Janner's proposals will find support and that the system of control they represent will result not only in an improvement in standards of animal husbandry in the zoos in this country—the number of which, as has been pointed out, is multiplying very fast—but also in a better understanding of the responsibilities and the role of zoos in the public and the zoological scene. In introducing the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Janner, referred to the foundation of the Zoological Society of London in 1825. He referred to words of Sir Humphry Davy, then President of the Royal Society, on why a zoo should be formed in London. In discussing this subject it is difficult to avoid reference to the work of the Zoological Society. As the present honorary secretary of the Society, which is an educational charity and with which I have been connected for over forty years, I speak with an intimate knowledge of its affairs, its aims and responsibilities.

My Lords, in declaring my interest may I say that—as the Oxford Dictionary reveals—the word "zoo" was coined as a popular abbreviation by which to refer to the Zoological Gardens in Regents Park. To-day, however, the word is used to denote any collection of captive animals regardless of the purpose for which the collection is maintained, or of its standards, its character or its size. In some ways it is unfortunate that this one word can be used to describe so many types of collections, from small, temporary, badly-housed collections—often better described as "roadside menageries"—to valuable and representative collections which over many years have played an important part in the advancement of our knowledge of the animal kingdom and of animal physiology.

Under the licensing system proposed in this Bill an inspecting team will pay attention to the minimum requirements, as set out in Clause 5, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Janner, has drawn our attention, which the public are entitled to expect of every zoo. These refer first to standards of animal husbandry and veterinary care. These are basic to good management. But I should like to see this clause considerably strengthened by the inclusion of a requirement that the inspectors should report on the adequacy of the health records, birth records and post-mortem records kept by each zoo. It is impossible to assess standards of veterinary care and animal welfare without such documentation. Veterinary officers are trained to deal mainly with domesticated animals, and only those who have specialised, as fortunately some have, in exotic animals, would have the necessary experience to deal with exotic animals. Records of births, deaths and longevity in captivity could reveal more than an inspection lasting only a relatively short time. Such records are vital as a basis of a considered judgment.

The training of staff is another aspect which, to date, has been sadly neglected. At the present moment there are widely varying standards of keeper education and training, or no standards at all. This is an important matter. The staff of a zoo—and by that I mean professional staff as well as keepers—have to know that they are concerned with the well-being not only of their animal charges but also of the public who go to see them. Accidents have been all too frequent, and few people realise that some animals can transmit some highly dangerous diseases to man, unless special precautions are taken.

The inspectors will also be expected to assess the arrangements made in each establishment to further the education of the visitors. Zoos may generally be regarded as "an educational tool in a recreational setting", but they should never be allowed to exist only to cater for the amusement of the public. This provision in the Bill recognises that the day has long since passed when it was legitimate to exhibit animals solely as a means of entertainment. Part of the profits that zoos make should therefore be allocated for educational purposes. I very much welcome the emphasis which the Bill puts on this issue. Only a very few zoos, and mainly the larger zoos which have existed for many years, take education at all seriously.

The final requirement in Clause 5—that animals should, so far as is possible, be kept in viable breeding groups—is a reflection of the growing public concern with the problem of the conservation of wildlife. Properly managed zoos with sound breeding programmes help the cause of wildlife conservation, but breeding success depends on scientific animal husbandry. A zoo which is unwilling to set aside resources to allow for the right standards of animal husbandry should not be allowed to exist.

The Zoological Society of London, with its collections at the London Zoo and Whipsnade Park, has always accepted far greater responsibilities than those set out in the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Janner, has reminded us the Society was founded by Royal Charter as a scientific society. This remains its prime purpose. For the 150 years of its existence it has systematically studied animal diseases and animal physiology, and to this end has continuously carried out research on the material which the day-to-day care of a collection of exotic animals naturally provides. These systematic studies are essential in establishing the highest standards of care for any captive animals. As the noble Lord, Lord Janner, implied, in the same way as sound farming practice is dependent on the work of the research organisations which inquire into the physiology of livestock, so too is the maintenance of exotic species in captivity necessarily dependent on the kind of research which can be undertaken in those zoos which are prepared to set aside the necessary resources.

But the research which the Zoological Society of London has undertaken has gone far beyond this. Ever since its foundation 150 years ago a significant part of our knowledge of comparative anatomy, comparative pathology and animal physiology has been based on work undertaken by the staff of the London Zoo and by visiting scientists. The work at two of our research institutes, the ownership of one of the best zoological libraries in the world, the publication of important scientific journals and bibliographies—of which our most recent additon, the International Zoo Year Book, has become over the past 10 years the standard work on zoos for the whole world—are an essential part of the activities of the society.

The Society is one of the few institutions in the world, and certainly the only zoo in this country, which has accepted these responsibilities as an essential justification for keeping wild animals in captivity. The Bill does not seek to impose corresponding responsibilities on all zoos. One would not expect every zoo to shoulder the burden and cost of the clinical and physiological research, and of publishing, which the Zoological Society of London undertakes. The Bill merely seeks to ensure that the principles of good zoo management are achieved in every zoo. It is unfortunate that the majority of zoos are totally unconcerned with research. Much valuable material is now simply thrown away by zoos. This is a point which should not be lost sight of. I would suggest that at some point we should consider whether it should not be mandatory for those zoos which do not undertake scientific research to cooperate with zoos which do.

In my view the provisions of this Bill will have an important effect in generating a sense of responsibility, as well as of raising the standards of every zoo. Unless we can ensure high standards of animal care, and be certain that zoos are not concerned merely with public entertainment, it seems to me that the public will soon believe that there is little justification for keeping animals in captivity.

