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

My Lords, the financial support provided by my department to these law centres is limited to the provision of a grant in aid towards total costs. The range of legal services provided, the staffing complements, and salary levels are matters to be determined by the independent local management committees, under whose control the centres operate.

My Lords, while I regret the brevity of that Answer, may I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor these supplementary questions: First of all, will he generally confirm that the work of neighbourhood law centres, which has been praised by the Benson Commission, is all the more essential in these days of recession? Secondly, in relation to these two urban centres in Cardiff and Birmingham, will the noble and learned Lord confirm that they have been offered grant aid by his department on a level that is bound to mean, for example, that the salary for an experienced lawyer would be less than £6,000, and absurdly low? Finally, irrespective of longer-term plans for law centres, does not the noble and learned Lord himself, as the main provider of grant aid, have a responsibility to ensure that the agencies which he funds are staffed by people who are remunerated at a decent level?

My Lords, may I apologise for the brevity of my original Answer; I had always thought that in answering Questions brevity was a virtue and not a vice. Now may I deal, perhaps with a little less brevity, with the three main supplementary questions asked by the noble Lord. He referred to my department as the main provider of grant aid to these centres. That is approximately the opposite of the truth. There are seven community law centres funded by my department; the two centres referred to in the Question are among those seven. Twenty-one centres are funded under the urban aid programme by the Department of the Environment as to 75 per cent. and by the local authorities concerned as to the remainder. There are six centres funded by local authorities alone, and three funded by charities and other sources. So I am not the main provider of grant aid in these respects.

The seven centres, of which those in question are two, were funded by the Lord Chancellor's department as a result of the very proper action by my noble and learned predecessor (whom I am glad to see present) as a rescue operation when entirely separate funding sources were suddenly removed. That I think will do as an instalment of a rather less brief answer.

My Lords, would not the noble and learned Lord agree that the rescue operation in which I became engaged to save these two centres has resulted in gross underpayment of the lawyers acting there who are providing a most valuable service in areas of very great need? Could not at least steps be taken to see that they are paid salaries on the terms of the Schedule 11 award under the Employment Protection Act, as was done for North Kensington? Finally, may I ask the noble and learned Lord when the interdepartmental working party, which was set up after the report of the Royal Commission on Legal Services, is to report? The law centres up and down the country are anxiously waiting for the outcome of its deliberations.

My Lords, as regards the last supplementary question of the noble and learned Lord, if he will put down a Question I will give him the best answer that I can. I am not in a position to give him an answer today because the Question now before the House relates solely to the two law centres referred to. With regard to the noble and learned Lord's earlier point, the allocation of funds provided between the seven centres has to be undertaken by the local management committee, as I indicated in my original Answer. The money that is available in the Lord Chancellor's department has been increased this year by about 6 per cent., but I cannot within the budget fund two particular centres except at the expense of the others. One must look at this problem as a coherent whole. These are certainly exceptional cases, and it is quite wrong to suppose that I could give an ad hoc grant for the increase of these salaries without damaging what was done to the other centres. I must say very firmly to the House that these are local services, comparable to the services elsewhere in the country which are funded either solely by local authorities or as to 25 per cent. by local authorities, and there is absolutely nothing to stop these two centres attracting funds either from a local or from a voluntary source.

My Lords, could the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor tell the House how many representations he has received on behalf of the Adamsdown Community Law Centre?

Not without notice, my Lords, but these two law centres have made a disproportionately large number of representations to a large number of Members of Parliament, all of whom have made representations in the same terms and have been replied to in identical terms.

My Lords, would not the noble and learned Lord accept that the reason for that is that their staffs are being paid ridiculously low wages; and, as the main provider for those centres, is he not responsible for that state of affairs?

My Lords, the answer to the last part of that supplementary question is, no. The local management committees are responsible and must tailor their coats to fit their cloth. As I say, I can only give particular aid out of a relatively restricted fund, which has been increased this year by approximately 6 per cent., and I can only give that particular aid to particular centres at the expense of the others. There is absolutely no reason why these centres should not seek local aid or voluntary aid.

My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord discovers that it is the case, as I am told it is, that efforts by these centres to receive funds from other sources (either through charitable or local authority sources, or through any other sources) have failed, and that if there is no improvement in salaries the management committees are now faced with the closure of these centres—and I know how sympathetic he is personally to the continuance of their existence—will he look at the problem again?

Clearly, I will, my Lords, but I can only do it within certain limits. If these centres fail to get the same local support from the local authorities or other sources as the great majority of law centres, one cannot altogether blame the Lord Chancellor's department for not giving them a special advance over the others. The noble and learned Lord is perfectly right in saying that I am sympathetic to these cases, but I have to work under the same constraints as other departments, and in this particular case other centres do get support from local authorities.

My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord agree that irrespective of where the blame might lie the salary levels at present being paid are obviously inadequate to ensure a proper service?

My Lords, that may raise a question as to how far the service should depend on salary levels as such. As the noble Lord will probably be aware, the services of all these centres—and in that I include I think all those that I have mentioned, including the local authority centres, the urban scheme centres and the privately-funded ones—are in fact partly funded out of payments under the legal aid and legal advice schemes. It is not solely a question of salary.

My Lords, I suggest that we now move on to the next Question.

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

My Lords, the Government are aware of the difficulties many small or tall people still have in finding comfortable seat belts. Devices are already available to adjust the shoulder strap, and there are specially designed cushions. It is also possible to vary the position of the anchorage points in some instances. But there is as yet no ideal solution which could be incorporated into legislation. We are continuing to discuss the problem with United Kingdom manufacturers and with our European colleagues.

My Lords, I have a strong suspicion that that may be a moderately satisfactory reply. But does my noble friend not agree that, as in the near future Her Majesty's Government will probably make it a criminal offence not to wear a seat belt, they are at least morally responsible for seeing that seat belts are safe; and is my noble friend aware that at present, for a large number of smaller people—below, shall we say, 5 feet 4 inches—a great many of the seat belts cannot be worn with safety? Further, is my noble friend aware that 20 years ago I was told by two motor-car manufacturers, at the time I was chairman of the British Road Federation, that there is no difficulty at all in designing a belt which is adjustable in the way I want but it is slightly more expensive to do so?

My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's moderate welcome to my reply. Unfortunately, I have little experience of small people's discomfort but quite a lot of experience of big people's discomfort, and I would agree with him. Considerable improvements have already been made, and the industry is well aware of our concern to see more progress. We have asked the belt manufacturers for more ideas, and we are also having very useful discussions with our colleagues in Europe, with whom we agree the general standards for belts.

My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that, although I voted for the amendment to which this Question relates, every single seat belt in every car I drive fits neatly across my throat?

My Lords, again, the noble Baroness embarrasses me because, of course, it is the other way round so far as I am concerned. I am reliably informed that people who are small need have no fear of seat belts, and in point of fact the statistics, borne out in a recent study in Sweden, show that small people occasionally have burn marks where the noble Baroness suggested, but have no other ill efiects.

My Lords, can the noble Earl elaborate upon his gymnastic contortions?

My Lords, I do not want to be drawn on this point by the noble and learned Lord, but I shall be applying for a medical certificate.

My Lords, is this not one of the many issues relating to seat belts on which the Government will have serious discussions with manufacturers in the event of the Transport Bill, which includes this clause, becoming law?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing us back to sanity. Yes, it is. Hopefully, we shall discuss it again at the Report stage of the Bill.

My Lords, in view of the importance of seat belts to children in the back of cars, can my noble friend say whether there are any plans on his part to organise the compulsory fitting of seat belts—belts which are adjustable for children—in the back of cars?

My Lords, I think that my noble friend will be aware that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has made a lot of statements on child seat belts which we have taken into consideration in connection with the Transport Bill.

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

My Lords, the case for exempting from payment of prescription charges all those who are unemployed is not a strong one. Not everyone who is unemployed, for example those receiving short-term unemployment benefit, require assistance with the cost of prescriptions. Of the others many already qualify for exemption under the existing arrangements. For instance, 42 per cent. of those registered unemployed receive supplementary benefit and, as a consequence, are automatically exempt from charges.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that the British Pharmaceutical Society support this proposal, and that it is agonising enough to be on the dole without having to go through certain agonising bureaucratic methods to get a little more money to make ends meet? Will he not be prepared to take this back and reconsider his reply for the sake of the many millions who are on the dole as the result of his Government's appalling economic policies?

My Lords, the noble Lord seems to be going rather wide of the original Question. I do not think that I should reply on the whole economic policy of the Government. I would say, in considering exemptions from prescription charges, that there are many other groups represented by other people who come forward, such as invalidity pensioners, and also groups who are not included in the specified medical conditions which are also part of the exemptions. There is no actual evidence that those unemployed require more assistance in this matter and probably noble Lords will agree that those who already have other medical conditions would have a higher priority.

My Lords, will the noble Lord reconsider the Question put by my noble friend? If my noble friend had inserted the word "long-term" then maybe the Government would do something about it.

My Lords, that is possible, but I am in no position to answer that.

My Lords, while it is true that old-age pensioners and some of the unemployed benefit, are not a very large number of the unemployed still left without the right to free prescriptions? Does this not apply to part-time workers and does this not apply to the thousands who are now receiving less than a living wage, as was indicated in a recent report of the commission?

My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord is aware that all those on supplementary benefit and family income supplement get exemption from prescription charges. Furthermore, there are many who are somewhat above the supplementary benefit level who are entitled to apply for exemption on the basis of low income.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I am asking for this concession for those of our fellow countrymen and countrywomen who are out of work, on the dole and, perhaps, stricken with disease or illness or accident? I am asking that this nation hold out a helping hand in their time of need. Would he not be prepared, even now, to reconsider his reply and give a helping hand to those who have no work but wish to work and who, in addition to being unemployed, are stricken with illness, disease or accident? Can he not give a more humanitarian reply and concentrate on the word "consider" in the Question, so that this proposal is at least considered?

My Lords, this sort of situation is considered all the time in respect of the unemployed, but other groups are also represented.

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

My Lords, during the examination of the draft directive in Brussels the British representatives are continuing to press for the inclusion of a state of the art defence on the lines explained by my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate on 12th November last year. This would, I think, cover the risks which the noble Lord has in mind.

My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for that reply?—even if he does use the jargon, "state of the art". The Government came to what some of us regard as a regrettable decision to allow this defence of development risks—which means that a victim would have no right to redress against the manufacturer in a thalidomide-type tragedy unless he could prove negligence, which would be a formidable undertaking. I am tempt d to ask whether the lack of progress—and it is now some time since these discussions started—means that the Government are really hoping to kill off the EEC directive altogether.

My Lords, the noble Lord will know far better than many noble Lords how many are the complex issues involved in the entire concept of product liability and in the directive itself. The Government are continuing discussions in Brussels which are confidential but we have high hopes that we shall reach an agreeable settlement.

My Lords, can the noble Lord give the House some indication whether this matter, together with a whole series of other connected matters, is likely to be dealt with during the term of the English presidency of the EEC?

My Lords, I am not able to go so far as to give a definite date or period of time, but I should have thought that it would be years rather than months and that that would preclude what the noble Lord had in mind.

My Lords, in the Statement which I made to the House about the Civil Service dispute on 8th June, I explained that our talks with the Civil Service unions had concerned both this year's pay increase and the future arrangements for determining Civil Service pay. I made clear that the Government were satisfied that it would not be right to increase our 7 per cent. offer for the 1981 settlement, but that in response to the unions' anxieties about the future we had told them that we were ready to set up an independent outside inquiry to advise on the best up-to-date arrangements.

I want to emphasise our concern to establish new and acceptable pay arrangements as soon as practicable. To this end the Government have appointed the right honourable Sir John Megaw, a retired Lord Justice of Appeal, as chairman of an inquiry into non-industrial Civil Service pay. Membership of the inquiry is being discussed with Sir John Megaw and will be announced later. The inquiry will have the following terms of reference:—

"Having regard to the public interest in the recruitment and maintenance of an efficient and fairly remunerated Civil Service, and in the orderly conduct of the business of Government and its services to the public; to the need for the Government to reconcile its responsibilities for the control of public expenditure and its responsibilities as an employer; to the need for good industrial relations in the Civil Service; and to recent experience of operating the existing arrangements for determining the pay of the non-industrial Civil Service: to consider and make recommendations on the principles and the system by which the remuneration of the non-industrial Civil Service should be determined, taking account of other conditions of service and other matters related to pay, including management, structure, recruitment and grading.".

I have already given the unions an assurance of our commitment to genuine negotiations in 1982 without pre-determined cash limits. We will ask the inquiry to report by next summer, so that the recommendations can be considered in good time before the 1983 Civil Service pay settlement.

The terms of reference for the inquiry take account of earlier discussions with the unions. They have been widely drawn to allow full consideration, without impediment, of all questions relevant to the determination of Civil Service pay. It is my earnest hope that the service will see this as opening the way to a constructive and honourable resolution of the important longer-term issues underlying the present dispute.

The setting up of this independent inquiry underlines in the clearest possible way the Government's concern to establish a fair and sound basis for the future determination of Civil Service pay. The public has a right to expect the Civil Service unions to respond now equally constructively by bringing their disruptive action to an end. I hope they will do so without further delay.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for making his Statement. I was once in a similar situation. I am glad there has been movement. Indeed, it would have been a tragedy if this dispute went on and on. Let us hope that this will be a turning point. I welcome the appointment of the right honourable Sir John Megaw, a retired Lord Justice of Appeal and a very distinguished person. I am proud to say I served under him as a gunner. He is a very fine man.

I hope that, arising out of this inquiry, there will be an early attempt to bring about the ending of the dispute which is harming so many of our people. I hope that the Government will be constructive and will recognise that there is a problem with the Civil Service. They are a fine body of people and, given the right leadership, they will respond.

My Lords, from these Benches I should like to join in thanking the noble Lord the Lord President for having made this Statement. No doubt it is right not only that the question of how the pay of civil servants is in future to be determined should be reviewed now, but also that in any such examination account should be taken of factors such as those referred to in the Statement. I must again remind the House that the Liberal Party believes that there is an urgent need to establish long-term arrangements for pay determination that go very much further than those required to cater for the Civil Service alone. I am afraid that we have no faith in the outcome of an inquiry—however eminent its chairman—which will be concerned with the pay of civil servants in isolation from that of other groups.

Does not all past experience show that whenever matters affecting the pay of a particular group are examined attention is concentrated on the problem from the viewpoint of that group rather than from that of others viewing the question from outside? Does this not lead to the conclusion that what is needed is the establishment by the Government, after consultation and preferably agreement with the employers and trade unions, of a single standing body to adjudicate on relativities in the pay of those employed in the public services generally?

In our view this should be one component in a comprehensive incomes policy covering both public and private sectors. Irrespective of that, and the political complexion of the Government of the day, has not the time come for all concerned to enter into a commitment that the composition, the independence and, above all, the continuity of such a body will be guaranteed and its findings honoured in all the circumstances? How are we, except by agreement in such matters, to conquer inflation, improve our competitiveness and reduce unemployment?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peart, for what he has said. He went through not dissimilar problems a couple of years ago and he knows the complexities and difficulties of them. Of course I hope with him that this inquiry may well lead to the unions deciding that this can prove to be the end of what has been a long road. There were three areas of anxiety: one was this year's 7 per cent., and the Government have made abundantly clear there can be no move away from our 6 per cent. cash limit and that 7 per cent. is the most that we feel we can offer within the 6 per cent. cash limit. The second was next year, where we have said that we will have genuine negotiations with them without a predetermined cash limit. So that is done. Now hopefully, this will resolve the longer-term discussion. With the amount of distress and trouble being caused to our fellow citizens by the industrial disruption, I hope most sincerely that this will help to bring matters to a rapid conclusion.

As to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, perhaps the best is the enemy of the good. The reason that we have set this up is because the Civil Service have traditionally had their own arrangements for fixing the pay of the Civil Service. They are the direct employees of the Government, which is not so for the whole of the public service, many of whom are employed, for instance, by the National Health Service, by local authorities and the like. The Civil Service is sui generic in terms of its relationship with the Government. It had its own arrangement and we feel that it is right in time after 25 years, where the old system had lost the confidence of the general public as well as of the Government and, to a large extent, the unions themselves, to have a new one. This will be a wide-ranging inquiry. Of course, there will be time enough then to see whether lessons can be drawn from this that might include other elements of the public service. But this inquiry is for the Civil Service. If we can resolve that, that will already be something.

Of course there is a fundamental difference between the noble Lord and myself on the question of a comprehensive incomes policy because we have seen what has happened to comprehensive incomes policies in the past. They have lasted for two or three years and then they have been followed by a wage explosion.

My Lords, while I welcome this announcement very warmly indeed, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that this committee will begin its work in very unfavourable circumstances so far as the Civil Service side is concerned? Can he offer some further hope that this announcement will pave the way to a restoration of peace in the Civil Service and greater harmony and understanding throughout the public service by going further about what he said about the year 1982?

I do not comment for the moment upon 1981; I do not comment for the moment upon 1983. But the noble Lord has mentioned that genuine negotiations can take place in 1982 without any predetermined cash limits. So far so good. However, does he realise that unless he is prepared to give an assurance about the availability of arbitration in 1982, he is leaving the Civil Service without any principles for fixing their pay for three years and no redress, no opportunity, of going to arbitration in the case of disagreement?

They are entirely at the mercy of the judgment of the Government between now and 1983, unless he is prepared to write into his announcement that the Civil Service will at least have some opportunity of appealing to outside arbitrament in the event of not being able to reach agreement as the result of the genuine negotiations which the noble Lord offers for 1982.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, who has knowledge which goes long into the past on these matters. He talked about whether this would lead to harmony. It takes two to arrive at harmony. The Government regard the setting up of this inquiry, its terms of reference and all that we are hoping from it and have made public that we are hoping from it, as a considerable contribution to harmony. We hope it will be responded to by the unions. As to 1982, we have said a lot—for instance, that we will have genuine negotiations without a predetermined cash limit. As to having recourse to arbitration, now in 1981 is not the time to decide whether or not that will be necessary. I hope that it will not be and that we shall be able to get reasonable negotiations and a reasonable fulfilment of those negotiations. But that does not mean that the Government should let out of their own hands the final determination of pay. Whether they will look to arbitration or not is something that will have to be decided at the time. I do not think it is wise, before we even open negotiations and when we are still talking about 1981, to talk about what we intend to do in the event of a breakdown in 1982. I do not think that would be wise.

My Lords, may I thank my noble friend the Leader of the House for making this Statement, which I very much welcome. He was referring very much to the future. Can he tell the House whether it is the Government's intention still to leave on the table the existing offer they have for this year?

My Lords, if the industrial action continues the Government obviously will have to consider what further response they should make, including reconsideration of the operative date of the present pay offer. Obviously it would be preferable not to penalise those who have not taken industrial action but who have continued to work normally—and even harder than usual in some cases—during this period. On the other hand, it could be a very difficult administrative task to pay the increase from different dates to different individuals. This is something which has not yet been decided, and I hope very much that the question will never arise.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House a few questions? Were the terms of reference of this inquiry agreed with the trade unions and was the choice of chairman and other members of the inquiry agreed with the trade unions? Would he not agree that ultimately there may have to be some arbitration in future disputes or disagreements from this inquiry, and therefore would it not be a very good thing, in order to create the ideal atmosphere, that the present dispute should now be referred to arbitration while this inquiry is sitting?

My Lords, in answer to the last bit, the answer is definitely, no. In answer to the first bit, the terms of reference were discussed with the unions, which is the Government's proper role in these matters. The Government have to discuss them and then have to agree them themselves after discussion.

My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House has referred to a wide-ranging inquiry. May I say in passing that I think that, in the minds of the public and of the Members of your Lordships' House, following the announcement about a wide-ranging inquiry, the civil servants would be regarded as grateful if they brought the dispute to an end? May I also ask the noble Lord whether the distinguished person who will conduct the inquiry will not encounter some inhibitions because of the recent statement attributed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in future pay settlements may not exceed 3 per cent? Will that not be an inhibition from which the chairman of this inquiry may suffer?

My Lords, if I may say so, I think the noble Lord is reading too much into what my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said. He did not talk in terms of 3 per cent. or indeed of any other percentage. What he did say was that it was vital for the long-term interests of this country that wage settlements as a whole should be brought considerably lower than they are today, that they should be more closely related to production than they have been in the past and less closely related to the rates of inflation, that it was this which would make a considerable contribution to the competitiveness of British industry as a whole and that Government and the public services also had to take these matters into account when playing their part, such as it is, in determining these issues.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a large part of the prospect of settling this dispute lies in the confidence that the Government can offer for the future? The Civil Service has been denied arbitration in the present dispute: there can be no argument about that. The Government have refused to allow the operation of the normally agreed procedures for a reference to the Civil Service arbitration tribunal. Right: now I am asking about 1982. Do I understand the noble Lord to say that in the unhappy, and I hope unlikely, event of disagreement following the negotiations in 1982, the opportunity of going to arbitration in the normal way will not be ruled out? That is the question that I am asking.

My Lords, what I am saying is that they are not being ruled in or ruled out. What I am saying is that now is not the time to make these decisions and I cannot give any commitment.

My Lords, would not the noble Lord the Leader of the House agree that, to set this inquiry into proper perspective and gain the confidence of the Civil Service, which I know he desires, it would be in the interests of all concerned to settle the present dispute through the time-honoured method of arbitration?

My Lords, the Government do not think it is right in the present circumstances. Having fixed the cash limit at 6 per cent., it means that it has to be kept to within 6 per cent., and the Government do not think it right to put the question of the cash limits into the hands of anybody else other than the Government themselves.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I am sure the House would wish me to keep my remarks on the Second Reading of a largely technical measure as brief as possible and to avoid, both now and in my wind-up remarks, referring to the wider questions affecting the armed forces as a result of the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State the the other day, about which we are to have a debate on 20th July.

This Bill is brought forward in order that the service discipline Acts may be continued in existence for a further five years. Under existing powers these Acts can only be renewed until the end of 1981. Your Lordships may recall that in 1955 the Army and Air Force Acts became quinquennial Acts subject to annual renewal by Order in Council, after affirmative resolution by both Houses, up to a maximum of five years, and that the Naval Discipline Act was placed on the same footing in 1971.

The Select Committee of another place, who have already carried out their customary vigorous scrutiny of the Bill, and to whose valuable report I shall return in discussing individual provisions, have recommended that,

"the same procedures should be adopted in the future".

Clause 1 of the Bill does in fact provide for the system of parliamentary scrutiny to continue unaltered, and I hope that this will find favour with your Lordships.

As is customary, this Armed Forces Bill, in addition to providing for the continuation of the service discipline Acts, also remedies a number of omissions and anomalies which have come to light in existing provisions. Whereas the last two Armed Forces Acts have contained substantial innovations such as the standardisation of offences and punishments between the three services in the 1971 Act and the increase in Army and RAF commanding officers' powers in the 1976 Act, the present Bill does not include proposals for innovations in service discipline of comparable magnitude. Nevertheless, the Bill does provide for certain important new powers designed to keep service practice broadly in line with civilian procedures to the extent that the exigencies of service life allow. And so I should like now to consider in detail a number of the more innovatory provisions contained in the Bill.

Clause 2 of the Bill would empower courts martial to sentence a young service offender, whom it was not desired to retain in the service, to a civilian corrective institution. At present, courts-martial can sentence such an offender only to a military detention centre or a civil prison and these alternatives will not always be the most appropriate forms of custodial sentence. It may be noted that a similar power in respect of young civilian offenders overseas was conferred on courts-martial and standing civilian courts by the Armed Forces Act 1976. This provision was considered by the Select Committee of another place to be "an eminently sensible one"; and I hope that your Lordships will also welcome the greater flexibility in sentencing young service offenders which this clause will confer.

Two important new powers are sought in Clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill for the protection in service communities overseas of the mentally disturbed and of children considered to be at risk. In both cases, we have relied hitherto on administrative powers to return such persons to the United Kingdom where they could be cared for according to United Kingdom civil legislation. However, we now consider, and members of the 1976 Select Committee of another place expressed the same view when hearing witnesses from the department, that specific legal powers should be laid down regarding the action which may be taken in overseas service communities before an individual can be returned to the United Kingdom. A similar philosophy lies behind the approach we have taken in both clauses. It will be appreciated that both mental illness and the ill treatment of children can give rise to situations where immediate action is needed to protect and care for the individual away from his normal home. We have, therefore, attempted to provide powers which will permit the necessary short-term action to be taken and to lay down, in the interests both of the affected individual and of the service authorities, precisely what the legal limitations on such action should be. We have deliberately not provided for any system of longer-term care, since we consider that, as at present, if this proves necessary, the individual should be returned to the United Kingdom, where he will again be in the same legal position as any other citizen who is resident here.

Thus Clause 13 provides the power for temporary removal to and detention for treatment in service hospitals abroad of those suffering from mental disorder. This will apply to both servicemen and certain civilian support staff and their families. An individual's commanding officer will be enabled on the written recommendation of two medical officers to authorise the detention of a mentally disturbed person for up to 28 days. There is also an emergency power which would allow detention for up to five days with the consent of a single medical practitioner. At the end of the period of compulsory detention in an overseas hospital, which could not exceed 33 days, the patient would either be discharged or continue as a voluntary patient, or else be returned to the United Kingdom.

The Select Committee recommended that, where possible, one of the two certifying doctors for the purposes of this clause should be a civilian, preferably with specialised psychiatric knowledge. This would be difficult in some of the areas overseas where the services operate. Hence the Government do not believe that it would be realistic to adopt an administrative requirement for a civilian medical practitioner to be one of the two certifying doctors. The House will know that the medical personnel of the armed forces do, of course, respect the same medical ethics as civilian doctors. We therefore believe that service doctors will discharge the responsibilities imposed by this clause to the highest professional standards.

Turning to Clause 14, the proposed new power with regard to the protection of children at risk overseas is very similar in concept to that for dealing with the mentally disturbed. Where a child is considered to be suffering neglect, exposed to moral danger or beyond control, the commanding officer may order the removal of the child to a place of safety for up to eight days. This period may be further extended for up to 20 days by any officer superior in command to the commanding officer. In subsection (11) of the clause, the definition of a "place of safety" is intentionally widely drawn to allow for the needs of children of different age groups and circumstances.

In their report, the Select Committee in another place described this clause as "a necessary but humane one". The committee were, however, worried that the clause contained

"no provisions regulating the return to the United Kingdom of children affected by it once the short-term holding orders have run their course".

In fact, there has not been any difficulty experienced hitherto in returning administratively service children to the United Kingdom who are considered to be at risk, and we do not therefore at this time favour seeking a legal power in this respect when the evidence suggests that it is not needed.

If I may now move forward to Clause 17 of the Bill, this has the effect of removing the death penalty as the maximum sentence for the offence under the Naval Discipline Act 1957 of spying for the enemy in ships or vessels or in naval establishments abroad. This offence applies only to civilians not otherwise subject to the Naval Discipline Act and has no counterpart in the Acts of the other two services. If this clause is enacted, the maximum penalty for the offence will be that of life imprisonment.

A thorough review of all the remaining offences which attract the death penalty under the service discipline Acts has been carried out by the Ministry of Defence and the results are set out in detail on pages 22 and 59 to 61 of the Select Committee's report. I hope that your Lordships will accept that no further reductions should be made in offences carrying liability to the death penalty other than as proposed in Clause 17.

I shall not therefore weary your Lordships with a description of the remaining provisions of the Bill. They are necessary technical up-dates. I should say that there will also be a number of technical Government amendments at the Committee stage of this Bill. The amendments are considered necessary mainly on legal grounds. Most of them, as so often appears to happen, are consequential on previous changes made in legislation, or on provisions which I have mentioned and which are entered in this Bill, which logically should affect some other parts of the Bill or of legislation. Overall, the Government believe that this Bill will make an essential contribution to the regulation of service discipline and, on this basis, I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.

My Lords, having at one time been concerned with the supervision of the Personal Services Department of the War Office, I can well appreciate the care and the amount of detailed and thankless work that has gone into the preparation of this Bill. Therefore, I fully support its Second Reading. But I hope that my noble friend will forgive me if, instead of dealing with the details of the Bill, I attempt to deal with some of the problems of those who are likely to be affected by it; namely, manpower.

I had down an Unstarred Question on manpower, but an Unstarred Question appears to demand an answer; and as I do not think that my noble friend could possibly have answered any question I asked at this time or in this place, I thought it might be best if, instead of asking for an answer, I went on the record with some of my thoughts.

Manpower has not had a fair share of attention in your Lordships' House for some time. I noted also that when the original Defence Statement was debated in the other place, only about two honourable Members mentioned manpower at all in their excitement over Trident and Polaris. Very little has been said in your Lordships' House lately, although there is a notable exception in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, who has never ceased to raise the matter. In the latest White Paper we see the very welcome announcement about an increase in the strength of the Territorial Army and the reserve forces, and as a former director of the Territorial Army nobody could welcome this more than I do.

I am bound to say that of all the paragraphs in the White Paper, the paragraph about manpower seems to be the least decisive of them all. How many men will be wanted, and how will they be got? We do not know. Each year, every Statement on defence tells us how many men—and, in the old days, how many horses—of different kinds there are in the Army. It is a matter of regret to an antiquarian like myself that we no longer see the one donkey forming part of the garrison at Gibraltar. Nobody has ever said whether the number of men shown in those tables, compared to the requirement, is sufficient, too many, or too few, and so we cannot judge what measures are necessary to secure the number of people that are required.

It is not easy to understand this problem unless one goes back to 1957 when National Service was suspended. It was then cancelled by a succeeding Government, and that act deprived that Government and successive Governments of the power to take quick action to deal with any situation that might arise. In other words, they were up a ladder and letting go with both hands at the same time. The Regular Army was delighted at the return to voluntary service, but from that day to this I have never seen any evidence showing that anyone has made an attempt to find out whether the numbers which could be recruited voluntarily would meet the establishments and the necessary reserves. The matter was not made easier by a succeeding Government allowing Army pay to drop out of line with comparable pay in civilian life.

None of this mattered very much so long as National Servicemen still had a reserve liability to recall; the quantity was there if not the quality. But in the time of the last Government the reserve liability of those people ran out, and there were strong indications that the numbers in the regular forces and the reserves were not sufficient to meet the establishments. In other words, the shortage of men was having a serious effect on the readiness of the forces for war.

It has always struck me that considerable efforts were made to avoid this matter coming to notice. Over the years the references in Defence White Papers went as close as it was safe to go in saying that voluntary enlistment was so sacred that even if the numbers were short, such a shortfall had to be accepted—however big the shortfall was, and however much it affected our readiness for war. In paragraph 47 of the new White Paper we have something very close to that. I hope that before long the same clarity of thought and strength of purpose that has been shown already in other directions in the White Paper is going to be applied to manpower. Evidence may show that voluntary enlistment will produce the numbers. If so, no one will be more pleased than I, but I have never yet seen such evidence and I should like to see it.

That is my own position on voluntary enlistment. If voluntary enlistment can be maintained for the field force, nothing could be better—but the requirements in the services do not consist of the requirements of the field force alone. In addition to the field force, as was shown by the exercises in Germany last year, all sorts of people are wanted to maintain lines of communication and to meet other requirements. Then we come to the matter of home defence. Home defence is mentioned in the White Paper as being very much a matter of dealing with nuclear attack. But experience of the last war, as I know from my own Home Guard days, showed that a large number of people were needed to guard vulnerable points. Such people need not necessarily be wanted whole time. Not many knew in 1944, when forces were crossing the Channel, that about a quarter of a million Home Guards were under arms for three days, to prevent sabotage and subversion, but all of us know that sabotage and subversion in 1944 was child's play compared with what might happen today.

So we return to home defence and we get near to the point where I shall be out of order, because home defence and the manpower required for home defence is not a matter only for the Ministry of Defence; it is a matter also for several other departments. Those who have taken part in debates on civil defence will know how difficult it is to reach any conclusion because of the division of responsibility between the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence. We have games of table tennis between the noble Lords representing the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office, and it seems to me that the score is regularly "love all".

I have said in your Lordships' House ever since 1947, and will continue to say until my dying day, that no proper solution to this problem will be found unless the Government resurrect the Home Defence Executive which handled these matters during the war and which kept the different departments working together instead of fighting for position. I hope most fervently, as I said earlier, that the same clarity of thought and strength of purpose will be applied to the subject of manpower as has been evidently applied to the subject of equipment. I hope also that something will be done to see that Government departments work together on this matter and that some method is found in place of interdepartmental strife.

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for explaining the report of the Select Committee and also for the explanation he has given with regard to the present Bill. I have read both with interest and I agree with the final paragraph, Number 19 of the conclusions of the special report, that this type of review should continue. However, I feel that five years between every review is a little too long, and perhaps my noble friend can tell me whether any action will be taken in the time between different reports being given.

I also regret the failure to visit Germany, which I gather was caused by the late granting of the power to do so. I think this omission was a major weakne s in the review, for while it is unlikely that such a visit would have produced any substantial additions to the report, the special problems of the Rhine Army and the Royal Air Force in Germany can only be really understood and reviewed by an on-the-spot briefing and examination in Germany itself. Therefore, it is a little surprising that the Ministry of Defence, especially the permanent officials, do not understand these problems.

The fact is that the majority of the British Army and a high proportion of the Royal Air Force are located in Germany, together with tens of thousands of dependants and United Kingdom based civilians. May I suggest to my noble friend that the garrisons there can be likened to small towns and have exactly the same vast range of problems, but are divorced from the massive United Kingdom social and administrative networks and resources. In addition, they are located like little islands in a foreign land and in many cases are subject to the laws of that country. May I suggest that it should be mandatory for the 1986 committee to take evidence at the headquarters of BAOR and at the headquarters of the Royal Air Force in Germany as well as in London. It is very important that the committee should see for themselves.

The hope of the committee to have visited Germany to study the operation of the standing civilian courts established under the 1976 Act is too narrow. The provision in the Bill for dealing with young service offenders between the ages of 17 and 21 is to be welcomed, but one wonders what accommodation they will find in this country. As we know only too well, most of these establishments are very overcrowded. Could the Minister say whether he has looked into this point?

I am also pleased that the offender's interests are to be more carefully and thoroughly guarded than in the civilian courts. I should like to think I am correct in saying that courts-martial give far more weight to background factors than do civilian courts. I regret that in their report the committee have sniped—I think rather ineffectually—at the present system. I do not much care for their recommendation that social background reports should be obtained. I understand that this is the practice, anyway, in a variety of situations—not only for courts-martial but as part of normal service procedure. I am delighted to see that a copy of the reports of courts-martial is to be sent to parents or guardians.

With regard to the death penalty, I have always been against hanging, but I agree that here it must be retained, and this the committee had to accept. The existing definition of "enemy" needs, however, to be reviewed, as the committee have recommended. But the review is necessary not for the reason advanced by the committee—because it seems to open up an alarmingly wide range of interpretations—but because it is too restrictive in this day and age. I hope that the Minister will take this point into consideration.

We have been told today that Clause 17 deals only with civilians, not with service personnel. I should have thought that the example of the Foreign Office with regard to homosexuality would have been sufficient for the committee. The services are more vital to the country and have never been forced to accept homosexuals. I am very glad that this policy is to be continued.

While I see no objection to warrant officers serving on courts-martial, I do not think this recommendation will be welcomed by other ranks. Men were brought to me by their commanding officers when I held interviews at Devonport because they wished me to see what was happening. So far as I could judge, these men trust their officers and know that they will receive justice. Warrant officers tend to be rather harder and less objective. Of course, warrant officers could not serve on courts-martial trying officers, and I do not know whether they would be welcomed by other ranks.

Unfortunately—I am not speaking as a feminist—there are no women on this committee. As Clause 20 of the Bill completes the statutory assimilation of the women's services which are going to be administered by the Defence Council, it is a great pity that women's views have not been taken into account. I should like to know why the Charity Commissioners have stated that the Royal Star and Garter Home cannot be extended to include ex-servicewomen. Surely this question must be looked into again. In all other civilian homes, both statutory and voluntary, both sexes are accepted. It is very unfortunate that this proposal has been turned down, as I understand the report, by the Charity Commissioners as impracticable.

The qualifications of Members of Parliament to sit on this committee should be looked into. I know most of those who sit on the committee, and I am very sorry that Mr. Wellbeloved has been discharged. I always thought that he had a real knowledge and understanding of the subject. This committee should have the power to appoint persons with technical knowledge, either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity which it is very difficult for members of the committee to assimilate. It seems to me to be necessary that a little more attention should be paid to this point. I am pleased to note that the Royal Marines are now going to be called the Royal Marine Reserve. The words "Volunteer Reserve" are going to be taken away. I am sure that the name "Royal Marine Reserve" is a much better one for them.

Having read the committee's report and the Bill, I should like to know whether an investigation of the Property Services Agency could be considered. It ties up with this type of Bill. Such an investigation would be helpful. I consider that a tremendous amount could be done to make the Property Services Agency more efficient.