A heavy responsibility will rest with the Council as constituted in Part 1 of the Schedule. It will need to be sufficiently clear in its purpose to ensure that standards are consistently maintained. Some further thought may be necessary on the question of its constitution, as the noble Lord, Lord Tollemache, indicated. I find it somewhat illogical that although the education of the visiting public is laid down as one of the criteria by which to assess the quality of zoos, no firm provision is being made in the present Bill to include among the members of the Council a single professional zoologist. Only those zoologists who care know about the ways in which zoos can be of value to zoology. There is every reason why they should be represented on the Council.

My Lords, I have mentioned the unique role of the Zoological Society of London in the world of zoos. It is our national society, it is responsible to the public for the custody of our national collections of exotic animals, and it has led the way—and I am proud to say this—not only in Great Britain but in the entire world, in scientific research into non-domesticated species of animals, and in setting high standards of zoo management. Over the years its work and experience in the clinical and pathological aspects of animal husbandry and animal breeding have helped all zoos. I hope that its voice will be heard in the deliberations of the proposed Council.

In the long term it is in the interests of all zoos to submit to inspection and to achieve the minimum standards proposed in the Bill. As I have indicated, the confidence of the informed public needs to be built up so that they know that zoos are prepared to commit their resources to the improvement of the conditions in which they maintain their charges, and to purposes which would enable them to play their part in the educational field and in the urgent problem of the conservation of wildlife.

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Janner, on bringing forward this Bill and the noble Lord, Lord Tollemache, on an excellent maiden speech. I can assure your Lordships that this Bill has the support of the Council for Nature, which as your Lordships will know, represents twelve national voluntary natural history and conservation societies, and over 350 similar local societies—that is to say the Council embodies some 170,000 experts and keen naturalists. The Bill has a strong conservation aspect, as well as a humanitarian one, and it is on the conservation aspect that I want particularly to speak.

The noble Lord, Lord Janner, referred to some animals being found to be expendable. I am advised that certain roadside zoos are reputed to destroy the animals at the end of the season because it is cheaper to buy new ones next season than to feed those all through the winter. When one realises that for every animal in the zoo perhaps four to six are captured and die, we must indeed welcome the reference in Clause 5 to the viable breeding groups, if this Bill becomes law. The ideal to aim at—and this Bill helps in it—is that the zoos of the world should stock themselves, so far as possible, from animals which they have bred themselves. This is possible through interchange, through swapping; and this is being done in quite a big way. I should like to give your Lordships one example of an endangered species: the white-eared pheasant. Some years ago I was in the Jersey Zoo and they were breeding from a pair of white-eared pheasants. They had a few chicks, and the fellow showing me round said, "That is half the world's population." To-day there are 35 white-eared pheasants, separated in six different zoos in six different countries; and they represent 75 per cent. of the world population. We have there an endangered species saved, and an opportunity that would not otherwise exist for children and future generations to see the white-eared pheasant.

Another, somewhat similar, example is to be found in India. I am told that there are about 200 Indian lions left in the world; there are no Indian lions outside India. The Fauna Preservation Society have purchased a breeding pair. With the help of Air India they have paid for a man to go to India to make a cage for the lions. It is not easy; there are not many people who can make a cage for lions. Air India are paying the fares back, and there in Jersey, for the first time outside India, we shall have a breeding pair, and perhaps future generations will be able to see the Indian lion which would otherwise disappear. Your Lordships will be interested to know (I know that Lord Zuckerman is aware of this), that there is to be in May, at the Jersey Zoo, run by the Wildlife Preservation Trust and the Fauna Preservation Society, the first ever conference of zoologists from all over the world on breeding in zoos of threatened species. This is a step in the right direction. This Bill is in tune with the times.

To turn to the Bill itself, I agree with Lord Zuckerman in expressing, not doubt but a few feelings about Clause 5. The success of this Bill will lie in whether the Council have teeth to bite if that proves to be necessary; whether they have powers, and perhaps duties, given to them. I am not sure that I am right about duties, but perhaps there should be laid down duties about hygiene, avoidance of cruelty, public safety, not only for the public visiting the zoo but also, as Lord Zuckerman will know, to combat the danger of rabies when animals escape from a zoo, and certainly for the conservation of species. I am doubtful about duties, but I am certain of one power that should be included in this clause, and that is a power to the Council to add, if necessary, to the qualifications that are set out in paragraphs (a) to (e). They ought to have power to find something else that has to be done and laid down. I am not sure whether paragraph 7, in Part II of the Schedule, makes that sufficiently clear.

I have some very minor queries. For instance, in Clause 9 there is the reference to a right of appeal to the magistrates' court. I am not sure whether my English friends would like the idea of an appeal to the magistrates' court, but I am quite certain that my Scottish friends would prefer that well-tried institution, the sheriff court. Then Clauses 11 and 12 I deal with the charging of admission money. This is important because the Council, quite rightly, will get a percentage of those charges. Now that there is no entertainment tax, and since not every zoo has a turnstile or automatic ticket machine, it might be useful to consider giving the Council power to approve the method of charging, so that the Council could be quite sure they were getting their fair share of the money that came in.

Reference has been made to the constitution of the Council. I have taken part in enough proceedings on different Bills to know that this is going to be a very difficult point to settle. I have only one point to make. There are to be four members nominated by the Minister and four by the industry, and there are two veterinary surgeons and a member of the F.P.S. Would it be sensible that the outside members, the two veterinary surgeons and the member of the F.P.S. should have to be approved by the Minister, in order to be quite certain there was freedom from any vested interests? That is all I have to say, my Lords. I support the Bill very much, and I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Janner, for bringing it in.