My Lords, this is neither the time nor the place to express my deep concern at the Government's recent actions with regard to the Royal Navy. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to assure us that a proper debate on defence will take place before the Summer Recess. We could then express our views in proper circumstances.

This is a Bill about discipline. My experience when commanding ships was that discipline and morale were closely related. If morale was bad, discipline was harder to keep, but if morale was good discipline was not a serious problem. Recently the Government seem to have been making decisions about the future of the Royal Navy which bear no relation to the advice which they have received from their principal naval advisers. It seems to me that that will create a situation which is essentially bad for morale and which could lead to trouble. It would be useful if I could be reassured by my noble friend the Minister of State that this picture has been properly taken into account. Perhaps both this House and also the Fleet at sea could be reassured that the Government have listened to the advice which has been given to them by the Royal Navy, even though it appears that they have not. If my noble friend could give the House such an assurance it would make a big difference to the morale not only of the ordinary sailor but of officers and even of admirals. All people have a morale problem when their advice is not taken.

My Lords, after so many distinguished senior officers have addressed the House, I wonder whether a mere company sergeant major could rise without notice to say a few words. The point to which I wish to direct attention is Clause 2, which concerns soldier offenders who may be sent to serve their sentences in civilian corrective institutions. I hope that the authorities will bear in mind that a sentence served in a civilian reformatory institution carries a stigma which stays with a man all through his life, whereas a military prison or similar sentence ceases to haunt the defendant on his demobilisation and return to civil life. So would it not be better that these relatively short sentences be served in military and not in civilian institutions?—especially as in civilian detention centres and borstals an offender is likely to be brought into contact with professional crooks and that would do him more harm than good.

My Lords, Mr. Arthur Davidson paid tribute in another place to the chairman of the Select Committee on the Bill and Mr. Bruce George complimented the Minister, Mr. Goodhart, on his diligent attendance at the committee and also thanked the many witnesses from the Ministry of Defence. I, too, would like to congratulate the members of the committee, the Minister and all the witnesses for their work in helping to produce an excellent report.

In the first paragraph of the special report we are told that—and I quote:

"Since 1971, discipline in all three Armed Services has been provided for by quinquennial Armed Forces Acts, subject to annual renewal by both Houses. These composite Acts serve to continue the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957. The present Bill is the third of its kind and, like its predecessors, has been referred to a Select Committee by the House of Commons. Hy this means the House of Commons has sought to ensure that a full examination of the disciplinary framework within which the Armed Forces operate takes place at appropriate intervals and that any measures proposed by the Ministry of Defence for updating it are thoroughly scrutinised.".

The committee inquired into a great number of matters concerning the armed services and I am particularly pleased at the emphasis placed on welfare matters concerning young offenders, persons in service families suffering from mental disorder and children in such families who are in need of care.

There is reference in the report to the engagement of military social workers and this is described as a "new adventure". It is to be hoped that the present complement of three social workers can be improved upon because it is clear that the stresses of modern living are affecting service personnel with similar problems experienced by many in civilian life.

Contained in the report is a matter of concern which I have raised in this House by way of a Question to the Minister. It is that the provisions for supplementary benefit and youth unemployment benefits for BAOR wives and children of service families do not normally apply overseas. Recently I was privileged to visit the British Army on the Rhine and this problem was raised with me. Mr. Keith Best was concerned about this matter and asked a series of Questions and highlighted the problem of youngsters of service families and of employable age unable to find work in Germany and unable to claim unemployment benefit. Mr. Dromgoole, Assistant Under Secretary of State (Personnel and Logistics) stated in answer, at page 71 of the report—and I quote:

"I think it should be understood that this is a serious problem and has given rise to a good deal of anxiety in the Army and in the RAF. There is no way in which the difficulty of the provision of benefit overseas can be got over other than by direct subvention from the defence budget, and this is not contemplated at this time.".

This is rather similar to the answer given to me when I asked my Question in your Lordships' House. Frankly, it is not good enough. Despite the current difficulties in financing defence expenditure, the relatively small amount of money involved should be found. We should not allow service families abroad to be subjected to anxieties of this sort, and I shall be returning to this subject on future occasions in this House. I do not of course expect a detailed response to this problem when the noble Viscount winds up the debate, but I should be grateful if he would write to me, giving me some idea of the scope of the problems and also some assessment of the cost involved in helping the service families affected.

In conclusion, I share the view of Mr. Goodhart that the procedures under which Armed Forces Bills are introduced every five years and referred to Select Committees are the right procedures to evaluate the workings of the services' discipline Acts and to ensure that, so far as the exigencies of service life allow, they are kept broadly in line with the practice in civil life. My Lords, I welcome the Bill.

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in what now clearly is a short Second Reading debate, and I am particularly appreciative of all the supportive things that they have said about the purposes of the Bill, especially those voiced on behalf of the Opposition by the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa. I will quickly run through the comments that have been made. I would say to my noble friend Lord Bridgeman that the matters which he has raised do not directly refer to the Armed Forces Bill that is before your Lordships and, if I may, I should like to deal with them at the time of the debate on 20th July. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Mottistone that that is the date on which the White Paper and the Statement are due to be debated in this House.

For my noble friend Lord Bridgeman to say (if I understood him correctly) that the White Paper has not laid out the numbers of personnel of every kind that we require and the effect upon numbers, is I think unfair. We have talked of the regrettable cost of sophisticated weaponry in this age and of the estimated reductions in numbers that are necessary in order to be able to get a proper balance between maintaining fire power and maintaining numbers. The problem which we shall watch very closely is of course the effect of these new plans on recruitment, which is going very well at the moment, and also we shall have very much in mind that wherever possible we want to avoid redundancy.

My noble friend Lady Vickers suggested that five years was a rather long gap, although other noble Lords have supported the period of five years as being approximately the right interval for a new Bill. I am sure that she is aware that there is in fact a special committee of the MOD which is sitting all the time and which, before each annual review, looks at subjects which clearly may need attention between two Bills. I am grateful to her for her remarks in relation to the Select Committee of the other place, particularly as to the need to visit Germany, and I hope she will accept that the most constructive way in which I can take her remarks is to ensure not only that they are brought to the notice of all concerned now but that a note is made about them, so that before we come up to the next five-year review the benefit of her observations can be put into the thinking of the programme of the Select Committee.

With regard to the absence of ladies on the committee, I will make sure that all those concerned will think about this aspect closely before the next time round. So far as membership is concerned, I will certainly pass on her comments. My noble friend Lady Vickers suggested that the borstals and other institutions of a corrective nature might be full up. I think the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, referred to this also. There has been consultation between departments on this point and I do not believe that a minor change in service practice alters the general situation in this area to any significant degree.

I noted what my noble friend said about the very excellent job that courts-martial have been doing in the past. While we have accepted much of the recommendations of the Select Committee, in doing so we had no intention of reflecting on the great care which is taken by many courts-martial.

As far as the Star and Garter Home is concerned, I have taken a personal interest in this case and looked at the powers of the trustees to extend the objects of the original articles of association of the institution, and have found that this is not really possible. But there are possible ways ahead for the Star and Garter to enable them to cater for ladies also, and I will make a point of advising my noble friend of the advice I have already given in this area.

I noted the remarks of my noble friend Lord Mottistone on the morale of the Navy and indeed of the services in relation to the question of listening to advice. I find that the advice is contradictory at times in the Ministry of Defence, but as I said when repeating the Statement of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, the majority of our service advice and a large majority of our expert scientific advice supports the general line that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has taken in the White Paper. One of the purposes of bringing forward his Statement and working at a fairly breakneck pace on the major review has been to relieve the uncertainty in order that morale, which has been affected by conjecture and anticipation, should as soon as possible be rectified. I personally believe that there is every possibility that in the areas where morale may have been weakened it will very soon be restored.

I would comment on the point the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, raised on the question of greater stigma attaching to a young offender sent to a civilian remedial institute rather than a military prison. I would like to take professional advice on this point. I think all those who are concerned with these cases will be well aware of the alternatives, and I am convinced that for a number of offences and for a number of individuals a military or a civilian prison is not the right answer. All that we are providing is the option to consider the other forms of remedial institution.

May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, that I very much welcomed the tone and constructive nature of the comments he has made on this Bill and will ensure that his complimentary comments are passed on to the people who should receive them. I have made a note of his other points, particularly his point in relation to supplementary benefits and unemployment benefits. I will communicate with him, as he kindly gives me the opportunity, before the next stages of this Bill.

The noble Lord received an answer to the Question which he tabled on this. I was not myself in the House when that Answer was given. I will familiarise myself with the detail and make sure that before the Committee stage of this Bill we have made clear our views on his points, which basically stem from the fact that the whole of the terms and conditions of employment, of life and taxation, pay and everything else, are different abroad. I nevertheless will not get lost in that argument alone, in considering whether there is still some residual substance to which we should attend. I will write to him on that. I would like to thank all noble Lords for their constructive comments.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In 1974 the noble Lord, Lord Janner, with a great deal of help from the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, had tried twice to bring in a zoo Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has asked me to say to your Lordships that he regrets that he cannot be here and he supports the present Bill in its entirety. That Bill would have provided a controlling body financed by a levy on the admission money. It would have been limited in scope and expense for the zoos. Throughout all the work of preparing this Bill we have had to bear in mind that zoos are not very profitable undertakings, and that any Bill that was to be too much of an expense for them would not be workable and would work against the zoos and the animals themselves.

Control of some sort was necessary. The following year, 1975, as operating a zoo was virtually the only animal business or activity not licensed by local authorities, I felt that the answer for the control of zoos lay in that direction. I drafted a Bill and started discussions. Later that year I had lunch with a senior official in the Home Office. He agreed with me that there ought to be a Bill, and six months later he confirmed that the Minister had authorised his department to give me informal advice and assistance, but no drafting assistance and no prospect of a Government Bill. From then on I was engaged in discussions with all who would be affected by the Bill. For the last three years I have had the invaluable help of a parliamentary draftsman.

By September 1978 the Bill was far enough advanced to send a draft to the local authority associations. Only the districts showed interest, and subsequently the councils declined to have any responsibility in connection with zoos. Early in 1979 the Bill was discussed by the All-Party Conservation Committee of both Houses of Parliament. It was decided that, because of the vital importance to zoos of conservation, a meeting of all concerned should be called to try to settle once and for all the still conflicting points of view. But because of the general election which then intervened I called the meeting at the Royal Society of Arts in April 1979. Members of Parliament and Peers were invited and it was attended, even though the election was on, by the noble Lord, Lord Janner, the Home Office; the local authorities of England and Scotland; the British Veterinary Association; the RSPCA; the University Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW); and the two zoo bodies—the National Federation, which was then just the Federation, and the National The Association of British Wild Animal Keepers (ABWAK) was unable to come. But throughout the previous year I had been in touch with them and they had made helpful suggestions for the Bill and they too agree exactly with what the Bill says.

At this meeting, therefore, after four years of negotiations and countless redrafts of the Bill, six major decisions were agreed upon unanimously. First, the existing zoos must be inspected and approved before a licence was granted—that appears in Clause 20. Secondly, there should be formal inspections every three years—Clause 10. Thirdly, licences should be renewed every six years—Clause 5. Fourthly, there should be special arrangements for small zoos, and those special arrangements have been much improved in another place—Clause 14. Fifthly, the district council licensing was approved—Clause 2. However, that fifth decision was conditional upon the sixth, which was that the Secretary of State should maintain a panel of vets and zoo experts without whose advice no licence would be given or taken away—Clause 8.

The troubles were not yet over. I had an agreed measure. We had a change of Government and the Home Office told me that they did not wish to proceed. Their four years of work, however, was not wasted because throughout those four years they had contacted the various Governments departments and gradually built up what appears before your Lordships now. By March 1980 the transfer of the zoos to the Department of the Environment was completed. The Department of the Environment has taken a much more understanding approach to the Bill and since taking over has helped in making considerable improvements.

One would have thought that after six years of successfully concluded negotiations with all affected and concerned, and five years of constant contact with Government departments, the Bill, of which in another form I moved the First Reading in this House, and which was then introduced by Mr. John Blackburn as a Private Member's Bill in another place, would have been generally accepted. No praise is too high for John Blackburn in another plcae. He took over the Bill without the background which I had had with it. It is true that he had been a county councillor in Dudley and that he had the Dudley Zoo in his constituency. Nevertheless, it was his skilful handling and untiring work that managed to get the Bill through the other place. His problem and my problem was always that all concerned wanted the Bill—they agreed the principles—but they wanted it in their way in minor respects. There was a full day's debate on Second Reading in another place and then, believe it or not, over 350 amendments and 11 new clauses were tabled in three Committee sessions and a full day's Report stage. The result was a great deal of work, but a much improved Bill.

Having given your Lordships the background against which this measure is brought, let me deal with the common purpose of all of us in what we want to achieve. Today anyone can open and operate a zoo and, within reason, treat the animals as he wishes. A local authority licence is now required for a riding establishment or one breeding dogs or boarding animals, for a pet shop or for an individual keeping certain dangerous wild animals. Why not a licence for a zoo?

For the zoos the right answer was not just a licence—it is not as simple as that. Let me explain why. First, unlike other licensed activities the local community has an important stake and interest in its zoo. Zoos have education, recreation and conservation functions. So far as the schools are concerned some zoos have hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren visiting them every year and to all the people in the locality a day off spent at the zoo is something important, and where there is a tourist element of course it is very important. Furthermore, many of the zoos breed and maintain for posterity many species already endangered and some no longer alive in their natural habitat. That is the first reason.

Secondly, the keeping of zoo animals is a highly specialised technique beyond the experience of many local authority vets. The Bill, therefore, while retaining the local authority licence-granting machinery, brings in experts appointed by the Secretary of State whose advice must be sought on all matters affecting the welfare of the animals.

Thirdly, the Bill, to be effective, had to go even further. It must, by regular skilled inspection, not only control the welfare of the animals, but gradually improve Britain's zoos. That is not an easy goal because a zoo cage rebuilt and modernised can be very expensive. There are a number of very bad zoos and there are many cages and enclosures which are unacceptable. As I see it, if this Bill is ever enacted, the inspectors will say to such a zoo, "That bear can no longer live in that cage. You must either rebuild the cage or, if you cannot afford to do that, you must get rid of the bear". There is no other way of doing it.

The key provisions for the improvement of Britain's zoos appear in Clause 10(5) which says:

"the report may include … recommendations for any practicable improvements designed to bring any features of the zoo up to the normal standards of modern zoo practice".

I heard someone in another place ask, "What is 'modern zoo practice'?". I was dying to answer. It means what it says. It is changing all the time. The art and the technique of building zoos is improving all the time and we want the zoos, wherever possible, to follow those improvements.

Finally Clause 17(1)(a) provides that a licence may be lost:

"if any reasonable requirements relating to the premises or conduct of the zoo … are not complied with within such time as is reasonable in the circumstances".

Therefore, the importance of the Bill is the value of the zoo to its area and to conservation; the considerable part played by the Secretary of State; and the provisions for steady improvements in the zoos themselves.

There are other interesting provisions. The popular definition of a zoo is widened in Clause 1 to include any wild animal collection to which the public have access. It applies to everything from the London Zoo to the fish tank of strange fish in the pub, or the strange bird collection in a café, provided the animals or birds are wild and not normally domesticated. It is for the Secretary of State's inspectors to decide whether, however small the collection may be, the animals will be safe without even an annual visit from the local authority, and the Secretary of State may change his mind at any time if the circumstances differ. Applications for the grant or refusal of a licence are fairly common form and except, as I said, on grounds of animal husbandry, the Secretary of State has the final control.

There are three kinds of inspection. First there is the formal "spit and polish" inspection every three years. Secondly, the local authority can at any time and without notice inspect the subject of a particular complaint. Finally, there is an informal inspection in a year when no other inspection has taken place. There is a problem about the cost of all this. The major zoos, both the federation and the national, now pay their associations to be inspected at three-or four-yearly intervals. The inspection will be much like the inspection under the Bill. The associations were always prepared to pay instead for a local authority/Secretary of State inspection. All zoos under the Bill can pay for their inspections by annual instalments which means, in practice, that they can divide the cost of the visit by three until the next inspection comes round. Clause 14, which is extremely important, authorises the appointment of fewer inspectors for a zoo which makes the case that it cannot afford the full inspection team. It was part of the deal made with the Home Office and the Department of the Environment that there would be no major cost to the ratepayer or the taxpayer in this Bill.

But I am concerned that too much perhaps unnecessary use may be made of the emergency inspections under Clause 11. The zoos are very accustomed to complaints arising from ignorance and prejudice against them. Clause 11 is tightly worded in order to reduce this problem as much as possible. But, nevertheless, I ask my noble friend the Minister in front of me to confirm that in the guidance that he will issue to local authorities he will ask them to make sure that a complaint is bona fide and, if possible, to phone the zoo or make an informal visit before actually incurring the cost of using Clause 11.

Clause 13 is a wonder of tact and precision. What does one do if the zoo belongs to and is run by the licensing authority? Clause 13 is the answer. Clause 20 deals with existing zoos. Every zoo owner or owner of a wild animal collection has to apply for a licence within six months. The next move is up to the local authority which will then have time, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, to arrange inspections and to make decisions on those Clause 14 smaller zoos that either escape the Bill or have modified inspections either in frequency or number of inspectors. From the point of view of the collector or zoo operator, until he gets an inspection or decision he carries on as before.

There is some disquiet among a few zoos that Clause 20 will operate harshly against them and that under Clause 3 an opportunity will be taken to protest against the continuance of zoos. In this Bill we are having to control for the first time activities and establishments which are uncontrolled and which are legal now. The zoo and the public both have rights that must be protected, and if there are problems, the zoo must be given a reasonable opportunity to meet and cure those problems.

The main reason for making the first licensing period four years is to provide just such an opportunity. I would ask my noble friend to give an assurance that he will ask both the local authorities and his inspectors to give that opportunity, unless of course a situation is beyond redemption and a zoo has to be closed forthwith.

There is another assurance that I have been asked to seek by my noble friend Lord Zuckerman. There are many deaths in zoos and some are due to infections and communicable diseases; handling the carcases can be dangerous unless special precautions are taken and the same applies to the disposal of carcases. The assurance I ask—unless my noble friend can assure me that the health and safety people will give it—is that among the conditions which the Secretary of State will require under Clause 9 should be that zoo proprietors should have the necessary veterinary services to make accurate diagnoses and have proper facilities for the disposal of carcases.

Finally, I must thank my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, who also regrets that he cannot be here, and who supports the Bill. He recently followed me in the chair of the National Federation—I followed the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge—and before him was his father, who was the first chairman of the federation. It was my noble friend—and I should like this on the record (and this has never been challenged in this Bill)—who in the early days of the Bill wrote the first ever legal interpretation of what exactly an animal is, and he brought about that delightful phrasing about taxonomic categories. We owe a great deal to him.

If the Minister will give me the three assurances for which I have asked and if the provisions of the Bill are introduced with understanding, the animals, the zoos and their numerous public of children and adults will benefit from it. I beg to move.

My Lords, I should like to start by giving this Bill a very warm welcome indeed. I look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. It gives me the opportunity to say that I made my maiden speech on a previous zoo Bill. I then had a speech which should have taken about 12 minutes and I did it in five; today I have a speech which should take five minutes and no doubt I shall take 15 over it. I certainly fully support the objective at which the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, is aiming. I should like to associate myself with what he said about the efforts made in another place on this Bill.

It is never easy to get a Private Member's Bill through and although your Lordships' House has passed Bills in previous Sessions which would have introduced some controls on zoos—particularly Bills which were introduced in this House by my noble friends Lord Janner and Lord Wynne-Jones—another place has never seen fit to take on those excellent measures and pass them into law when it should have done. It is to the great credit of those who are involved in this Bill that they managed to get it through another place.

It would also be right to say to the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, how much I am aware of the enormous amount of effort and time that he has devoted to this enterprise over a great many years. Without someone prepared to devote that time, with that expertise and the wide range of contacts, and who was in a position not to be seen as partisan by any particular interest, I do not think that we would be discussing a Bill of this sort today. Certainly all those who are interested in the welfare of animals in zoos and in the good running of zoos have very great cause to be grateful to the noble Lord for all his efforts.

I think that it is important to look upon this Bill as a first step. As the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, said, if this Bill becomes law we shall, for the first time, be introducing some regulation, control, inspection and licensing to an area which has not been subject to these things at all. It is against that background that the provisions of the Bill need to be seen because certainly for my part, if I was sitting down to write an ideal licensing Bill for zoos, I should have gone a great deal further than the noble Lord has in his Bill.

I am tempted to make a usual Second Reading speech and go into some of the rights and wrongs of zoos, keeping animals in captivity, the benefits alleged and otherwise of zoological collections, and so on; but I am also aware that we shall be taking this Bill through your Lordships' House at considerable speed if the proposed timetable is kept to in order to get it back to another place early enough for it to be able to become law this Session (if it needs to go back to another place after amendments are made here). It seems to me that I should avoid the temptation to talk about the sort of things that one is meant to talk about on Second Reading, and instead go into a little bit more detail; first, hopefully to elicit some response from the noble Earl, Lord Avon, today, or, if not today, during the rest of this week, or from the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, depending on who feels most able to answer my points, so that, if possible, I can avoid tabling amendments at the Committee stage or at least if I do put down amendments on these points, everyone will know what particular points I intend to raise.

First, I should like to give a particular welcome to the provisions in Clause 5(3)(b) about the keeping of records. Of course, this is something which all well-run zoos will already do; they not only keep the records but they publish them in their annual reports so that the information is available to the public. It is excellent that this is to be made part of the conditions of a licence and that it is included in the Bill.

My first question is to ask whether these conditions, which are listed in Clause 5(3)(a), (b), (c) and so on, will be mandatory; in other words, do conditions relating to these particular points have to be included in a licence, or are they simply discretionary? Clause 5(3) begins by saying:

"Any licence under this Act may be granted subject to …"

the following conditions, and for the life of me I cannot understand why that word there is "may" rather than "shall".

The things that are listed—precautions against escape, the records which I have mentioned, insurance against liability for damage—seem to me to be three examples of things which any zoo which has any right to keep any animals in it at all must be doing now, and would have to be doing under the provisions of the Bill. I would hope that either those conditions are in fact going to be mandatory or the Secretary of State will make them so, which he has powers to do later in the Bill, or that we could agree to change the wording of Clause 5(3) so that it is clear that a licence shall contain those particular provisions.

To go back, and quickly, through a number of minor points, Clause 2 seems to me to list a number of things in subsection (2) which an owner, or somebody who is going to run a zoo, must give details of when they apply for a licence; including the kinds of animal that are going to be kept; the approximate numbers, and so on. What this does not say is something which the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, mentioned in his opening speech, and that is that the prospective zoo operator will have access to veterinary advice. Nor is there any reference that I could see in Clause 2 to the security of any proposed enclosures. Given recent experience and the general need to ensure that dangerous wild animals are kept in secure premises, that seems to me to be something that could be mentioned in Clause 2, and I wonder why it is not.

Turning to Clause 3, I understand that an assurance was given in another place that, among those persons who are going to be consulted under Clause 3(2)(d), national voluntary animal welfare organisations will be included. I hope that we can have that assurance repeated today. If not, it seems to me that the wording could be clearer. I am not clear, for example, that a voluntary organisation such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is really a national institution, much as those concerned with it might like to think that to be the case. I cannot understand why the word "institution" is used there rather than "organisation", or something similar, which I should have thought would be the usual word in other legislation.

It seems to me odd that in Clause 4(3) "may" is used. The local authority in this case can refuse to grant a licence for a zoo if they are not satisfied with a number of things. These seem so basic that it should be mandatory on the local authority not to grant a licence. Indeed, in an earlier draft of the Bill, that was the case. I should welcome some comment from one of the two noble Lords opposite as to why Clause 4(3) has not remained as a mandatory provision so that the local authority have to refuse a licence if, for example, somebody has been convicted of an offence under a number of Acts of Parliament. I noted with interest that the Wildlife and Countryside Act is not listed there. Whether this signals a decision by the Government to drop the legislation and bring in a new and better Bill I do not know, but I look forward to hearing what the noble Earl, Lord Avon, has to say about that.

On Clause 5 I have already referred to the question of including conditions in the licence about the escape of animals, and records, and so on. Clause 5(3)(b), which refers to the keeping of records, does not include any provision for records to be kept about the transfer of animals. I imagine that there are a number of organisations running zoos which have more than one set of premises and will be transferring animals from one to the other. I wondered why the provision had not been made for records to be kept of such transfers, which seems to be an important matter about which records should be kept.

Looking at the question of inspections, I am unhappy about the extension of the period of notice from, I think it was, seven days to now 28 in the draft of the Bill that we have. The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, referred to these major inspections as "spit and polish inspections". I wondered whether that was actually what was going to happen. With 28 days' notice a zoo would have a lot of time in which to tidy things up and move animals, and change things around, before the major inspection took place. I appreciate that there can be inspections taking place on a more informal basis, but it still seems to me to be a fairly long period of time of notice before the major inspections.

On inspections, I am unhappy at the moment—and it may be because I do not adequately understand the procedures set out in the Bill—about what happens after an inspection has taken place and recommendations have been made. First, I do not understand why in Clause 10(5) the inspectors only give advice on the keeping of records, but can make recommendations on improvements designed to bring features of the zoo up to normal standards. I should have thought that they ought to be able to make recommendations about the keeping of records as well as making recommendations about other matters.

Then, having made recommendations, the only thing that I can see happening is under Clause 17(1)(a):

"The local authority may … revoke a licence",

if recommendations made as a result of an inspection are not complied with. But there is nothing in the Bill which says that the local authority shall act on the inspector's recommendations. The inspector's report has to go to the zoo. It does not then say that the zoo shall have a certain period of time in which to implement the recommendations, otherwise the provisions in Clause 17 come into effect. I would find it helpful if one of the two noble Lords opposite could give me an idea of how they see the system working if the inspectors have made a series of recommendations about changes, let us say, in the size of enclosures, or the type of perimeter fencing for enclosures, or something of that sort, and where that procedure is laid out in the Bill.

My final worry is about Clause 14, the dispensation for particular zoos. I can understand the desire to not burden small zoos, or collections of one or a very small number of species, with the full-scale, full rigours, as it were, of the inspection system which the Bill will introduce for other zoos. But my worry is that I think all of us would agree that there are a number of zoos where there have been some quite appalling abuses, and that very often these have been small zoos rather than the largest collections. Inevitably small zoos get visited by fewer members of the public, there is less likelihood of people bringing forward complaints, and there is less public check on what is happening. I would also say that I think that some small zoos and collections of one or a small number of species represent some of the best zoos in the country, so I am certainly not making any general comment about this, but it seems to me that the small zoos probably contain the very worst as well as the very best, and I therefore do not see why a general dispensation has been allowed for.

It would be helpful to have some assurance from the noble Earl, Lord Avon, about the sort of circumstances in which the Secretary of State will exercise his discretion—because it has to be the Secretary of State—to give this sort of dispensation, and whether there will be some procedures so that for the very worst zoos—which many people hope will either have to change dramatically or cease trading once the Bill becomes law—there will be some check rather than any blanket dispensation given to that sort of operation.

The final question, again directed at the Government, that I have is about Clause 9; the Secretary of State's standards. This was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, as covering standards about the management of zoos and the animals in them, and the Secretary of State will specify standards of modern zoo practice. I am not so much concerned about what standards of modern zoo practice the Secretary of State will be setting, but what sort of field these standards will cover. It would be important for Parliament to have had some rather clearer statement than has been provided so far, certainly in another place, about the areas of operation that these standards will cover. Will they, for example, cover questions such as the numbers of animals kept in enclosures, the desirability of animals being kept in social groups, and the need for certain types of enclosures for particular animals? For example, some animals like primates need a great deal of opportunity for activity in their enclosures.

Will those kinds of things be covered by the Secretary of State's standards? Will there be standards relating to the quantity and quality of food, the frequency and type of veterinary inspections of zoos, the degree of access to veterinary advice, and hospital treatment, as well as the important question which the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, raised, of disposing of the carcases of animals and of the importance of conducting a proper post mortem so that the zoo knows the cause of death of the particular animal and has a record of it?

There are a number of other matters one could think of which should be covered by the standards, and I hope that before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House, if not today, we could have some guidance from the noble Earl, Lord Avon, about what the department sees the standards containing. I appreciate that this proposal was not in the original draft of the Bill—it was inserted during the Bill's passage through another place—but I hope that by now the department has had sufficient time to give thought to the matter and to be able to give us more information.

I am not asking for a draft of the standards, although obviously that would be the most desirable information to have, and indeed in normal circumstances Parliament would insist on having it, but we appreciate that this is a Private Member's Bill and, if we had the paragraph headings from the Government before the Bill leaves this House, that would at least give us some idea of the scope of this very important code of practice, which is, I imagine, the way in which it will operate.

I reiterate our welcome for the Bill, but I must raise the question of timing. As I understand it, the Bill must be back in another place in the comparatively near future, which is why we are intending to take future stages of the Bill rather more quickly than usual. That, understand, is caused by the Government's refusal to give some assurance that, having got this far, the Bill will if it gets it Second Reading today, reach the statute book. That seems to be putting this House in particular in a quite impossible position. In effect, the Government are saying to us, "If you amend the Bill in any way, we cannot guarantee that it will go through, or even that there will be time for it to be considered in another place. What is more, you must take the Bill at an extraordinarily fast pace, although we now have an overspill in the autumn and therefore plenty of time for your Lordships to consider the matter at a reasonable pace, because, again, the Government will not give any guarantee that they will ensure, first, that the Bill can be adequately considered here and, then, that our amendments, if any, can be adequately considered in another place.

I know that my noble friend Lord Houghton wishes to refer to this matter, so I will leave it there. However, I would press the Government very strongly to think about this issue again, to say to your Lordships' House that it will be possible to amend the Bill and to ensure that it can then be considered sensibly by another place and not simply lost because we found something in it that we wanted to change. That does not seem to me to be treating this House with the respect your Lordships are normally accustomed to demand from any Government, nor treating the Parliamenary process with very great respect, and I therefore hope the Government will reconsider the matter.

I have no doubt that the Bill will receive a Second Reading today. It has from my noble friends and me our warmest support. I hope we can get it through before the end of the Session, if necessary with amendments being made here.

My Lords, we owe a large debt to the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, for introducing the Bill into your Lordships' House and for the immense amount of work he has put into the subject over a period of years. There are, of course, many others who have put a great deal into it too, not least in another place recently, and we should express our gratitude to them.

Looking round your Lordships' House today, and at the speakers' list, it looks like a replay in miniature of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill of sad memory. I thought the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that we might have that over again made the noble Earl, Lord Avon, turn white as he sat on the Government Front Bench. Certainly I could not greet that suggestion with any great enthusiasm. However, we have some changes, and I am sure we all look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. Certainly from these Benches we think she is more usefully employed in your Lordships' House than fighting Liberals in the West Country, so we are particularly pleased to see her here.

We welcome the Bill in principle. It is long overdue and it has been long in gestation. It was fully debated in the Commons, not least in terms of the part played there by my honourable friend Mr. Stephen Ross, and a number of reasonable compromises were reached. It is not my purpose today to go into the details of the various amendments, not least because I find myself, not for the first time with this type of measure, in considerable agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who covered to the ground in a speech of moderate length; mine will be rather shorter, so perhaps between us our speeches will average out at something quite reasonable.

On the whole, I tend to go along with the suggestions made by the RSPCA for strengthening the Bill. The real need is that it should be made a bit tougher and tighter, and it would seem that the obligation is all that way. In particular, I pick out two clauses which, because the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, covered them, I do not propose to cover in detail. The question about records being mandatory is extremely important. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, asked the Government whether they regarded the clause as at present drafted as being mandatory. It seems to me that it certainly is not, and that that is a real gap which should be filled. The second subject which we particularly need to look at again is the exclusion of small zoos and the conditions appertaining to them.

I await with particular interest the reply of the Government to the final question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett; it would be a most unsatisfactory state of affairs if we were in the position, as a number of people have said—it has not been said necessarily in this debate but the matter has been raised by a number of people outside—of not being able to amend the Bill for fear of losing it. The time is long overdue for the Government to think about a procedure for dealing with Bills which reach this sort of stage at this time in the Session. It is not uncommon, and very often useful Private Members' Bills introduced either here or in another place—Bills which are not of basic contention—are lost; sometimes they are lost year after year. Or they are passed here and fail to find a Private Member sponsor in another place and then when they come here, having found one at last (as is the case with this Bill), they are in danger of getting killed; or almost worse, we are not able to make improvements or amendments, which most people think are necessary, for fear of losing them. This is a most unhappy and unsatisfactory situation which demands a strong constitutional examination, and I commend that to the Government.

Many of us have ambivalent feelings about zoos. In fact, I should not be surprised if everyone in your Lordships' Chamber did not have ambivalent feelings about zoos. We dislike the unnatural surroundings. We rather dislike the whole idea of keeping wild animals in captivity. But we enjoy the pleasure of seeing wild animals, which otherwise we would not see, and we enjoy the educational value, too. There are all kinds of reasons why zoos give much pleasure to a great many people and provide a certain amount of necessary education, not least in these days when many people in this country are out of touch with almost all animals except dogs and cats. But, whatever the balance of our ambivalence between the good and the bad regarding zoos, there is one thing that is entirely intolerable—and that is a bad zoo. A bad zoo is an offence to God and man, and therefore even if we are not able to improve the Bill further, we certainly must welcome it, as we on these Benches do.

My Lords, most of us have very happy memories of a childhood visit to the zoo, and I am no exception in that respect, but I think it particularly appropriate that today I should be making my maiden speech on this Bill, since on my first visit to London I came specifically to see the zoo. Many other people might say exactly the same, but few will have travelled 12,000 miles to do so. In 1937 my mother embarked on what was then a very long sea voyage from Australia and she was persuaded to bring the two youngest of her large family with her, so that we could see the newly-opened penguin pool in Regents Park Zoo. On the way back to Australia we visited every zoo en route. My interest in, and enthusiasm for, zoos have never waned, and I live close enough to Regents Park Zoo to keep in fairly regular touch with what is going on there from the point of view of a member of the public, not at all from that of a zoologist.

Some aspects of the Bill give me cause for concern. I do not support the choice of local authorities as the licensing body. I spent 10 years on Westminster City Council. I sat on licensing committees there. I well remember the confusion that arose and the time that was spent over street traders' licences; after many hours spent on the matter we decided not to grant any licences. Most of those people one sees selling fruit and vegetables in Oxford Street are unlicensed, and yet in all the years that I had seen them there I imagined that they had licences.

At one time I was chairman of the committee responsible for the public health inspectorate, and that taught me quite a lot. There were demands and pressures from the public for constant inspection of everything. I was pleased to see that in the Bill there is a provision—Clause 19(3)—covering the offence of obstructing an inspector. I remember an instance of a public health inspector attempting to take a food sample. Someone rushed away with it and flushed it down a toilet to prevent him from doing so, and we had no resourse to law in relation to that matter.

Under Clause 3(2)(f) and (g) almost anyone could demand inspections, and I believe that this could involve considerable unnecessary time and expense. I strongly support the point that was made by, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, that it is very important that the people involved should be bona fide objectors and should have good grounds for wanting an inspection carried out. This, too, is an area where one must be very careful. There is a parellel here with my experience on the Greater London Council in relation to licensing music and dancing. We have discovered that one determined person who intends to be an objector can, conscientiously and constantly, set himself up as representing all kinds of residents' associations and can go on appearing in different guises. This ends up by the incurring of a great deal of expense without any real necessity for it.

I know that Westminster City Council has considered informally the fact that it would be responsible for the licensing of Regents Park Zoo, and really it would prefer not to be. The council is concerned that Clause 14, which deals with exemptions, allows exemptions only on the grounds of a zoo being too small, and not on the grounds of a zoo being too large or of the matter so involving expertise that a local authority cannot cope with it. This is one of the worries in the Westminster Council. It is felt that to appoint a sufficient number of people with the expertise necessary to deal with the licence would not be at all inexpensive. On the other hand, the council is perfectly happy to maintain a register of the notices that are served. If there was a central licensing authority, the public would still be able to inspect any objections at the local council.

Clause 4(2) of the Bill appears to be simple and clear, but to me it is far from being so. It covers the conditions under which a licence may be refused if the authority is satisfied,

"that the establishment or continuance of the zoo would injuriously affect the health or safety of persons living in the neighbourhood of the zoo, or seriously affect the preservation of law and order".

At the Greater London Council we have similar provisions for the licensing of late-night public music and dancing, but we find that whenever anyone makes his first application for a licence it ends up being granted because one cannot prove that any of the feared nuisances would actually occur. Therefore the first licence is granted. Afterwards an applicant comes back for a renewal and says, "We have spent so much money—you can't possibly ignore this capital expense. You can't put our livelihood at risk. You must renew". Usually such cases are decided at public hearings with three elected councillors sitting, and the councillors feel that they are placed in a position where it is very difficult to refuse a licence. Surely that is not the intention of this Bill. Surely the Bill is intended to protect people and to protect the animals in the zoo.