My Lords, I too should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Janner on his Bill, which has the additional merit that it has brought the noble Lord, Lord Tollemache, to his feet for the first time in this House. It is particularly easy for me to congratulate him on his maiden speech, because I agree with everything that he said. I hope that we shall hear him often, and I hope that I shall as often be able to agree with him.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, I must begin by declaring an interest, not alas!—any more than in his case—a commercial interest. I wish that I had a commercial stake in this growing industry, in which the public, year by year, take a greater interest. It is simply as an independent chairman that I come into the picture. I am, and am happy to be, the Chairman of the Federation of Zoos, which is referred to in the Schedule to the Bill, and about which therefore it seemed to me I should give your Lordships some account. My noble friend Lord Janner explained the genesis of this body. The difficulty it encountered from the very beginning was the deep suspicion of the commercial zoos that the older-established society zoos, such as London, Bristol, Chester and Edinburgh, disapproved of them—as indeed, to some extent, I think they did—and would put obstacles in the way of their development. I feel that this suspicion was mainly unfounded, but whether correct or not, it was there; and it made the task of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, who was the first Chairman of this organisation, in getting the original Federation together extremely difficult. Eventually he hammered out a constitution which was acceptable to the original 11 subscribers, and the Federation was duly formed. Its membership grew to 25 in 1967, and at present it is 35. I should like to repeat some figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Janner. In 1960 there were about 30 zoos in the whole of England; in 1967 there were 72, and we reckon to-day that there are at least 96. That gives some idea of the meteoric rise of this particular industry in this country.

As has been suggested by my noble friend, the idea in forming a Federation was to persuade the members to insist on high standards of animal husbandry and public safety, and to enforce these on themselves voluntarily by a system of regular inspections based on mutually agreed standards. One would have thought this a reasonable scheme, but it was not reasonable enough for the zoo industry. Zoo-keepers tend to be rugged individualists, to be touchy of any criticism, to regard their own practices as good and their colleagues' practices as very largely bad—in fact, to behave as we have always been led to believe that artists behave. Toscanini, for example, never in his life heard Sir Thomas Beecham conduct, though they were exact contemporaries, and Sir Thomas Beecham referred to Toscanini as "that bandmaster". I think we must admit that the atmosphere in the zoo world has been highly artistic. But in a sense these people are artists: they are artists at handling animals, which they have to be to do their job; and they are artists at exhibiting them. In many zoos, the gardens are as fine a sight as the collections themselves. I only wish, as independent chairman, that I were as much an artist at handling them as they are in handling their animals. The technique seems to be much the same, but I have still a lot to learn.

The upshot was that while no safari parks joined the Federation, nearly every large zoo in the country at that time did and so did a fair number of smaller zoos. Thus, the Federation has something over a third of all zoos as members, but a much higher proportion of the business taken on the turnover if you exclude the safari parks. It went on with its business of inspecting and drawing up standards, and by the time it fell into my hands, if I may so put it, it was ticking over fairly nicely. But at least half the industry was outside. Therefore, I began at once to see whether we could not accommodate the dissentients. I tried to woo back into the fold Chester, which is a splendid zoo but had left us some years previously for reasons which have never been clear to me, and I think I made some progress. I tried to persuade some of the safari parks that they ought to come in. Again I made some progress, though I did not succeed in bringing any of this to finality.

Then came the First Reading of the Bill, which concentrated most wonderfully the minds of the outsiders. They immediately formed an Association which now includes most zoos and safari parks which are not our members, and indeed one or two who are. Their original aim, I think, was to oppose the Bill; but the atmosphere changed and, to my great pleasure, I was able to arrange a meeting with their new chairman, Mr. Robinson, to discuss whether we could not work together. I found what I had expected, that there was no particular objection to the Bill as such but the strongest objection to the position held by the Federation under the Schedule by which it was to nominate four zoo members to the Council. I said I was ready to examine any proposal by which we could include this newly-formed Association in the voting, but I was sure that the sponsors of the Bill would not accept for a vote anybody who had not accepted and passed inspection. Mr. Robinson then told me, to my surprise and pleasure, that his Association had decided to adopt a system of inspection. Then I said, "There is no obstacle to our working together". I am happy to say that we are now in the process of setting up a joint working party to examine how we can combine our talents, and I hope that by the Committee stage I shall be able to present your Lordships with the general approval of a united industry. I have undertaken to the new Association with which we are negotiating that if an agreement, which I am confident we can come to, takes a form which does not exactly fit the words in Part I of the Schedule, then I will move an Amendment in Committee. I hope my noble friend Lord Danner will be able to say, in his closing speech, that in principle he will be willing to accept such an Amendment.

This happy outcome which is so nearly achieved means, in effect, that virtually the whole industry will welcome the Bill and will confine its comments to trying to improve rather than oppose it. The members of the Federation, together with the members of the new Association and with the additional support of Chester Zoo, which we shall be glad to hear about to-day, represent between them in terms of annual attendances—and these figures are estimates—something like 19 million out of an estimated 20 million of the total people who go to zoos in this country. Therefore, very largely the industry as a whole is represented. There are something over 20 zoos not in either association. Most of them are small, some of them specialised, and many of them I think will come in without any particular difficulty.

If I may just finish the story of the Federation, as my noble friend pointed out, under the Bill every zoo that passes inspection and gets its name on to the "Approved" register will have the right to join the Federation, and no zoo which fails to make the grade will be able to remain in it. So it will become virtually a roster of approved zoos with only one function, to act as electors of the four members of the Council. The main function of the Federation to-day is inspection, which is expensive and difficult and controversial. This will be taken over by the new Council; so the Federation, as it stands, will simply become the electoral college, though, as my noble friend (if I may call him that) Lord Zuckerman pointed out, there is an enormous need for a combined drive on training, and it may well be that if the members agree there may be a function for the Federation in that way.

I should like to say a word or two about the zoos which this Bill concerns. Here I will speak not only for members of my own Federation but also, with his permission, for Mr. Robinson's members. Society's attitude to animals has changed for the better in recent years, but we must not forget that it has always been ambivalent. The people who have loved animals most have often been their most ferocious hunters, their most ruthless exterminators; though to be fair we must admit that those who hunt for money are a much greater danger to animal life than those who hunt for fun. Even the naturalist kills for science's sake, or at least for the sake of curiosity. That most observant countryman, Gilbert White, never walked round the environs of Selborne without a gun under his arm, and if he could not identify a bird he shot it to make sure. I must read a short passage from his Natural History which I came across the other night:

"In the middle of February I discovered, in my tall hedges, a little bird that raised my curiosity; it was of that yellow-green colour that belongs to the salicaria kind … appearing most like the largest willow-wren. It hung sometimes with its back downwards, but never continuing one moment in the same place. I shot at it, but it was so desultory that I missed my aim."

I think that attitudes are changing, because Gilbert White was a marvellous man, but if the first naturalist of the country to-day were to shoot little birds to see what they were, we should probably feel that was a pity. If we can concentrate the hunting instinct on to vermin, and sublimate the rest into photography and bird-watching, there will probably be some wild life left on this planet in a hundred years' time.

In Gilbert White's time bear-baiting and cock-fighting were current entertainments, but they would not be tolerated for a moment to-day even if they were legal. In the same way, the British love of circuses has waned; people have begun to think, in my opinion rightly, that anthropomorphic imitations are an indignity to the animal performing them, and that the beauty of wild life is best enjoyed in surroundings as near as possible to the natural ones. The concept of the zoological collection is changing. Crowded cages representing all examples of genus are being replaced by spacious enclosures giving plenty of room for natural movement to a limited sample only. Free flying "walk-through" aviaries are replacing cages. Whipsnade, which the London Zoo opened in 1931, shows its animals in flocks and herds in large open enclosures. Then in 1966 Mr. Chipperfield, with 300 years of circus behind him, recognised the change in the public mood and invented the drive-through safari park, which adapts the vistas of Whipsnade to the proliferation of the motor car in our modern world. Longleat was the first; now there are seven safari parks and more on the way.

The bird garden is another element in our zoos. Bird enthusiasts who have made private collections out of love for their subject and have found the public wanting to visit them, have responded and expanded, and we now have no fewer than 23 established and flourishing bird gardens in these Islands, many of them in the most beautiful natural surroundings. I suppose we should all prefer to see animals in full freedom in their natural environment, but this is in general quite outside the means of ordinary people. I think that the keeping of birds and beasts and exhibiting them to the public has come to stay—after all, in one way or another it has been going on ever since Babylonian times—and we need not try to stop it. But we certainly have a duty to see that it is properly done.

There are three reasons for doing this, two of which we have been given already. The noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, explained the scientific necessity, and the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, explained the conservation necessity. There is a third reason, which is that the people want it, and that is a reason not to be despised. I have the honour to sit on your Lordship' Select Committee on Sport and Leisure, and we receive increasing evidence of the determination of the public to drive out at weekends and holiday periods with their families to see something. The enormous success and the very large attendances at the zoos shows that they are filling a need and are filling it to the public satisfaction. But the more certain we are about this, the more essential it is that we should have proper control and should enforce the very highest standards of public safety and animal welfare. Anybody who cannot afford to do the job properly must be prevented from doing it at all. The Council which we visualise setting up under this Bill must insist on the highest standards, must give some period of grace to get up to those standards and must then eliminate ruthlessly those that fail. I think I speak for the whole industry when I say that it is solidly in support of these objectives.

My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Janner, on introducing this Bill. I personally think that this Bill, or some Bill very like it, is overdue and very necessary for the future. I should also like to add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Tollemache on his admirable maiden speech, which was so forceful, so concise and so short. I sincerely hope that from now on we shall often hear the noble Lord's words of wisdom in this House.

Before I come on to the Bill, I should like to take up one or two matters raised by the noble Lord who has just spoken. He said, quite rightly, that we are all to-day far more civilised than were the Victorians who, though some might be great naturalists, wanted to shoot everything.

My Lords, I said before Queen Victoria.

My Lords, I thought the noble Lord was talking about the Victorians. But I should like to point out to the noble Lord that there are some wild animals and birds in this country that have to be shot and culled; for instance, the old stag and the barren, old toothless hind. Then there are grouse, which are a crop. The average age of the grouse is only about 18 months and certainly not more than two years. If the grouse is not shot he is going to die anyway; and he will die a far more unpleasant death than if he is shot. But I will not dwell on that subject.

The idea behind this Bill is very good, provided that the aim is the proper management of animals in zoological gardens and the protection of the public who enter such gardens. Perhaps I ought first to declare an interest, though I am rather confused as to what interest I should declare because I do not really know the legal definition of a "zoo". I certainly have exotic animals, although they are not in cages but are in very big enclosures and can breed perfectly freely. I also have a considerable number of exotic waterfowl and birds. I do not suppose that what I have can really be called a zoological garden. The public can see some of these animals, but they cannot see them all the time because the elk, for instance, are in a very large area and may be out of sight of the public. I have no dangerous animals, apart from bull elk which can be very dangerous. I am not quite sure whether I ought to declare an interest, but I have told your Lordships what the position is.

The noble Lord who spoke last mentioned a fear which I have had slightly, though I am sure it is quite unfounded. I think the fear he mentioned was that small zoos might be frightened that one of the reasons why the Zoological Federation have sponsored this Bill is the commercial reason that they are worried that the great growth of smaller zoos will take away some of their gate money. I do not agree with this idea, and it is only what some owners of small zoos have said to me. I am sure that it is unfounded, but I wanted to mention that fear. What surprises me is that private zoos which are not open to the public are not included in this Bill. It may be that the sponsors of this Bill are quite satisfied that existing animal legislation—and we have a great deal of it—protects animals in private zoos which are not open to the public. I myself rather doubt that, however, and I should have liked to see such zoos included in this Bill.