I think it very important that your Lordships should realise that a possible consequence of a Bill of this kind would be the holding of a large number of public hearings. Under the licensing legislation to which I have referred—actually it is the Local Government Act—there is no obligation to hold public hearings, but public pressure mounts to such an extent that elected councillors feel that the only way to satisfy it is to hold a public hearing so that justice can be seen to be done. This situation has developed into a vast enterprise, with over 1,600 applications a year and about 100 public hearings. According to what we have been told, there are about only 150 zoos in the whole of the country. If in the local authority to which I have referred it is not possible to appoint adequate expertise in order to deal with the licences—and hundreds are being dealt with—how will other local authorities be able to develop the necessary expertise? A local authority might deal with only one licence of this type and never have to deal with another. I feel that licensing should be carried out centrally, with a panel of experts operating the scheme.

I was interested to read the requirement in Clause 8(2) about those involved having experience of animals. That impressed me very much. When one Sunday morning I went to the zoo, as a dentist I was fascinated to see treatment being given to Guy, the gorilla. Had that case involved a human being, it could have been handled simply in my surgery, or that of any other dentist, but with Guy it was a major, difficult task. He had to have a general anaesthetic and his sheer size and bulk meant that he needed expert attention. The point I want to make is that the operation called for special expertise. Certainly Guy was very bad in that he ate sweets, and so perhaps there was a comparison here with cases involving humans. But in Guy's case the treatment involved required real expertise.

I think elected councillors are subject to too many local pressures and too much electoral influence. I also think that even with the best intention they may not be capable of deciding whether standards are being met, as laid down in Clause 9. As to the inspection clauses, as I said Westminster Council are not keen to undertake the duties in relation to a zoo such as Regents Park. That would be a very large expense; and although the Bill believes this would be totally recoverable, there is nothing to guarantee that. But the informal inspections, I think, are probably very valuable because, as was said by, I think, Lord Melchett, informal inspections mean that nobody has been able to put their house in order. But I think the other inspections, with the notice, are also valuable, because if such an inspection had the effect of putting someone's house in order, then surely that is worthwhile.

Above all, it is important to keep down the cost of this Bill. Zoo attendances are falling everywhere. At the present moment, in Regents Park it is £3·50 for adult admission and £1·50 for a child. I have always been very keen to see a kiwi, and I went to Regents Park to see the kiwi in 1961, but sadly it was in a terminal condition and no visitors were allowed. So I was delighted to see that two of these famous birds had been presented to the zoo last year, and I should like to quote from the annual report of the Zoological Society, which said:

"The birds are housed in the nocturnal section of the Clore Pavilion where, though rather elusive, they can with perseverance and luck be seen".

I have had three unsuccessful attempts so far, and I have decided that "rather elusive" is the typical British understatement. My only hope is for luck; and my perseverence would be sorely tried if I were paying £3·50 every time I went to have another look.

For parents and two young it costs at the moment £10 to go to that zoo, plus their fares to get there. So families feel obliged to make it into a really long day, to try to see everything in order to get value for their money. This is no way to endear zoos to children, and to have them grow up with the same degree of affection that people of my generation have. I believe that science and research are very important, and I know that Lord Craigton stresses this side of the matter; but I think the public are very important, too, and the zoos are there for the benefit of the public. If we bring in any scheme which is going to add to the already vast expense, then we will find it counter-productive. We will have fewer people going to the zoos, and this, in turn, will damage the zoos themselves. So I favour a licensing scheme; but I should like to keep it simple, I should like to keep it central, and I should like to have it operated by one authority with the expertise to deal with this matter.

My Lords, it is most apposite that to me should fall the honour of congratulating the noble Baroness on her maiden speech. It is apposite because 10 years earlier (I regret to say) I also arrived from Australia. It is apposite also in that my grandfather, who was then in your Lordships' House and was a member of the Zoological Society, took me off—it was March. I was in shorts and I had just come from an Australian summer—to the zoo. It was very cold. I hope we shall hear from the noble Baroness often, and I should like to congratulate her again on her maiden speech.

With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, I must be honest and say that I think this is an un-satisfactory Bill. If there are a few bad zoos, they could be dealt with in a far less bureaucratic fashion. As I understand it, the National Federation of Zoological Gardens of Great Britain and Ireland and the National Zoological Association of Great Britain, which I gather are about to merge, carry out their own inspections; and they probably do it far more efficiently than the inspections proposed here, for one simple reason, and that is that they have them carried out by people who are experts on zoo management—and there is no mention of that in this Bill. In addition, of course—and this comes to what the noble Baroness said—they do it without the proposed cost, which would put out of business many good zoos as well as the few bad ones which, I think we are all agreed, we want to put out of business.

This Bill lays on local authorities the onus to inspect licensed zoos. There are hundreds of local authorities, or even thousands, and they are all different in make-up and wisdom. What a dog's breakfast you are going to get from that! They have not got the expertise, and their views will differ from year to year with the swing of the political pendulum in the locality. There will be no chance of getting a uniform standard throughout the country. As I say, with the ebb and flow of local politics a zoo could get a licence one year and, in the three-yearly inspection that follows, probably lose it just because somebody had lobbied a councillor.

Another thing to remember is that in this country we have more animal cranks per square mile than anywhere else in the world, and they are the people who are all the time at their local councillors and other representatives. Someone comes along and complains about the smell, complains about the noise or complains about this or that, and if they have "pull" with the local councillors you can see what will happen. There must be many of your Lordships who have come up against local planners from time to time, with their more than adequate powers already under the various planning Acts. If you argue that it would be impossible for a centralised body to control the whole country, then why not let the councils do the licensing but the major decisions be taken by those on the Secretary of State's list? But, of course, you will have to improve that list.

It sounds fine to talk about a set of standards. Standards are improving all the time. But how many different species of animals, birds, fish, insects, reptiles, et cetera, are there? Millions? It would be a brave man who would say that he knows the right standard of housing, temperature and all the rest of it for the lot. If you try to lay down standards by definition, you will freeze them where they are and you will prevent progress. I would hate to have to recruit a team to run a zoo under the limits of Clause 4. The best people with animals and birds who I know are our local keepers, but I do not know one of them I would be allowed to employ under this Bill. I must warn my keeper, by the way, not to let anybody visit his excellent aviary, because he will be for the high jump under this.

It is this definition of zoos that I am a bit worried about. What about those of us who open our stately homes? I have a couple of donkeys, I have some geese and duck, and my wife has some free-flying budgerigars in the garden. Can somebody who has got it in for me come along and accuse me of being a zoo, and then get me put out of business? I do not think the definition is entirely satisfactory. Then there is all this business of periods and conditions under Clause 5. Surely it is big brother run wild. Clause 5(3)(a) brings to mind the damage caused by coypu and mink which were released when the owners could no longer get their fodder at the beginning of the last war.

If this Bill is enacted and there are many zoos, good and bad, put out of business, what are we going to do? Are the noble Lord and his friends going to have hundreds of marksmen ready to shoot the animals or will they be left to run wild? The coypu and the mink are quite small; but what if you have a few elephants and so on? I think you must be careful not to put financial burdens on the small zoos or the inspectors will put them out of business. You have only to live in my neck of the woods to have ample evidence of the damage to local wildlife by the mink. We are one of the worst areas in the country in this respect. Those from East Anglia will know the cost of the coypu.

My Lords, the noble Lord will recall that in the Wildlife and Countryside Bill it will be an offence to release wild animals in the wild without a licence.

; My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. It bears out the question I was asking earlier; whether the movers of this Bill will have enough slaughtermen available to get rid of all the animals that will be, so to speak, made redundant if the zoos are put out of business by the financial burdens. Under Clause 8, the Secretary of State's list must contain people with experience of zoo management, if it is to work at all. But I see no reference to them in the lists we have had so far. Most vets can deal with cats, dogs, horses or cattle; but when you come to these specialised animals you will not find vets to deal with them. You can go on for hours asking questions about specialist treatment on giraffes or anything else. Section 9, so far as I can make out, is impossible to operate owing to the multitudinous number and variety of standards. Clause 10 deals with inspectors and inspection. Inspectors must not be appointed locally. For reasons I have already given, I consider it would cause too much trouble in any village to have a local person coming in to take judgment on something on which people will be at each other's throats. Anyway, the "3+2+1" formula is too cumbersome and expensive.

Talking about local planners, I can give you an example of an analogous case, but nothing to do with zoos. A neighbour of mine who bought a property of which the park, like mine, had been designed by Capability Brown, went into Exeter, found the original designs and copied them. He came back and decided that he would plant a small coppice where it had disappeared and take down the coppice which had grown up since. When he took down that one, some interfering local complained locally. Up came the planner and said, "What do you mean by taking that down?" He said, "I want to make it more like Capability Brown planted it"—to which came the reply from this person with powers of life and death, "Who's 'e?"

Those with experience of the working of the Health and Safety at Work Act asked the NFU and the CLA in the country. One knows what an expensive pastime it is; but we do not have to pay for those inspections. Why pick on zoos? I think the relevant part of the Health and Safety at Work Act should be repealed and transferred to something like a zoo licensing authority. Clauses 13 and 14 speak for themselves. They are further time-wasting, Big Brother-like operations. Clause 15 makes a field day of putting extra burdens on zoos and adds to bureaucracy. This is not the stage where your Lordships put points to improve the Bill; but to Clause 4(4)(c) one must add the words, "to the knowledge of the proprietor"; otherwise it is not being fair.

As far as penalties (Clause 19) are concerned, I know a zoo, well-run, which made a profit last year of £37. Supposing they got a £500 fine, that would fix that zoo. Clause 21(1) interprets "animals". How extraordinary! Will the Minister's list include experts in all these animals. Where will you find a chap to inspect a butterfly farm or perhaps the new leader of the Greater London Council could be co-opted to inspect toads—or is it newts he breeds? That is what I think will be the difficulty; that of finding people who can not only lay down standards but also know what they are talking about. I can understand those who believe that no animals should be kept in captivity, but that is no longer practical politics. Zoos have meant the saving of many species which would otherwise have died out. I do not want to labour the educational point. That has been mentioned. But let us bear it in mind. I think that this Bill ought to be replaced by a far more practical one. At best, it is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in warm congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, to whose maiden speech we listened, enchanted by her survey of administration problems in a Bill of this kind. There, I thought, was the voice of practical experience of local authorities trying to be "jacks of all trades and masters of none". Local authorities are given many different tasks which require considerable expertise and experience and probably we pause too infrequently before imposing more burdens upon them. I will come back to that later; but I am sure that the noble Baroness knows a good deal more about other subjects than many of us in terms of practical experience and that she knows a lot about subjects besides zoos. We shall be glad to have the benefit of her experience in other debates. As a citizen, and ratepayer of the Westminster County Council, I had a personal interest in the noble Baroness's ability and capacity for reviewing the problems of an important city authority.

The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, is to be congratulated and applauded for his diligence and work on this Bill and our thanks go to Mr. Blackburn in another place for his zeal and application to the intricacies of this problem. Probably unfamiliar with them as he was, he applied his mind, I think, with great effect in piloting this Bill through another place. Before coming to the Bill, I want to get something off my chest. I want to follow some of the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Melchett and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, about the ridiculous position in which your Lordships are put on this Bill this afternoon. It is time that we expressed more than dissatisfaction; I think that we should express annoyance with the way in which this procedure of Private Members' Bills is leading to these quite impossible situations from time to time. Talk about public expenditure! The amount of money that is spent in this building and elsewhere on Private Members' Bills which are frustrated, obstructed and go into limbo is nothing short of disgraceful. After an enormous amount of time and trouble spent upon them they have no fruitful conclusion in terms of legislation at all.

When a Bill is selected by a Member in another place in the ballot for Private Members' Bills, and he gets the Bill through another place, he ought at least to be assured that even though your Lordships' House have amendments to make to that Bill, when it goes back to another place it shall not be lost through lack of time.

When I was in the Government some years ago we resolved this problem to our own satisfaction and that of a great many other people. We said that any Bill that gets a Second Reading under its own steam shall not fall through lack of time if it is a Bill upon which there is widespread concern and evidence of a public desire for reform or change. We took through Parliament some Bills which were extremely controversial at that time which no Government would have wanted to bring forward. No Government will touch abortion; no Government will touch divorce; no Government will touch homosexuality. Those Bills had to come forward for legislation through the initiative and persistence of Private Members.

Unless Governments give time for Parliament to reach a conclusion on important matters of public interest, then the intentions of Parliament can be frustrated for year after year. I constantly complain about legislation by lottery. That is only the beginning of this tiresome exercise. If one has a Bill which comes in the first six or seven in the ballot in another place one will probably have a Friday upon which that Bill will be the first order of the day. There is a chance of a decision by the House of Commons to give that Bill a Second Reading. Thereafter it goes into the hazards of obstruction and frustration and the ability of those who know the ropes of parliamentary procedure to beat it at the final post.

This is a system which should come under serious review. What is our position this afternoon? We have a Bill which has come up from another place. We are hurrying on; we are virtually conducting Committee stage debates on the Second Reading of the Bill because we are all harassed by the thought of lack of time. Your Lordships should know (if you do not already know) that this Bill must get back to another place by Friday week unless it is to fall like many other Private Members' Bills have fallen in the past even when they are within touching distance of the finishing post.

The number of days allotted in another place to the completion of Private Members' Bills is running out. We have to have the Committee stage this coming Friday; it has to be back in another place by the Friday after that. This means, as my noble friends have been saying, that we are virtually precluded from amending this Bill without putting it in peril. If it goes back to another place with amendments it can be put at risk by the prolongation of the debate there upon whether another place will accept the Lord's amendments or not.

I ask your Lordships to look at the concluding stages of the Third Reading of this Bill in another place and see the scramble that went on at the end of the day to get it through to beat the clock. Indeed, as the clock was ticking away a Member rose to speak obviously with the intention of talking the Bill out at the final moment of the Third Reading of this Bill. And we call this parliamentary procedure! We tell the country that it must bring itself up-to-date; it must computerise itself; it must be modern and improve methods. We must get out of our lethargy. We are in a competitive world; we have a living to earn. If Britain does not wake up, we shall go down the drain. Here we are conducting our affairs as if we are in the middle of the 19th century. Expense notwithstanding we go on as if this was the be-all and end-all of the democratic process. We must be the laughing stock of the world having a legislature which conducts its affairs on methods which were only appropriate in the leisurely days of the past century.

Your Lordships' hands are virtually tied behind your backs. We have heard criticisms from the noble Baroness on administration; we have heard criticisms from the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, on various aspects of this Bill. My noble friend Lord Melchett and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, were asking questions which we want cleared up before the Bill finally goes through your Lordships' House. If we begin to alter it, we may well be in trouble. I am sorry to be so emphatic about this, but having lived with this problem for so long in another place and seen it operate in this place I think that a message of grave dissatisfaction should go to the Government.

Another side to this story is that if we introduce a Private Members' Bill in this House there is no obligation on another place to find any time for it down there. If the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, had had to introduce his Bill as a Private Member's Bill in your Lordships' House, and if Mr. Blackburn had not taken this matter up in the House of Commons (so that he started where it really matters), Lord Craigton's Bill could have passed every stage in this House, be sent down to the other place and be completely ignored.

Did I not have a Bill myself on pet animals? It has been down there since March. Nobody has taken it up. It gets read over every Friday—Private Members' days. Some anonymous "nit" on the Government Front Bench calls "Object" and down it goes.

My Lords, that is what happened twice to Lord Janner's Bill in 1975. He saw the Bill through every one of its stages and that is how it finished.

My Lords, that is almost a three line underlining of what I have been saying. There is no mutuality between the two Houses on Private Members' Bills. This is another very sad reflection upon our methods of doing business. I conclude my remarks by saying in quite short terms that I think that when a Private Member's Bill has gone through all stages in another place and is sent up here for consideration, the Government might at least underwrite that Bill as regards time and allow Parliament to function. It is simply monstrous that one Member can get up and prevent Parliament from functioning at all unless the sponsors of the measure—whoever they may be—can get a Motion through that the question be put and apply the closure to the debate at the last minute of the last hour available for that Bill. That is enough on that.

Now, so far as the Bill is concerned, this problem of control and regulation of the use of animals is a serious one for all of us. It will grow as time goes on. Our community is on a crowded island with additional activities coming forward all the time; rising standards of affluence; mobility increased; public interest en- lightened and excited on new visions; new experiences and new things to see; children today being given opportunities that no children of my generation could possibly have ever hoped for. All these have to be accommodated within the narrowing precincts of our growing population and our crowded conditions. I think that regulation is unavoidable.

One thing we have not heard about so far in this debate is circuses. They are next on the list: there is not the slightest doubt about that. There is far less to be said for circuses than there is for zoos, and zoos can arouse in many people—they do in me—the very thing that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, referred to; a kind of ambivalence. My prejudice is against animals kept in captivity. I think there is a great deal of useful work to be done on research, especially regarding endangered species, animal diseases, conservation and so on; and an enormous lot of useful work can be done only if one has the living species there for observation, for treatment and all the rest of it that is necessary, if you are to understand what you are dealing with.

But for public entertainment I think zoos are probably in decline. Some aspects of zoological gardens always appall me because they are put there expressly for the entertainment of the public. I dislike, for example, the "chimps' tea party" aspect of the zoological garden. I do not think animals should be put through the indignity of being asked to behave like human beings just to entertain a public who cannot understand an animal if it behaves like an animal. They always want to see an animal behave like a human beings in order to be able to understand it. That is the last way in which one can understand an animal. In fact, to look at people behaving like human beings is probably the least understandable way of studying human beings. Anyway, I think that aspect of zoological gardens is open to objection.

It may be that public taste in zoos is declining and that is why attendances are falling off and charges are being increased; but if we accept that some regulation, some supervision and some oversight is necessary, the question is: Who is going to do it? The local authorities are the nearest to hand. The zoos are in their areas and part of the local environment, and local citizens will have views about whether or not they are well conducted and whether or not they are acceptable to the community. To go to a central control in order to get the necessary standard of expertise has its dangers, not only in this field but in many others as well, and I think that we have to accept that local authorities must equip themselves for tasks they have been given. For that purpose they should be given adequate means for raising finance for the purpose.