May I run very shortly through the Bill in order to make a few points? Clause 3 deals with the register of approved zoological gardens. I think it would be a good idea to enter, as well as the names of the owners, the name of the manager or the professional in charge of the zoo, because some owners of zoos probably know very little about their animals. Therefore I think that the name of the manager ought to be known and registered. Coming to Clause 6, I should like to say something about paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1). When zoological gardens are open to the public for charitable purposes or for the purpose of any public exhibition or competition, they ought surely to be inspected. I cannot understand this omission and I should have thought that the local vet and a Ministry official ought to inspect such places. They would then lodge a statement with the local authority or with the police saying whether or not the opening was allowed. I agree that that would certainly entail more work, but it is surely necessary.

In regard to Clause 7(1), I should have thought that if a zoological garden changed hands a new inspection ought to be made within six months. I know that many of these points are Committee points, but I thought (though it may sound conceited to say so) that if I brought them out on Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Janner, might take them into consideration. On Clause 9—and I believe that another noble Lord brought up this point—I cannot really see how a local magistrate can give a ruling whether or not a zoological garden ought to be entered on the register after appeal. I suppose he will be able to hear expert witnesses, but I should have thought that some better arrangement ought to be made regarding that matter, though I must confess that I do not know what arrangement.

May I turn to Clause 12 and the question of payment to the Council—and this is very important. I think there may be some difficulty here. To take my personal position, I have some exotic animals and birds, but the public come into my grounds in the summer on five days a week and pay an inclusive charge. That charge is not just for seeing the animals; it is for all sorts of other attractions, such as the very beautiful gardens, the interesting architecture and various other things. Therefore, if the payment to the Council is to be calculated on the number of people who pay to enter the zoological gardens, how are you going to divide the amount in the case of those places—and there are such places—where the animals are only (shall we say?) a side attraction of the main place? I think we shall get into some difficulty there. I should have preferred the scale of charges for payment to the Council to be, laid down according to the size of the zoological establishment, based on the number and type of animals and on the number of staff employed. I should have thought that that was really fairer.

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Viscount realises that any such suggestion as his last one would be totally opposed by those charitable organisations and scientific institutions such as the Zoological Society of London, which maintains a bigger staff than probably most of the zoo staffs in this country put together. We have a staff of over 500, and we have over seven veterinary people. Also, as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has indicated, we have beautiful gardens, too; and some of our buildings have been acclaimed as the best in the country.

My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. I have no doubt he is right. I was just making the point, and I will not pursue it. Several noble Lords have spoken about the educational side of zoological gardens. Personally, I provide nature trails for children. There are thousands of school children whom we have escorted round nature trails, telling them about plants and birds and that kind of thing. It would be a great pity if zoological gardens were to look only upon the strictly commercial side, the exhibition of animals solely for the enjoyment of the public. I rather dislike that: it smacks of the Roman circuses. I am all for the breeding side and for the educational side. In the Schedule, I hope that one of the four persons who will be nominated by the Federation of Zoological Gardens under paragraph 1(b) of Part I will represent the smaller zoos. I hope it will not be a monopoly, the big zoos only. Having said that, my Lords, I should like to give a very warm welcome to the Bill. I trust it will have a speedy passage through this House, and an untroubled one.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, has already declared my interest as having been his predecessor as Chairman of the Zoo Federation. I am also a member of the Council of the London Zoo; so I have now made my position quite clear. I am also a neighbour of the noble Lord, Lord Tollemache, and I should like to congratulate him on his maiden speech. I hope that, even if he comes here only for debates connected with zoos and the conservation of Nature, he will come more often because he will be exceedingly helpful to those of us who are keen on those sides of life.

My Lords, I think one of the interesting things to-day is that, save for one or two remarks made by the noble Viscount, Lord Massercene and Ferrard (they were more Committee stage points, I think, than Second Reading points; and I should like to deal with them in a moment because I have had experience of them), there has been more or less unanimity among your Lordships—and not only among your Lordships, but in the reports by your Lordships of the general opinion of people in the zoo world—that a Bill of this nature is necessary and desirable. I can add to that a letter which I have received from the British Veterinary Association, who also support this Bill very strongly indeed. They support, too, the point made by the noble Lord Lord Zuckerman. They would like to see added to Clause 5 some reference to a requirement that records should be kept of all the animals going in or out of the zoo, whether by purchase, sale, birth or death.

Another of the interesting points in the debate this afternoon has been that all of us—and I include myself—accept the fact that zoos, if properly run, are a useful and desirable part of our life. The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, referred to the pressure which zoos exert on wild stocks of animals, and how that pressure could be reduced—indeed, should be reduced, and must be reduced—by the building up of breeding stocks in zoos. But I wonder whether your Lordships appreciate the extent of the trade in animals that goes on, the number of animals that come into this country, not only going to zoos but also going into general trade and, in some cases, for research. I was for a number of years Chairman of the Advisory Committee set up under the Animal (Restriction of Importation) Act of 1964, which advised the Government on the importation of rare animals. The Act was so drawn up that we had also to take cognisance of animals in the same category or order that were not rare.

If your Lordships read the Report of that Committee you will find that, on average, between 200,000 and 300,000 tortoises are imported into this country every year. That has been going on for a great number of years, and if the vast majority of those tortoises did not die England would be stuffed with tortoises from top to bottom. It would be like the population pessimists tell us about: there would be one tortoise per square foot of ground, and there would not be room for men to stand; it would be far worse than any population explosion. There are 10,000 monkeys imported into this country every year—a large number of them, of course, for research in the form of testing vaccines and the like; but a large number go to zoos, and until recently many went into the trade and into private houses. Nothing is more unsuitable in a private house than a monkey. One could go on. The trade is very large and the pressures are very great. All responsible zoos know this, and all responsible zoos are going to try to do their best in breeding up animals. But, by and large, I accept the fact that this importation is useful; that zoos are useful.

The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, referred to Gilbert White. Our tastes must run in parallel. I was looking at something by Gilbert White the other day, and I found out that when visiting a neighbour's collection of animals in 1770 he noticed that the only exotic birds there were hard-billed birds. He deduced that they came because they found it fairly easy to feed on the journey back and therefore only hard-billed birds reached this country. It is a good thing that zoo keepers and the like have now learned how to feed soft-billed birds, and have even been able to import humming birds and keep them alive for long periods so as to be able to educate the public in what they are looking at. In the early days of dolphinaria the casualty rate was very high and "Dolly the Dolphin" which we all admired was probably "Dolly" No. 2, or 3, 4 or 5; the public did not know that Nos. 1 to 4 had gone the way of all flesh all too quickly. But dolphinaria have now learned how to keep dolphins in captivity reasonably well. It is useful that we have now discovered that dolphins are born tail first, because if they were born head first and there was a prolonged and difficult labour they would be drowned before they got to the surface. All these little lessons that we learn are taught us by zoos and by menageries; and, properly managed, they are good things.

Although we are worried by the trade in animals, this can be a useful thing, too. Properly managed, it brings hard currency to some of the developing countries. To-day, one sees in South Africa that the parks are so well managed they have a surplus of rhinoceros. The Committee of which I was Chairman was expressly set up to control the importation of such animals. They now have a surplus of white rhinoceros in the parks of South Africa and one can let them come into this country with a clear conscience because no harm is done to the wild stock; although I think that anybody who takes wild rhinoceros from any other part of Africa ought to be ashamed of himself. That is the good point of zoos. The good points are very good, but there can be very bad points if the zoos are not properly controlled.

The same Committee controlling the import of animals decided that rare animals should come in only if they were going into breeding units but not if they were to come in one by one for exhibition as curiosities. We had to satisfy ourselves that the people proposing to take these animals into breeding units were capable of looking after them, and we had our private inspection. In quite a number of cases we found that the conditions under which the animals were kept were deplorable—not so deplorable that the ordinary law of cruelty to animals would come into operation, but because the people concerned did not have any idea of the fundamental welfare of animals. I found a word the other day, anthropophuistic which means having the sentiments of animals, and is the corresponding thing about one's mind to "anthro- pomorphic" to one's body—not one's body, but an animal's body. We must avoid attributing to animals the same sentiments as we do ourselves feel. But anybody who looks after animals with imagination (and most zoo keepers have imagination) is fond of animals.

From what Lord Donaldson said I am certain that all good zoo people will come together because they all have the same objectives in the end. At the back of their minds they feel that if animals are so well kept that they are able to find a suitable mate and to breed, then they are being looked after properly. Do not forget that animals differ from mankind in this respect. Mankind will go on breeding in the worst slums in the world; animals will not go on breeding unless the conditions in which they are kept are satisfactory. I believe therefore that with this Bill we can build up a really good series of zoos in this country. I believe the zoos themselves really want it and I believe the population really wants it. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, must accept that if he is going to keep exotic animals in a park or a house to which he admits people and is making money by exhibiting exotic animals, he must be prepared to face up to having to pay a contribution towards the inspection. But may I console him by drawing attention to the last paragraph of Clause 12. If his zoo is, like Midshipman Easy's nursemaid's baby, a very small one, the costs will be levied according to the size of the zoo. I think that ample provision has been made to meet the case where the zoo is only a small part of an enterprise by that phrase in the clause.

I should like to take him up a little on the same Committee point which he raised about private zoos which make no charge for admission. Basically, the difficulty there is that you define a zoo as a place where exotic animals are kept; but if I go abroad and bring back a tortoise and treat it well, then I am keeping an exotic animal within any definition you may make of a zoo; and it would be fantastic for me to be inspected. To draw the line by the number of animals you keep is also difficult. I think the line which the noble Lord, Lord Janner, has drawn, of making a payment for entry, is the only thing that could be done at the moment; although later it might be possible to include other places where exotic animals are kept and where no charge is made for entry. We are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Janner, for bringing forward this Bill. We all wish it well, and I personally support it as strongly as I can.

My Lords, there can scarcely have been a Private Member's Bill which has received more persuasive and informed support than that given to this Bill this afternoon. I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Janner on introducing the Bill, and also to add my congratulations to those already offered to the noble Lord, Lord Tollemache, for a speech which combined brevity and authority in such delightful proportions. We appear to be dealing with one of the consequential problems of the affluent society and this Bill seems to be the right way of setting about it. I hope very much that we shall agree that the Bill should go forward to a Committee stage where it can be given a closer examination; and I think that that is all that is required from me.

My Lords, I thought, until a moment ago, that the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Tollemache, would be the shortest in this debate, but I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has not run him very close. I should like from this Box to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tollemache, on his maiden speech. He chose, I thought wisely, a subject on which he has expert knowledge and I can assure him that the whole House will look forward to hearing him on many other subjects in the future.

This is a Private Member's Bill and I should like to say at the outset that the attitude of the Government towards it is one of neutrality. There are a number of considerations in the minds of noble Lords and of Members in another place when Private Members start on the long, hard road towards the Statute Book. There are a number of questions in the back of our minds: What is the abuse that is complained of? What is the extent of the abuse? Are there any existing branches of the law—Statute law or Common Law—which bear on the subject and, if so, in what respect are they inadequate?

The conditions in zoos—not all zoos, but a number of them—and the standards of animal welfare are, I think, the aspects of this subject which have dominated the debate. But, as we were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, one of the difficulties in discussing the subject is that "zoos" covers such a very wide range of institutions, ranging from the London Zoo, a great historic and scientific institution run on charitable lines for educational purposes, through to the newer establishments usually run by commercial enterprises such as Wildlife Collection and safari parks. If I may say so, in a debate like this I think we must take care not to look down on this latter category. In recent years millions of people have obtained pleasure, including myself and my family recently, from visiting safari parks. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, put this very well in the context of the Select Committee on Sport and Leisure when he said that they fulfil a need which the public has expressed and they are doing so successfully. But whatever the nature of the establishment, we are all agreed on one thing, that the animals should be properly cared for and humanely treated. And here I think it appropriate to refer fairly briefly to some provisions of the existing law.