We have got a dog problem. We have an urban problem of the control and discipline of the dogs in our society. I was chairman of the joint advisory committee on this subject. There is a proposal for dog wardens and for a dog warden service to be conducted by the local authorities. All this is in the pipeline. So more duties and responsibilities of this kind may come forward in the years to come.

I will not go over the ground that noble Lords have already gone over with regard to the Bill itself. Without going into the detail of it, I welcome the first opportunity of getting a Bill on the statute book to regulate and license the conduct of zoos. That, as a beginning, is a desirable purpose of Parliament and my concluding words are that I think more and more human responsibility to the animal kingdom should become a major purpose of political and parliamentary life.

I had hoped for more from the Government than we have had so far in this Parliament on this subject of animal welfare. All three parties brought forward pledges about animal welfare in their manifestos. The Government have not much to show for that so far. They have not been interested in Bills that have already come forward and they have made no offer to ensure that this Bill survives the proceedings still to come in another place to enable it to be the subject of final judgment for legislative purposes by Parliament itself.

We shall have to follow this up another time. It will be another "penalty point" when we come to mark up how the Government have conducted themselves during their period of office. It has not been good enough. Probably Labour would not have been much better, but we are dealing with the Government—any Government—and we want to see more come out of government resources for animal welfare. It is a pity they did not father this Bill earlier and give us ample time to consider it here so that we could take pride in the work we do instead of scampering along in order to get this Bill back to another place while a good deal of Government trivia will occupy our time now and in the autumn.

My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, on an extremely clear exposition of two major difficulties concerning the Bill. I should like to congratulate her on her maiden speech and, more than that, on the way she delivered it. I suppose that age is catching up with me so that I cannot always hear as well as I should like, but I heard every word that she said and she expressed it so well that I understood it, which is a great thing.

Listening to the speeches today so far, I should like to join with everyone who has said that it is a shame this Bill has been rushed through. Amendments will have to be made in this House if it is to be workable. I must declare an interest in that my wife and I are the owners, administrators and builders of a zoo which we started in 1972 and opened in 1973. We have built it up over the past nine years. It is a country zoo which we call a wildlife park. It is devoted to animals and birds from the one-time vast Spanish empire in America. It has taken up all our time, and I should like to apologise to your Lordships for my resulting infrequent appearances in your Lordships' House. We are members of the National Federation of Zoological Societies of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which is almost as long a name as that of the famous shipping line which runs from Southampton to Cowes—the South of England Steam Navigation Company of the Solent.

I have been involved at the last moment in trying to have some amendments introduced into this Bill which will make it less punitive towards existing zoo establishments. The Government have made some modifications in another place which help towards this end, but the Bill in its present form will cripple most zoos with its administrative expenses which Clause 15(5) orders local authorities to recover in fees and charges made to zoos. Let me make it clear that my colleagues in zoos up and down the country wish for legislation for one reason or another, but this Bill has been produced largely without consultation with them, and certainly without taking into account their ideas. It is claimed that the zoos were in agreement with this Bill but I know of only one zoo which is.

The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, has been dealing with this Bill in one form or another for several years, as he has told us. His Bill has been taken up in another place and here it is returned to us in a vastly altered form. I know he is unhappy with the changes that have been made and he has said so in a letter to the chairman of the National Zoological Association. As chairman of the federation, he was worried about the financial burden to be placed on zoos. Let it be plainly understood that zoos will have tremendous expenses forced on them by this Bill in Clause 15(5) in order to cover the cost of Clause 2—that is the cost of putting in an application for a licence; Clause 10—that concerns the periodic inspections every three years; Clause 11, which provides for inspection when somebody drops a hat; Clause 12, which provides that if a hat is not dropped, inspection has to be made once a year; and Clause 18—that is the clause which allows for an appeal to a magistrates' court. I would ask your Lordships to remember that if the local authority engages a QC to put their case, it is the zoo which is going to pay that QC, under the provisions of Clause 15(5). These charges can be paid only at the expense of cutting the zoos' breeding programmes and educational facilities, both of which activities have been expanding to fill present needs, one for conservation and the other where education grants have been reduced in other places.

As to the possible costs, here is an example. A week ago today, the West of England's Zoological Society's establishment at Bristol was inspected by the federation's inspectors. There were two inspectors, one a zoo man and the other a zoo vet, and their recorder. They were there from 10.45 a.m. until 6 p.m., including a 45-minutes working lunch. They did one-quarter of the zoo. These, I must add, were new buildings put up since the last inspection, and the inspection was therefore very thorough. However, that was a small zoo, covering 11 acres, and only one quarter of it was covered in a day. How long would a full Clause 10 inspection take and what would that cost?

May I draw your Lordships. attention to another matter which has been repeatedly raised elsewhere? The zoos and the main progenitor of this Zoo Licensing (No. 2) Bill, the RSPCA, are at one in agreeing that the district councils are not the people to deal with licensing operators in 330 different ways, and that has been said again this afternoon. Licensing should be in the hands of the Secretary of State, and I shall endeavour to show why. He can apply one set of standards to the whole group. About two years ago, he took over responsibility for zoos and issued a statement expressing his pleasure. Yet now he appears to be passing the buck.

He is, in fact, involved directly under Clause 13 in licensing local authority zoos and, I presume, zoos on land leased from local authorities and zoos supported from local authorities grants in aid. He is also involved directly under Clause 17(2), if a licence is to be revoked on grounds involving the care or treatment of animals. If the Secretary of State is responsible to this extent, why can he not grant the licences? We are told that that be must done by the district councils, but they certainly have no idea how they may do this, as is apparent from replies given by several chief executives when asked.

It has been suggested that the Bill should be administered in the same way as the Riding Establishments Act and the Pet Shops Act. The Sunday Times colour supplement had this to say on Sunday 28th June:

"There are 2,500 licensed riding stables in Britain, but because they are licensed by the local authority, they are not necessarily good. Many, in fact, have ponies in bad condition, disintegrating saddlery (which is highly dangerous) and poor instruction. 'In one place that I visited, only six of the 26 animals I looked at were fit to carry a saddle, let alone a rider too', Major Chilmaid of the BHS [British Horse Society] told me".

A claim is made in the preamble that this Bill will have no effect on public service manpower, yet a local authority will, first, have to handle Clause 2, which deals with applications for a licence and refer to Clause 3, dealing with the consideration of applications for a licence. Secondly, it will have to consider Clause 2 under the terms of Clause 4, on the granting or refusal of a licence, and keep records of those licences under Clauses 5, 6 and 7, which cover the conditions, renewal and transfer of licences. Thirdly, records of inspections under Clause 10, 11 and 12 must be kept and of the necessary action taken, together with any appeals under Clause 18. Fourthly, Clause 14 will require records, inspections and decisions as to which establishments will be outside the scope of this Bill, or which should be excused the burden of either Clauses 10 or 11, or both, and of any appeals on those decisions by either party under Clause 18. Fifthly, Clauses 16 and 17, on power to alter and revoke licences, will require continual watch to be kept on all these actions to ensure their enforcement.

Who, in a local authority, will do this on existing manpower? The DoE might, since they already have a department dealing with exotic birds and animals. Since local authorities are involved, the Secretary of State, without additional manpower, will have to answer inquiries from 330 local authorities on the administration of these clauses. He will also have to licence local authority zoos under Clause 13 and, as I have already remarked, I hope he will include zoos in which local authorities must declare an interest, such as being a landlord or giving a zoo support, directly or indirectly.

The Secretary of State is also required to administer Clause 8, which deals with his consultation teams and inspection personnel; Clause 9, which deals with the setting up and supervision of a code of practice; Clause 10(6) on guidance in disagreements between inspectors and Clause 17(2) on the revocation of a licence on grounds involving the care or treatment of animals. In these five cases, the DoE, or the Secretary of State, must make decisions and see that they are put into practice using existing personnel. So before considering this Bill, I have drawn your Lordships' attention to what I consider to be two misleading statements; first, that zoo people agree to the Bill in its present form, and, secondly, that no extra public manpower will be required to administer it.

May I consider some of the more important items in the Bill, with which the zoos are not happy? It has been said already this afternoon that the word "continuance" in Clause 3(2)(f) and Clause 4(2) allows existing zoos to be refused a licence for their operators—not for the zoos—even though those operators have run a zoo in that place for many years. A zoo may have planning permission and all the other permissions required, but its director, who must have been running a perfectly respectable zoo for many years, may be refused a licence on the allegation of anyone in the neighbourhood, presumably in direct conflict with the existing planning permission. The word "continuance" is surely open to abuse.

I presume that the zoo itself may not be closed, with the loss of employment, amenity, recreation and education for the visitors and the dispersal or destruction of its animals, since it could continue under a fresh director to whom the local authority felt they could issue a licence. The Secretary of State has been kind enough to alter Clause 8, after representations by the zoo directors, so that matters of animal welfare will be dealt with and inspections made by his nominees who will be familiar with zoo animals and zoo administration. For this change, and for others discussed at a meeting held two weeks ago. the zoo directors are most grateful.

Clause 10(4)(a) specifies that there shall be three appointees of the local authority on the inspection team. As they will not be dealing with zoo matters or animal matters, as those are the prerogative of the Secretary of State's list, why are they necessary? If they are inspecting under some other legislation, let them come at any time, as they are empowered to do under that legislation, and at the local authority's expense, but please do not include them in the zoo inspection team. I can assure your Lordships, from experience of an inspection, that there will be absolute chaos with different people inspecting different things at different times.

The federation's inspections are done by a zoo man and a zoo vet, accompanied by a recorder who is familiar with zoo terms. They follow a pro forma to simplify and regulate the different disciplines on which they are asked to report. I imagine that the Secretary of State's list members will be using a very similar technique. Clause 10(3) states that inspections will be made approximately every three years, which is very similar to the present routine of the federation's periodic inspections. The federation is making 12 inspections this year. It made 10 inspections last year and seven the year before that, and it has approximately 40 members. So it will be up to date with inspections if your Lordships pass this Bill.

Clauses 11 and 12 call for an annual inspection on each zoo and an inspection at any time upon the laying of information against a zoo director by anyone. The inspector will be a person "competent for the purpose". In another place in the debate on Third Reading on 12th June (Hansard, col. 693) it was clearly stated that this second inspection would be made

"only if there is an offence".

Surely the inspection occurs to ascertain whether the licensed zoo director has committed an offence? Who pays, should no offence be discovered? It is still the zoo that pays. The zoo baiters and zoo haters (and there are many among the sponsors of this Bill) will have a field day, and the wretched Aunt Sally of a zoo will be milked of its reserve funds. To what end? To close the zoo. This is a totally unreasonable situation, which will apply to all zoos, good or bad. In their present form, and coupled with Clause 15(5), Clauses 11 and 12 are penal clauses. May I quote from the words of a right honourable gentleman in another place, again during the debate on the Third Reading (Hansard, col. 693):

"Why impose this unnecessary intrusion on people who behave properly? This provision seems to be designed to make it difficult for people to run their businesses in an orderly way and to create round them a nasty atmosphere of suspicion that they are basically unkind, careless, cruel people who keep animals without any regard for their proper welfare. I find that unacceptable."

I heartily endorsed what the right honourable gentleman Mr. Peyton, said.

This question of expense leads on to Clause 15(5), which orders local authorities to recover all their costs in connection with this Bill from those they charge, that is the zoos. I have drawn your Lordships' attention to the extra work that a local authority will be saddled with as a result of Clauses 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17 and 18. Who is going to pay for this extra work, and when? Will it be included in a lump sum charged to zoos for their annual inspection? Could someone please tell me, so that we may have an idea of the size of the bill? It was kindly said that the bill could be paid in instalments, annually, but could someone please tell me so that we may have an idea? Clause 14 will itself cover a huge number of people; it will cover anyone with a fish tank which can be seen by the public, and we have heard about that already.

Clause 15(5) is the really killing clause and it gives local authorities the chance to "knock off" zoos and all the animals in them. In fact the clause orders local authorities to do so by bleeding the zoos dry financially. What a temptation to redevelop and bring in a higher rateable value—or am I being too innocent or too cynical? Zoos deserve some sort of protection from the officious crank, the ignorant but kindly, and—above all—from the nine-till-five conservationist. The word "continuance" in Clauses 3(2)(f) and 4(2) should be deleted. Neither do I see the necessity for including three local authority nominees under Clause 10(4)(a)(i). Zoos deserve to be allowed to carry on their business with the minimum of interference. Once the operator has been granted a licence then inspections under Clauses 11 and 12 should be kept only to those inspections listed in the conditions attached to the licence, and the invitation to mischief contained in Clause 11 should be cut out.

Directors do not mind having their zoos inspected; every ticket I sell is an invitation to any individual to inspect my zoo and to put a comment in the comment box, which will be heeded. All the great zoo directors I have met all over the world have been unanimous in saying that they all enjoy visiting other zoos because, however much one thinks one knows, in every zoo there is always something new to learn. This legislation is more destructive than creative; it brings an entirely new and somewhat unwilling set of people into zoo administration—people who have no interest in zoos or in animals. It makes zoos a political toy for the local electorate, and a cockshy for anyone who wishes to make a complaint about a real or imagined abuse. I hope that your Lordships' House can make some amendments in the Committee stage, as was so often promised in the other place on Third Reading.

Great offence has been taken by my colleagues, the zoo directors, who have given up much time in the middle of the season to rectify a bad Bill, in which they seem to have been treated as criminals rather than responsible citizens trying to run zoos—zoos which are doing such an excellent job of conservation and education as well as providing an amenity for the public and the tourist. We all want bad zoos closed, but they could be dealt with under existing Acts.

I should like to quote from a letter I have received from Mr. Lawrence Tennant, MBE, MRCVS, manager of Knowsley Safari Park. He says:

"There is perfectly adequate existing legislation to control the opening of new zoos and the conduct of existing zoos.

1. New zoos have to go through the full planning procedure, which is extremely thorough and can take years. If a local authority does not want a new zoo in its area, it can block the planning permission almost indefinitely.

2. The welfare of animals in zoos is fully covered by the Protection of Animals Acts 1911 to 1964 which contain the general provisions relating to the protection of domestic and captive animals. The following actions constitute cruelty punishable by fine or imprisonment: (a) cruelly to beat, kick, ill-treat, over-ride, over-drive, over-load, torture, infuriate or terrify any animal; (b) to cause unnecessary suffering by omitting or doing any act.

The Protection of Animals Act therefore fully covers the welfare of animals in zoos and anybody, including the RSPCA, can ask the police to prosecute under this Act".

Why has this Act not been used?

I can promise your Lordships that in its present form this Bill will destroy any existing and excellent zoos and the animals in their charge. This is an "anti" Bill. It is a direct slap in the face of many members of zoological societies up and down the country. Above all, it is quite evidently a Private Member's Bill that has been taken under the wing of people in high places. The way in which this Bill has been pushed through its parliamentary procedures without any reference to practical zoo people staggers me. The members of the federation have been ignored and the whole of the NZA has been ignored.

On page 53 of its Annual Report 1980 the RSPCA states:

"A crucial meeting between the Secretary of State for the Environment, Michael Heseltine, and the RSPCA's Political Affairs Controller and Chief Wildlife Officer, took place on Monday 17th November, when an illustrated presentation was given demonstrating a very large number of examples of conditions in zoos which most worry the RSPCA. Mr Heseltine was visibly concerned by what he saw and acknowledged the need for zoo legislation".

My Lords, I am sure that we would have all been distressed; but might we not have written a letter to the directors of the zoos concerned? With a collection of legal experts at hand, might we have asked why, with evidence before us, no action has been taken under existing laws? At no time since the meeting has the federation or the NZA been consulted about what the Secretary of State was shown. Instead, this shabby Bill with its wrecking legislation has been rushed through.

I hope that your Lordships will exercise your traditional powers and give your impartial consideration to amendments which must be made to this Bill in your Lordships' House to make it into a workable and worthwhile Act. I thank your Lordships for your patient reception of my efforts to show how the faults in this Bill may be corrected.

My Lords, I rise to speak after a long list of noble Lords who made a number of informed speeches—not least among them the speech made by my noble friend Lord Fisher and that made by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, who showed in her speech her experience of local government and of the problems of licensing. I, too, have local government experience, though it is some way back in my career. I go along with a great deal of what she said. May I say to her, as have other Members, that we hope very much to hear from her again. We liked her reference to her childhood voyage across the sea to the zoos here. It so happens that at lunch today I sat next to an Australian lawyer who had come overseas (though I do not think by sea) for five days to visit a certain place not very far from London Zoo. He was going to watch 22 white-flannelled gentlemen play the game of cricket. I shall not go further and say who I hope will win. All I hope is that he enjoys his visit here.

The Bill gives me some cause for concern. Its intention is excellent. I sympathise very much with many of the things which were said by my noble friend Lord Craigton. His experience of this matter is certainly far longer than mine and is probably longer than that of many of your Lordships. However, to say that this Bill is uncontroversial is not fact. Indeed, a moment ago the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, pointed out the number of controversial points which have been made by various Members of your Lordships' House.

The problem to me is threefold: first, the way in which this Bill comes before your Lordships' House and its timing; secondly, the question of who is to carry out the inspections; and, thirdly, who is to pay for it. If I were to be satisfied on those last two points, then I think I should be happy with the Bill.

As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, knows full well, the problems over Private Member's legislation are always the same, unless you happen to be drawn very early in the draw in another place. I am not totally without experience of this. In 1957, in the dim past, I introduced a Private Member's Bill in another place which my noble friend Lord Hawke got through your Lordships' House in a couple of minutes because it was uncontroversial. This Bill, the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages Bill made it possible for illegitimate persons to have the same coloured birth certificates as others. At that time, some of my friends in another place asked me whether I had any particular or personal interest in the Bill! But that is by the way.

I do not have a personal interest in this Bill, but I should like to look at some of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, made in his speech, which was divided into two parts. He spoke as an ex-Cabinet Minister, with all the experience that that brings with it; but towards the end of his speech I detected that he was speaking as chairman of the RSPCA and that, metaphorically, he was shaking his fist at the Government Front Bench and saying, "You must do a great deal better about animal welfare". I do not blame the noble Lord for that; in our own way, we are all lobbyists. However, I would say that this Government certainly have not lagged behind any previous Government with regard to animal welfare.

The noble Lord pointed out that this Bill is to some extent controversial. I wish it was not. I wish the Bill could go through without any amendment, but as it stands at present I honestly do not think that it is good enough. My noble friend Lord Fisher spoke not only as one who had spent his time and money upon building up a zoo, but as somebody who obviously speaks for so many others who are in the same position. If I may give the gist of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, in a perfect world we would not have zoos at all. That is quite right. There is something repugnant about having wild animals in cages or under any restriction whatsoever. Unfortunately, though, we do not live in a perfect world. We have zoos. To be honest, most of the zoos in this country are a great deal better than some of those which I have visited in Europe. This is not to say that all zoos in this country are good. Indeed, there is a great deal of room for improvement. However, as has already been said, zoos have been going through a bad time, partly because of the strong pound, partly because of the bad weather and also because of a number of other factors. This has led to reduced attendances at zoos. I see that the noble Lord wishes to speak.