In the Home Office, we are aware of three aspects of the subject. The first of these, which has been debated to-day, and the two others, all concern the public: people make representations, write letters and come and talk to officials and Ministers about them. They are, first, the welfare of animals; secondly, the danger to the public and, thirdly, the issues of public nuisance. I should like to say something, quite shortly, under each of these three headings.

As regards the welfare of animals in zoos, just as domestic animals are afforded protection against cruelty and neglect under the Protection of Animals Act 1911, so are all captive animals. The Act applies to both categories and makes it an offence to cause or permit to be caused any unnecessary suffering to any domestic animal or any captive animal by anything that is done, or by anything that is neglected to be done. Any person or any society may initiate proceedings under the Act in respect of any circumstances where there is reason to believe that unnecessary suffering has been or is being caused. Or they may report the matter to the police who will then decide whether or not to prosecute in the light of the facts of the case. I may mention that specific complaints about the maltreatment or neglect of zoo animals are extremely rare and, when investigated, have seldom been substantiated.

Next my Lords, may I say a word or two about the question of the possible danger to the public from animals in zoos or in other collections. I have made some inquiries, and I understand that there are very few specific instances of potentially dangerous wild animals being insecurely housed which have come to the notice of the Home Office; and injury to members of the public by wild animals is, fortunately, an infrequent occurrence. Attacks by zoo animals on the visiting public are even more rare. The occasional case which does, unfortunately, occur almost always results from the person concerned ignoring the safety precautions provided by the management of the zoo, and experience, alas! suggests that folly of this sort cannot be prevented by legislation.

A person who keeps potentially dangerous wild animals has a responsibility to keep them secure and under proper control. If such an animal causes injury to a third party, the owner is strictly liable for damages. This liability formerly rested on Common Law but it has recently been established as a statutory liability under the Animals Act which your Lordships passed in the last Session. This liability undoubtedly constitutes a strong deterrent against the keeping of potentially dangerous wild animals under conditions of inadequate security. A person who permits wild animals to be a danger to the public may also face criminal charges. Noble Lords may remember the recent case of a puma which was chained to the bumper of a car, not in a zoo but on a trading estate, and which mauled a child. Criminal charges were brought in that case and the prosecution was successful.

My Lords, the third category which should perhaps be in our minds when considering this subject is not one which much concerns zoo keepers, but it does concern the public, especially those who may be bothered for some reason or other by the proximity of a zoo. Here the complaints which are made—there are not many of them and I would not wish to put this out of proportion—are complaints about offence and annoyance being caused to nearby residents mainly by obnoxious smells and noises associated with zoos. Here again there is a provision in the existing law to deal with this sort of problem. Section 92 of the Public Health Act 1936 provides that,

"any animal kept in such a place or manner as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance" may be held to be a statutory nuisance by the local authority. If the nuisance is not abated, the local authority have the power to initiate proceedings against the offender.

As regards noise, many local authorities have made by-laws under the Local Government Act 1933 for the suppression of a nuisance under which it is an offence for a person to keep on his premises any noisy animal which causes a serious nuisance to nearby residents. Under the provision of the by-laws, a notice alleging nuisance may be served on the person responsible, provided that it is signed by at least three householders living within hearing of the animal. If after the expiration of two weeks from the service of the notice the nuisance continues, proceedings may be taken against the person responsible.

My Lords, having listened to the arguments in the debate to-day, I think that the House has been remarkably of one mind, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, commented. I have, I think, two doubts remaining in my mind which I should like to mention now to the noble Lord, Lord Janner. One has already been commented on and treated quite fully by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge. The first of the doubts can be put in the form of a question: has the science or technique of management, whatever we call it, reached a stage when standards of care, attendance and safety—because all of those are covered in the Bill—can be enforced by law and made subject to an appeal in the magistrates' courts? Arising out of this: is the appeals procedure in the Bill really appropriate? First, there would be the increase of work in the magistrates' courts, and one would have to ask whether appeals of this sort should have priority in the demands made on the time of magistrates, overworked as they are. Secondly, and perhaps more important, an appeal on these lines would involve the magistrates' courts in reviewing what are in effect discretionary decisions taken by a special council on what would be primarily administrative grounds. I should have some doubts as to whether or not this is an appropriate form of appeal: I put it no stronger than that to the noble Lord, Lord Janner. If the Bill reaches its further stages, this is a matter on which perhaps we might have some consultation, and we might want to take advice from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor as well.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down he might consider that there is already in the Riding Establishments Act and, so far as I can recollect, the Pets Act, the same sort of discretion which leads to exactly the same sort of appeal.

My Lords, that is a most useful comment from the noble Earl, whose expertise in this field we all know. I am putting this point at this stage because I think it is one that ought to be looked at, but, as I say, I do not want to put it too strongly: it may be that there will be some way of overcoming any objections.

The second fact is that the Federation of Zoological Gardens of Great Britain and Ireland represent approximately one-third of the zoos in this country. The remaining two-thirds have an interest, and a legitimate interest, which would be affected by this Bill. Before the noble Lord spoke in the debate to-day I, and in my Department our advisers, wanted to hear more about the attitude of the other two-thirds of the zoos which would be affected. I thought, if I may say so, that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, was most helpful in this respect, because he told us that he has formed a joint Working Party between those zoos who are members of the Federation and those, including, I think he said, safari parks, who are not members and have not applied for membership but who have now formed an association of their own to see whether progress can be made jointly. This seems to us to be a matter of considerable importance. Any regulatory council that is formed should be authoritative and should also be capable of commanding the confidence of the zoos whose premises would be open to regulation and inspection.

Another point, perhaps a small one, which was touched on by my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard and which I can perhaps leave to the noble Lord to deal with at the conclusion of the debate, is the question of financing. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, used the words (I wrote them down, and I hope I quote him correctly) that "inspection is expensive, difficult and controversial", and he seemed rather pleased that the Federation of which he is the chairman might be relieved of that responsibility. It would be taken over on a larger and more systematic scale by the Council which the Bill proposes should be established. That Council would be financed by the member-zoos themselves. This would be a costly business, and we think that perhaps there is room for further thought and discussion on how the Federation would be financed. I leave these thoughts with the mover of the Bill.

My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the "Federation". I think he meant to say "Council".

I am grateful to the noble Lord for correcting me on that point. It is easy to slip into confusion between the Federation, which I know is the moving spirit behind the Bill, and the Council which the Bill would set up. If the Bill makes progress in your Lordships' House, I hope the noble Lord who has moved the Second Reading will give some consideration to these points, as well as to the other points made in the course of the debate. Meanwhile, as I have said, the Government's attitude towards the Bill is one of neutrality.

My Lords, before the noble Lord concludes, may I put one question to him relating to the provisions which exist in current legislation? The noble Lord referred to the fact that the public can bring actions, or at any rate can point a finger in the case of great cruelty. He then referred to damage and nuisance. When he was speaking, I gained the impression that when he referred to his second category of damage he was talking about members of the public being savaged or bitten by animals. Do the existing laws apply to the transmission from a captive animal, an exotic animal, to a member of the public some virus which might cause his death?

My Lords, that is the sort of question which Ministers speaking on a Private Member's Bill hope they will never have to face without notice. I have not got the answer to give the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman. I think I had better take expert advice in finding out what the position is, and I will let the noble Lord know.

My Lords, first of all, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Tollemache, for the excellent speech that he made: it was concise, it was very much to the point, and it was a speech which naturally anybody promoting a Bill of this kind would want to take into the fullest consideration. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, but perhaps with a little doubt about the last speech that was made, because I had hoped that the attitude of the Government would have been one of benevolent neutrality. I hope to be able to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, to accept that as being a legitimate approach. Perhaps the noble Lord will consider that point between now and the next stage of the Bill, if it proceeds further.

There is a necessity for the Bill. It is no good saying that there are other Acts which cover various points. The very fact that all who are concerned in a responsible way with the control of zoological gardens and having them properly inspected, not only dealing with the interests of the animals but with the interests of the public, agree that there is a necessity for an Act that will deal with the matters that we have brought forward this afternoon. I would repeat that otherwise a responsible body like the Universities Federation of Animal Welfare would not have dreamt of making statements, as they have in their report, to the effect that when they inspected the various zoological gardens there were only 12 which they found were very good, 20 were good to fair, and 12 were bad. Here is a responsible body which has made a statement indicating that all is not as good as the noble Lord has more or less indicated. That shows quite clearly that something has to be done apart from the existing legislation.

The various bodies who have been considering this matter—and they are the people who are responsible and who want to see zoological gardens properly run—with all their experience, have come to the conclusion, as we have heard to-day from all noble Lords who have spoken, that the principle of this Bill is right, apart from any minor matters which have been raised and which will be dealt with at later stages if the Bill receives its Second Reading to-day. Therefore I appeal to the Government to reconsider their decision. Those of us who are connected with the law know that there are many Acts which are honoured in the breach rather than the observance, and it is obvious from what the noble Lord has said that even if the Acts may be—he does not say that they are in fact—sufficient to cover the bad zoos and to prevent their remaining bad, they have not done so thus far, and I believe that further legislation is necessary.

With regard to Private Members' Bills, if noble Lords will forgive my saying so, I have handled a large number of them and have dealt with opposition from time to time, but the conclusion has eventually been reached that Private Members can do something which is of great importance. I think it is extremely important, with the Government having all these heavy responsibilities on their shoulders and having to deal with all the difficulties confronting them, that they should say to Private Members, "You are the people we want now to deal with matters which are not quite as vast as the problems which we, as the Government, have to deal with but which are essential to the public interest". This is one such matter which I think is worthy of immediate consideration. So long as there are zoos being carried on under bad conditions, I think it should be the privilege and pleasure of the Government to say to anyone who is prepared to sponsor a Bill of merit, "Please go on with this: this matter needs immediate attention". I hope that we shall not be impeded in any way in the further steps which must be taken to make this Bill an Act.

I think that perhaps at this late hour the House will not wish me to go into details on all the points that have been raised: they are really matters which can be discussed at the Committee Stage. I believed, and still believe, that the Federation which has been in existence for some years should have the opportunity of nominating four people to the Council. This is a reasonable proposal in the light of the experience they have. Even if it is only 30 per cent. or so of the zoo owners who have hitherto joined, at least 30 per cent. have been prepared to pay the necessary fees for inspection and to undergo the supervision suggested in this present Bill. Referring to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, there are negotiations proceeding now regarding other zoos and the organisation they have set up. If a suitable agreement can be reached which will not affect the interests of the Bill itself and will demand of the people concerned that they should be prepared to accept the imposition on zoos of conditions of this nature, I have no doubt that we shall all be prepared to accept their proposals and suggestions about an agreement. But that is a matter with which we shall be dealing between now and the Committee stage.

There is one issue regarding the proposal that these matters should be dealt with, on appeal, by magistrates. I do not think they will mind: and I think they are the appropriate people to deal with them. Even if there are only a few cases, this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will cause the cases to be even fewer. The matter of the sheriff courts has been left out, but there is no intention of being discourteous to the Scottish courts, and this point will be dealt with. With these remarks, I hope that your Lordships will accept this Bill.