My Lords, is the noble Lord going to mention the general economic climate of the country under the present Government?

No, my Lords, that would not be exactly in my nature. I happen to think that matters have greatly improved, and I have faith that they are going to improve even further in the next couple of years or so. Zoos as a whole play a very great part in the tourist industry, which I happen to be interested in. For instance, the zoo at Twycross was visited during one morning by no less than 4,000 to 5,000 school children. I think that puts the matter into perspective.

I repeat again that I am not against the Bill, except for two matters. The first relates to who is to do the licensing. A great deal was said about this in another place. I believe that Mr. Hector Monro said that local authorities already have experts on zoos. It is going to take a great deal to persuade me that district councils—for it is district councils, not county councils that we are dealing with—up and down the country have got experts in zoo inspection. It is not "on" to talk like that. To suggest that district councils, except the great ones in the cities, can carry out those inspections is, frankly, nonsense.

I would much prefer this to be done by the Ministry, whether it be the Department of the Environment or, far better, the Ministry of Agriculture. It is largely a veterinary matter. I see that the noble Lord is smiling. He knows that I am, like him, a farmer. Why is it that successive Governments have tried to take away from the Ministry of Agriculture responsibilities which should be theirs? In my view, this responsibility should rest firmly upon the Ministry of Agriculture. However, whichever Ministry the responsibility should go to, certainly it should not be left in the hands of district councils.

My second point was made very well by my noble friend Lord Fisher. It concerned the expense of such inspections. I will not say very much about it, but I believe that the inspections will be very expensive. For some of the smaller zoos these expenses could well be crippling. I believe that the Government must look at both of these problems if they are to have any chance of getting the Bill through unamended. In those two respects the Bill is unacceptable to me.

I agree with Clause 5(3) which deals with transfers. This is an important matter. As noble Lords will be aware, every livestock farmer today has to fill in a transfer of animals book. There is no reason why zoos should not have to do the same. I find it very encouraging that certain zoo operators or owners desire genuinely a Bill of this kind to be put upon the statute book. In view of the assurances which were given in another place—no fewer than seven different assurances were given there—may I ask the Government to tell us whether they are going to honour those assurances, and also whether they are going to give way on the question of who runs the licensing and who pays for it?

My Lords, many people have worked long and hard to produce this Bill, but I think none has worked longer or harder than my noble friend Lord Craigton. We are all deeply indebted to him, not only for the excellent exposition of the Bill he has given to us this afternoon but for all the years he has spent in discussion with the zoo industry, with animal welfare organisations and with central and local Government in order to produce a workable and sensible Bill. I found the remarks of my noble friend Lord Fisher, when he said that this was an "anti- by non-professionals", slightly excessive.

We are also grateful to those in another place who have helped the Bill to make such good progress, who supported it at every stage and whose amendments have improved the Bill and made it a measure which the Government are happy to commend to the House. I should particularly like to pay tribute to my honourable friend the Member for Dudley, West, Mr. John Blackburn, whose decision to introduce the Bill into another place and whose hard work in getting it through have made the Zoo Licensing Act a real possibility.

I should like to add my congratulations to my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes on her maiden speech and hope that we may often hear her talking in this House. I was intrigued to know that she had travelled 12,000 miles to get to the London Zoo, and I realise how spoilt one is when I used to live well within 12,000 feet of Regents Park and its Zoo. Her wide experience of local government and particularly her varied exper- ience of licensing I am sure will be a great asset to this House. I was made aware that should I wish to go dancing in Oxford Street she would certainly be the lady to ask. She also said that Westminster City Council had some trepidation about taking on the licensing of the Zoo in Regents Park. I should have thought that it would have been a good challenge and something which they would have enjoyed doing.

We are fortunate in this country in having some excellent zoos which provide a valuable service in educating and entertaining the public and in conserving endangered species. Many zoos already subscribe voluntarily to the system of inspections run by the National Federation of Zoological Gardens and the National Zoological Association and they adhere to the codes of practice which these organisations have produced. But, my Lords, there are—and here I should like to refer to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh—also some bad zoos; zoos in which animals are kept—whether through ignorance or lack of resources—in totally unsuitable conditions, and these are not members of any responsible, self-policing organisation. It is these zoos which bring the entire zoo industry into disrepute and the good zoos lose visitors and revenue as a result.

This Bill will make all zoos, for the first time, liable to periodic inspection and licensing. It will provide a means of ensuring that standards of zoo management are steadily improved to the benefit of the animals, the visiting public and, ultimately, of the zoos themselves, by making zoos more attractive places to visit.

The Government consider that the licensing system provided by the Bill is sensible, flexible and economic. The licensing function will be carried out by existing local authorities—the district councils and their counterparts in London and Scotland—who already have experience of other licensing legislation dealing with animals. Their lack of specific zoo expertise will be remedied by the provision for zoos to be inspected by experts nominated by the Secretary of State from a list drawn up for the purpose, and by the provisions, added in another place, for licensed conditions to reflect standards and conditions laid down by the Secretary of State, as well as the recommendations of the inspectors. During my brief remarks I shall be referring to the Secretary of State quite often, which I hope for those who feel that the local authorities are getting too much to do, will in some way reassure them.

Most noble Lords mentioned the cost of licensing. When the Bill was introduced into another place, my colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, indicated that the Government welcomed the licensing proposals in principle but were concerned about the implications for public expenditure. Amendments have been made to the Bill to ensure that the licensing system will be completely self-financing and that the costs of licensing and inspection will be recovered in their charges. It has been suggested that this will place a heavy financial burden on zoos, which cannot afford to pay for frequent inspections. However a zoo will normally have a full inspection only once every three years and an informal, one-man inspection in each of the intervening years. It is only if it appears that there is something wrong at the zoo that there will be additional inspections and it is not unreasonable that, if the zoo is creating work for the licensing authority, it should pay for it. We recognise that there may be problems for particular zoos if they are subjected to repeated special inspections as the result of a series of malicious or unfounded complaints by someone with a grudge against the zoo or who mistakenly believes that something is wrong. However the Government think that local authorities can be relied on not to act upon trivial or unsubstantiated complaints and it should be possible for zoos to protect themselves against the consequences of well-meaning but misguided complaints by perhaps taking out a suitable insurance cover.

I am happy to assure my noble friend Lord Craigton that the guidance to be issued by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will stress the importance of keeping the cost of inspections down and of avoiding any special inspections if an informal approach can sort out misguided or trivial complaints. I also undertake to bring his remarks about the informal inspections to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, so that consideration of suitable wording in the guidelines may be drafted.

Considerable reference has been made to Clause 9. Between the time that the Bill is enacted and the time that it is brought into force my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be consulting the zoo organisations, the British Veterinary Association, the Health and Safety Executive and other interested organisations on the formulation of standards which can be incorporated into the licensing procedures and conditions. We intend to draw widely on the existing expertise and indeed on the existing codes of practice produced by the Zoo Federation and the NZA in laying down guidelines and standards to ensure, not only that licensing authorities and zoo operators know what standards the zoo needs to achieve in order to get a licence, but also what sort of best practice it should strive to emulate, so that no zoo will fall below the lowest acceptable level and everybody aims for the best. We know that the zoo organisations themselves have had difficulty in agreeing detailed specifications for enclosures and barriers and we recognise that in some cases requirements will have to be general and flexible. It will be the exprience of the inspector that enables him to judge that certain arrangements are adequate, rather than in compliance with an absolute standard.

The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, asked particularly about this and suggested various aspects of zoo operations which ought to be covered by such a guideline, and I can confirm that the Secretary of State's standards will require that animals shall be kept in suitable enclosures and groups, that they should be adequately and suitably fed and provided with proper veterinary treatment and that standards will also cover procedures for dealing with dead animals, the disposing of surplus animals and transporting animals as well as setting up standard procedures for record keeping. I hope that that will reassure quite a number of your Lordships.

With regard to safeguards for the small zoos, this Bill also contains provisions to reduce the costs of inspection and licensing for small or specialised zoos. We recognise the point made by my noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt, and this is one of the reasons for this safeguard. Under Clause 14 the zoo operator can apply to the Secretary of State for a reduction in the size of the inspection team, and the Secretary of State can also decide, on a representation from the local authority and after consultation with experts from the list, that a small, well-run zoo may be exempted from some or all inspections for the time being. That is a decision that can be reversed if it becomes apparent that standards at the zoo have deteriorated.

My honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment also expressed concern in the other place when the Bill was introduced, that local authorities would be obliged to refuse licences to substandard zoos and that such zoos would have to close. He suggested that it would be preferable to give zoos time to put things right by the issuing of licences on conditions. The Bill has been amended so that local authorities will be able to issue licences stating conditions to bring zoos up to standard, but they will still be able to refuse a licence if there is no prospect of improvements being made which will bring standards up to an acceptable level.

Another feature of the Bill which caused some concern in the other place when it was introduced was the possibility of overlap with existing legislation, especially in the field of health and safety and a duplication of enforcement effort. We have looked at this matter very carefully, and have concluded that, while it is sensible that the amount of overlap should be reduced as far as possible, it would not be sensible to try to eliminate it altogether. In theory, a complete separation of zoo licensing legislation and health and safety legislation would require the zoo licensing procedures and inspections to ignore altogether considerations of human health and safety. Inspections and inspectors' reports, decisions about issuing licences and attaching conditions, would be able to take into account only the effects that the arrangements for accommodating and handling the animals had on the animals, whatever the effects on people working in or visiting the zoos.

In practice, of course, the health and safety of the animals is inseparable from the health and safety of people. The barriers which protect the animals from the public also keep the public safe from the animals. Arangements for feeding and handling the animals affect the health and safety of the staff and public as well as the animals. Whatever legislative arrangements were made, it would be necessary for the zoo licensing authority to liaise with officers of the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that zoo operators were not subjected to conflicting requirements. It did not seem sensible that the Secretary of State's highly qualified and competent inspectors, with experience of treating and keeping zoo animals, should be not able to make recommendations for arrangements to protect the health and safety of people as well as the animals, or for the local licensing authority to act on them.

It has, therefore, been agreed, in discussions between the Departments of Environment and Employment and the Health and Safety Executive, that the inspections and licensing system under this Bill should cover all those aspects of zoo management where the arrange- ments made for keeping the animals and displaying them to the public affect the health, safety and welfare of the people in the zoo or living nearby as well as the animals; but where arrangements relate solely or primarily to the health, safety and welfare of people working in the zoo they will be dealt with exclusively under the Health and Safety at Work Act.

The Bill does, therefore, cover matters which are also covered by the Health and Safety at Work Act, and we recognise that this means that the possibility of duplication or conflict theoretically exists, although Clause 20 of the Bill provides that in the event of conflict between requirements imposed under the Health and Safety at Work Act and the licensing conditions imposed under the Zoo Licensing Bill, the Health and Safety at Work Act will prevail. In practice, we shall ensure, through sensible administrative arrangements and close liaison between the Health and Safety Executive, local authorities and the Department of the Environment, that conflicts and duplication will not occur. Guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State will set out a procedure for ensuring that the conditions attached by local authorities are not incompatible with Health and Safety Executive requirements, and that HSE are kept informed about licence conditions. Any standards specified by the Secretary of State will be formulated in consultation with the HSE as well as organisations representing zoos and people from the Secretary of State's list.

My Lords, I hope something of what I have said has reassured noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, made a number of specific points. I think my noble friend will deal with some of them in detail, and I will ensure that he gets an answer on the others as soon as possible. Most noble Lords have brought up the fact that we have to hurry this Bill through. I had worked out all sorts of things to say about it, but the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in his first 10 minutes not only asked me all the questions but, luckily, gave me all the answers. I think a careful reading of his speech will explain exactly what is the position.

If I may just make one thing clear, we have to get this Bill to the other place, if there is an amendment, by Friday week because that is the only time they can take the Bill in the other place. However, what we do not know is whether they will give enough time for it, even if we do send it back with an amendment, and this is where we are rather hoisted on a petard. I took very much Lord Beaumont's point that this is a strange procedure, and I will certainly make sure that the remarks made in the House today are taken up by the proper channels. I think this is a worthwhile Bill which will lead to a steady improvement in standards of zoo management, and I hope that your Lordships will accept it kindly and that we shall see a Zoo Licensing Act on the statute book by the end of the present Session.

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, said, this is a not uncontroversial Bill. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, will forgive me for delaying her Question, but I should like to answer some of the very important points made. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, asked whether Clause 5(3)(a) to (c) are mandatory. I can assure noble Lords that the Secretary of State will ensure that these are in fact incorporated. The words "may" and "shall" have been our worry all through this Bill. The "may" to which he refers can also include other conditions. On the question of records, if he will look at page 7, Clause 10(4)(e) says the inspectors shall—not "may"—"require the production of all records". Without that being incorporated in the conditions of licence they do not have the power to demand production of records

Turning to Clause 3, the noble Lord asked whether it is intended to include the RSPCA. Were they, he asked, a national institution concerned with the operation of zoos? Anyone who saw their film, which they showed in this House and in another place, and believe the noble Lord, Lord Fisher, said this to himself, could do no other than conclude that they are very much concerned with the operation of zoos. With regard to Clause 4, the "may" and "shall", that is the draftsman's advice and I cannot do more than accept that. He referred to the transfer of animals. In fact that is covered by this Bill because the record is a record of acquisition and disposal. The record has got to say, "I got this from Howlett Zoo", or, "I sent it to the London Zoo".

The noble Lord asked why 28 days and not seven days for the inspections; he said that, as it is, this was a spit-and-polish-inspection. The whole experience, as the Army would have said in connection with the last debate, is that the really skilled inspector can see through the spit-and-polish. Zoo proprietors have told me time and time again that it is the inspections that really bring them up to standard and make them do things that they would not otherwise do. Apart from that, if you are going to get skilled inspectors to go down, you have to book hotels and transport and that sort of thing, and it is impossible to do that in seven days. That is the reason. The noble Lord asked as to what happens after the inspector's report. The inspector recommends changes in a list and he gives a time limit of when this or that should be done. That time limit automatically becomes part of the conditions of the licence. So the zoo is told not only what to do but, where it is relevant, the time they should take in doing it. This is a condition of licence. The guide all the time is the inspector's report.

The noble Lord referred to small zoos where there are abuses, as though they would slip through the net. The Secretary of State's inspectors can and would in that case recommend that the whole Bill applies to the zoo. The guiding factor here in small zoos is the condition and the welfare of the animals themselves. If this Bill allowed small zoos with badly treated animals to slip through the net it would be the wrong Bill.

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, particularly as this has been a long debate, but this is a particularly important clause in the Bill. Is he saying that, the local authority having recommended to the Secretary of State that a particular zoo should be exempted from the provisions of the Bill, the Secretary of State may—it says in the Bill "hellip; after consulting such persons as he thinks fit", in practice what that means is that he will consult his inspectors who have visited this zoo and will act on their advice? If that is the understanding, I am satisfied.

My Lords, this is the principle of the whole Bill, that whatever the local authorities may do about licensing the Secretary of State is firmly in the saddle through his list; otherwise the Bill would not work.

I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for his constructive welcome to the Bill, and I, too, must congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, on a magnificent speech. I realise the great experience that the noble Baroness can bring to this House. I hope that she will join the supporters of wildlife and conservation. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, referred to the unfortunate choice of local authorities as the licensing authorities. However, I would ask your Lordships to think about the situation for a moment. Local authorities have a vital interest in education and recreation. The noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, referred to 4,000 schoolchildren going to one zoo in one day. Is that not of vital interest to the local authorities? They have the existing machinery for licensing. Where the misunderstanding about this Bill arises is that, in relation to animal welfare and animal husbandry, the key is in the Secretary of State's list. The people on that list have the expertise: they are the panel of experts.

My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, leaves that point, I should like to say that, of course, he is right when he says that the local authority has a concern about the number of people who go to the zoo. However, can he meet the point which I made?—it is that I do not believe that district councils at present have the right sort of inspectors to carry out the provisions of this Bill and that it will mean a lot of extra expertise.

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord has asked that question because that is the question that I have been trying to answer all the time. The local authorities do not require that sort of expertise because they cannot take away or grant a licence without reference to the Secretary of State's list. The Secretary of State's list contains the experts. So what will happen in an inspection is that the local authority vet—who honestly does not know anything about zoos, although after some time he may learn—will go round with the guidance of a vet who is an expert in zoo animals. Without that it would be impossible to give a fair decision.

The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, says that there is no mention of management. If he reads page 6, Clause 8(3), he will see that it goes on about management ad nauseam. It explains exactly what sort of management there will be. He mentioned damage by mink and coypu. That is why Clause 5(3)(a) is in the Bill in relation to zoos. The prevention of escapes of animals which will become feral in this country is most vital and something which has concerned local authorities very much. They will gather from all the ministries concerned with escapes what exactly has to be done. That information will be co-ordinated by the Department of the Environment and will then be sent to the local authority as part of the conditions of the licence. The noble Lord rightly referred to the unskilled vet in the local authority. That is why, as I said, the list dominates the methods and the decisions regarding animal welfare.

The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, criticised the chimps' tea-party. How I agree with him! He will be interested to know that the London Zoo discontinued that as they thought it was an insult to the dignity of the animals concerned.

The noble Lord, Lord Fisher, said that the Bill would cripple some zoos as regards the cost. My noble friend dealt with that point and I would refer the noble Lord to Clause 10. He now pays, as a member of the Federation, to be inspected once every three or four years. Instead of paying the Federation, he will pay the local authority—perhaps he will pay a little more, but it can be paid over three years. So there is not much danger there. I agree with him about Clause 11. We cannot have everything perfect. I have asked for and have now received an assurance from the Minister that they will warn the local authority to be jolly careful about Clause 11 inspections. Clause 12 is a minimal cost.

I am sorry to say that the noble Lord misled your Lordships. As he did so a number of times perhaps he did not do it by mistake. He said that there was no consultation with the zoos. The noble Lord is a member of the Federation. If he referred to the minutes of every council meeting of the Federation for the last four years, he would see that I had made a report and that discussions had taken place on the Zoo Bill. He also knows, or should know, that several times I went and met the whole National Zoological Association Council to discuss the Bill. The noble Lord referred to the misuse of manpower. The local authorities already licence six animal functions—this is the seventh. So here again I am afraid that he has made a mis-statement.

Some of your Lordships will clearly want to get further assurances as to some of the points raised, although I hope that I have answered some Committee points. The Committee stage is put down for this coming Friday. I shall co-operate in every possible way, and so will my noble friend, to get amendments down. I am perfectly ready to assist as regards the Report and Third Reading for the following week. As your Lordships know—and this is our last straw—John Blackburn was sixth in the draw for Private Members in another place. This is the last Private Member's Bill that your Lordships will have to consider. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that time is short. He said everything that is necessary to say. So, in the interests of the animals, if nothing else—and they have waited so long for the Bill—I sincerely hope that your Lordships will co-operate in this matter. I beg to move.

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the first Zoo Licensing Bill, which I moved only for First Reading in this House.

rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any statement to make on the necessity of regulating the distribution and availability of discounted air tickets.

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend a question? I have been carefully following her argument, but the point that puzzles me is this. She has proof that bucket shops are selling tickets at a discounted price. That is not breaking the law. What is breaking the law, I presume, is the airline selling to a bucket shop at a reduced price. Has my noble friend any proof, or visible evidence, that the airline is actually selling to the bucket shop at a reduced price?

My Lords, I know that my noble friend wishes to help, but either I was not clear or he did not understand, so let us put the blame between both of us. I said earlier in this debate that the tickets of which I have been speaking have got the airline stamp on them, that the receipts were held by Thomas Cook of the amounts paid for them, and that the tickets were purchased in the bucket shops by Thomas Cook and, I do not say fellow conspirators but anyway, fellow purchasers, and that these details were given to the Minister.

My Lords, that, with respect, does not answer the question. The discounted tickets normally have the full price on them, so there is no prima facie evidence that the airline has validated a discounted ticket.

My Lords, I am sorry, I thought it was very clear. If my noble friend will let me get on, of course the tickets have the correct price on them, but they were sold at a reduced rate and the receipts for those reduced rates are held. So he will have to read it later and see whether he is any clearer after that.

I apologise.

Anyway, if I can get back to what I was saying. Any report, whether it is produced by IATA or any other body, would have to take into account the fact that if the airlines did not supply the tickets to the bucket shops we should not be in the present situation. And the most reputable of airlines do this.

On the question of breaking the law and the refusal of the department to initiate a prosecution, I have just one more point to lay before the House. On 11th June Thomas Cook did try once more. They wrote to the Minister referring to the incredible reply on 4th June, which I mentioned earlier, stating that the evidence given to him on 18th February was obtained by individuals purchasing tickets through agents or airlines. There could be no question that these tickets were sold at a price below that shown on the ticket voucher and, equally, there was no question that either the agent who sold the ticket or the airline were supplying some notional credit to the purchaser. So far as the seller was aware, the purchasers were normal, "off-the-street" customers.

Thomas Cook's chief executive said he would be pleased to learn what additional evidence the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, would require to mount a prosecution, and that he would like it specifically defined so he could arrange for the necessary evidence to be produced. I repeat that that request was made on 11th June. Today—I am being very serious about this and I assure the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, that I am not smiling—29th June, two weeks later no reply has been received, merely a formal acknowledgement. Two weeks, my Lords; I believe the department is totally discredited and I have nothing but contempt for their evasion and pretence. Those are strong words and justified words. No wonder they have forfeited all credibility. They do not want evidence; they just want to do nothing. I feel so strongly that perhaps I had better leave the matter there and hope that public opinion will pick it up.

I come to Section 3 and my recommendations. I suggest, first, that legislation preventing the general sale and availability of discounted air tickets be withdrawn and that the Government, in any necessary co-operation with other countries, with IATA and with the Civil Aviation Authority, take the initiative and do so now.

Or my second suggestion is that, if this legislation be retained, it be acted upon and the law no longer brought into contempt. As a corollary to that, it seems to me that we must add the fact that carrying it out would mean, first, that discounted air tickets would no longer be available to anyone and that, secondly, airlines would find themselves with empty seats and, quite likely, financial disaster. After all, IATA member airlines lost more than £1 billion last year. Does anyone believe they can stay in business on that basis or that the airlines themselves would agree to such legislaton?

My third recommendation is that the Government and other affected parties in the legislative field should decide whether or not they accept the presence of bucket shops. I ask the legal fraternity to realise that the travelling public has learned, and is learning increasingly whenever they buy a ticket—and here I quote from the Travel Trade Gazette—that

"if ABTA/IATA shops can't give them tickets at the price they want, then there are others to be found on the back pages of the national newspapers who can".

This is a non-party debate, so I can say I know that my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood will be developing this aspect, so I gladly leave it in her safe hands.

I want the removal of legislation. I do not want prosecutions. Reputable bucket shops fulfil a real and present need and I am afraid there are enough empty seats to go round. Let the best people sell them and let the public decide where to purchase. Quite simply, I want the cheapest air fares available to everyone and through all outlets. Most of all—and here I am sure the House will sympathise with me—I want a considered and responsible reply to the case I have tried to make.

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, has drawn attention to a widespread abuse which is to be deplored in any civilised society and particularly, I should have thought, when it involves breaching the terms of international agreements entered into between Governments. Anything which interferes ever so slightly with the comity of nations is to be deeply deplored.

I believe one must proceed on the basis that an airline, having put forward a suggested fares structure to the Government, and the Government having entered into international agreements for such fares structure, the airline will make some effort to stick to the fares structure it has put forward and which has been agreed. If it were otherwise, I imagine the Government would feel thoroughly affronted and would take very much stronger action than they appear to have taken up to now. Therefore I have to proceed on that basis.

If an airline wishes to remedy the abuse to which our attention has been drawn, the remedy must be the stricter control of the issue and use of tickets. British Rail has cheap tickets, but so far as I know one does not find bucket shops selling cheap BR tickets to people who are not entitled to use them. Presumably that is because BR takes the trouble to make sure that people using cheap tickets are qualified to use them. If an airline is in difficulty in devising a watertight system to see that its tickets are properly used by the people entitled to pay those particular fares, they might do worse than go and sit at the feet of Sir Peter Parker, from whom they might learn something.

It may well be that the airlines are not as concerned about this abuse as they should be and that they take the view that a seat for which somebody has paid something is better than an empty seat. All I can say to that is that it is not very dignified for a public corporation to connive at breaches of the terms and conditions which it itself has imposed. I suppose the gravity of the situation from the Government's point of view depends on how widespread is this abuse in other countries whose governments are parties to the agreements. If it is happening on any great scale only here, then from the Government's point of view it must be a very serious matter. But if the same thing is happening in the other countries who are parties to the agreements, then at least I suppose it can be said that no contracting party is in a position to complain about any of the others. But, from an overall point of view, that of course is thoroughly unsatisfactory.

I am sure the Government's ultimate remedy is the right one—that which we have been given from time to time by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne—namely, that this abuse is symptomatic of the fact that the agreed fares are too high. The ultimate remedy must be to renegotiate realistic fares which will not tempt people to undercut. That must be the final solution, but that will probably take some time and, in the meantime, the noble Baroness is entitled to have something done to remedy the situation as it now exists.

My Lords, at this hour of the evening I shall content myself with concurring with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has said. The House is in debt to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, for the pertinacity with which she has pursued this by no means unimportant issue. I would content myself with making only three short points. I have listened to most of the questions that the noble Baroness has asked the Government on this matter over the last year or so. Having listened to the questions and to the answers, as I understand it, thanks to the pertinacity of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, the merits of the issue raised in her Question are not in dispute; they are conceded. I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, himself say that he shared to the full the concern which the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, had expressed on this subject. So the only question now is, what can, and should, the Government do to remedy the situation? Clearly, they must do something.

I come now to my second point. The noble Baroness, Lady Burton, said that this was a non-party question, and so indeed it is. But have you not noticed how very much in the true spirit of social democracy has been the approach of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, to this matter? I say that because, as all your Lordships know, the best working definition of social democracy is that of Leszek Kolakowski—if I do no injustice to the pronunciation of his name. It is a favourite, I believe, of Mr. Denis Healey and of Dr. David Owen. It is too long to quote in full, but the essence of it is that while social democracy is no ultimate solution for all human misery and misfortune, inherent in it is an obstinate will to erode by inches the conditions which produce the wrongs which beset us. I do not pretend, for that would be arrogance indeed, that we have a monopoly of this spirit, but certainly the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, has such spirit, and I find it difficult to believe that even the skill and ingenuity of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, which we all so much admire in this House, will enable the Government to resist that will.

The last of my brief points relates to the question of prosecution. The noble Baroness, Lady Burton, has said that she has no desire to urge prosecution as a course to be adopted. I am only a Scots lawyer, and I know little about the laws of England so far as the sufficiency of evidence is concerned, but I was always brought up to believe that the Scottish laws of sufficiency of evidence were more stringent than those which had application in the English courts.

If that is so, and even if it is not so, I find most puzzling the suggestion that the evidence which was before the department was insufficient in law. I can think of many reasons, perfectly valid and good reasons, why a prosecution would not be desired, and why it would not be in the public interest to take a prosecution. But I find it extremely difficult to accept that no prosecution was possible because the evidence was not sufficient, bearing in mind all the evidence which there appears to be, from what the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, has told us today and on previous occasions. It would be foolish and presumptious of me to suggest that the statement that the evidence was insufficient is inaccurate. I could not say that, because I do not know what all the evidence is. All I am saying is that if it is anything approaching that described to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, I find it very difficult to accept that it was insufficient for the purpose of prosecution.

My Lords, I, too, should like to pay my tribute from these Benches to the persistence, the accuracy and the care with which the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, has pursued this matter. It is really wonderful, and it shows that there are still people who believe that one must fight for things which one believes to be right and not allow them to pass under the counter, as it were, so that no one pays any attention to them. We are all deeply indebted to the noble Baroness and, like other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, I pay my tribute to her.

I can add very little to what the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, has said, because she has accurately outlined and detailed the information which she has accumulated from various agencies, and in particular from one of the biggest agencies, Thomas Cook, which sells the tickets. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, I should like to see air fares as low as possible, provided that the low fares cover the necessary costs and are available to everyone. That people should be selling air tickets below price, while other travellers are paying the honest price, seems to me to be quite wrong; in fact, I think that it is very dishonest, and I feel very strongly that the Government should take the same view.

I know a little about travel agents. They provide a very valuable service to the public in relation to travelling overseas, or indeed travelling anywhere. I know that those travel agents who are members of IATA, and who obey its rules and abide by its decisions, are being heavily undersold, heavily sacrificed as it were, by bucket shops—those who do not abide by the rules and decisions. Every day more and more tickets are bought through bucket shops and so more and more of the honest and reputable travel agents, who provide a service to the public, are being undermined. I think that that is wrong. I have here a letter from a travel agent whom I know very well. I asked for an instance of a test case, and I received this letter from a travel agent who obeys the rules of IATA. The letter states:

"As a test case, I made a booking this morning through a 'bucket shop' for the journey of the son of a friend of mine to Rome …

"The Apex fare to Rome, which must be booked one month in advance, is £183.00. The one way economy fare is £152.00. The fare charged to me for a scat on a scheduled aircraft (member of IATA) was £108.00. This must mean that the 'bucket shop' is buying the seats from the airline [an IATA airline] for as little as £100 or less".

This kind of thing is happening all the time. I am quite sure that if I pursued the matter further, I would find many bucket shop agencies selling at the wrong prices. Although all this is known to be wrong, and the Government and IATA know it to be wrong, no one in authority is taking any action. In fact, all the airlines unable to sell the tickets at the proper price are selling them through bucket shops.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, has reminded us, we had a debate on 18th February this year, and at col. 709 the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, quoted from an article in the Sunday Times Business News, stating the way and methods of the bucket shop sales, including such sales as the Apex tickets. We all know about Apex tickets; I have travelled on Apex tickets myself. One properly books an Apex ticket 30 days before one flies. One must stick to the day that one is scheduled to fly and one must come back on the day that one is scheduled to return. These tickets are being sold the day before the passenger is leaving, by back-dating the ticket voucher. Surely this is something which is quite wrong.

It is estimated—and I think Lady Burton referred to this—that the bucket shops sell 5 million tickets at prices estimated to be up to 60 per cent. lower than the proper price. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has mentioned, this were being done, or was trying to be done, in the case of British Railways, there would be the most frightful row and you could not possibly do it. On British Railways you get issued (as I have been, I am glad to say) with an old-age pensioner pass, and you therefore get tickets cheaper; but you only get tickets cheaper because it is an honest-to-God pass which they have issued to you; you produce it and you get a half price ticket or whatever it may be. But nobody could possibly cheat, which is what is happening in the sale of air tickets.

My Lords, I think it is extremely wrong that we should be a party to all this, and that airlines should be a party to it as well. It is quite obvious that the law must be changed. The law is quite unfair on the honest travel agents, who abide by the law and stick to the prices which IATA have laid down. It is quite unfair that they should suffer by being honest and that the bucket shop agents should benefit by selling at half price, or at whatever price they may get. 1, like Lady Burton, beg the Government—and they are the Government that I support; I am not in any sense opposed to the Government—to look at this from the moral point of view and from the point of view of honesty, in which we pride ourselves, and not to allow this situation to go on, riding off, as they appear to be doing, by saying: "We cannot prosecute, we cannot do this and we cannot do that". There is no other sphere that I have ever heard of in my life in which you can do this and get away with it. I think it is all wrong, and I beg Lord Trefgarne to stand up for honesty here and to do something which will really stop what is at present a very bad habit.

My Lords, may I first of all join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, for asking this Question, and yet again express admiration, as many noble Lords have already done, about her persistence in raising this issue. Her case was so persuasive when she spoke that it is difficult to know what can be said in addition to what she has already said. I am sure that your Lordships' primary concern must be that the consumer interest of air travellers is catered for in that they all have the ability of being carried as cheaply and as safely as possible.

Of course, air tickets can be obtained from IATA approved agents, from non-IATA-approved agents and from bucket shops. The best quality agents (if that is the right description) are, of course, the IATA-approved agents, of whom there are some 1,600 and who sell the tickets of the 250 air carriers in the IATA network. To have IATA accreditation means that the agent must have professionally qualified staff, he must be financially viable and his premises must be secure because he is likely to hold large quantities of airline tickets, which can in effect be seen as blank cheques. To guard against price wars, airlines agree common commission levels for IATA agents, based on discussion with those agents, and these are approved by the CAA under the appropriate United Kingdom law.

There are then the other non-IATA ticket agents who sell airline tickets at approved rates. These are mostly members of ABTA; and, of course, many members of ABTA are, in any case, IATA-approved agents. But these particular agents are those who are unwilling or unable to meet the public protection standards or who do not wish to sell the full range of normal and discount promotional air transport products, such as Apex, Super Apex, Minipris and so on.

Then, of course, there is what this debate has primarily focused on this evening—the "bucket shops". These shops do not meet the public protection standards, and are used by airlines and general sales agents to dump in the market a limited number of surplus seats at prices below those approved by the CAA. These shops originally catered for the ethnic or student markets, but have grown in recent years due to the deteriorating airline economics—over-capacity, fierce competition and the absence of enforcement of CAA-approved fares. The very nature of their operation means that only a certain sector of the public has access to these illegal discounts, and that must surely be, as the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, has said, undesirable in itself.

The worsening of airline economics inevitably means that this problem has continued to grow and these shops and their business have sprung up and flourished because of a classic market situation of too few passengers chasing too many seats. As we have heard, the Government are, and have been up to now, unwilling to enforce the law, presumably partially on the grounds that it would be contrary to their own market force policy and also, apparently, because they seem to believe that a successful prosecution would be difficult to achieve.

We have had persuasive evidence from Lady Burton this evening that in fact such evidence could be obtainable, although she was slightly handicapped in that she had not received, or Thomas Cook had not received, a reply to the latest inquiry into the exact nature of the evidence which would make a successful prosecution possible.

Against this, one sees a situation where the Government have permitted otherwise unsaleable seats to flood the marketplace. It is difficult for IATA to take action against its members when the attitude of the present Government does not appear to support such action. Indeed, if such action was taken non-IATA airlines would be left free to involve themselves more freely in the illegal discount market, to the further disadvantage of IATA airlines.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, has said, airlines are increasingly concerned about the financial implications of this situation, facing, as she told us, an estimated loss of 2·6 billion dollars in 1981. In order to encourage a return to sanity in the United Kingdom market, the IATA airlines, as Lady Burton has said, have taken action to establish a special study group on agency distribution to look at ways and means to make normal and low discount fares available through a far wider group of ABTA agents. They have also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, said, established a special fare deal monitoring group to examine and analyse conditions in the United Kingdom market. The objective is to propose ways to eliminate illegal rebates and to make discounted fares legally and widely available to the public while maintaining the essential consumer and airline protection standards of the IATA agency distribution scheme.

Clearly, we are involved in a very difficult and, one would almost fear, intractable problem here; but I have the feeling that the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, is right that the Government are rather procrastinating and that they could take action if they were prepared to take action either along the lines indicated by the noble Baroness or if they were prepared to find parliamentary time to introduce tougher legislation with heavier fines for non-compliance. As the noble Baroness has rightly stated, if cheap air tickets are to be made available they should be made available to everyone. This thesis is a thesis which has our wholehearted support. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will have an encouraging reply for us this evening.

My Lords, one thing which has come through from the debate this evening and from representations which have been made to me in the past is that the discounting of air fares is widely disliked. The airlines do not like it—although most if not all of them are involved in it—because it erodes their profits, and this at a time when most of them are losing money. The authorised travel agents do not like it because they are losing customers to agents who in some cases are less scrupulous and perhaps not so mindful of their customers' interest. We all regret a practice which erodes respect for the law. Even the customer who is glad enough to buy a cheap ticket has some qualms about doing business with a bucket shop, suspecting that the transaction in which he is involved may not be completely above board. There is no doubt that he, the customer, would much prefer a range of low fares to be made available on a wholly legitimate basis.

When the practice is so widely and so roundly condemned on all sides, your Lordships may well ask why it persists and why all those concerned, including the Government, do not do more to stamp it out. I shall have something to say in a moment about the limits on what the Government can do, but first I would like to stress that the problem is not new, nor is it unique to this country. It is the product of powerful market forces. At a time of world economic recession, most scheduled air services are operating with too many empty seats which the airlines naturally prefer to sell cheaply rather than not at all.

Far from reducing the number of empty seats in a period of falling demand, the conversion to wide-bodied aircraft is actually tending to increase supply and exacerbate the problem. Like King Canute, I am not persuaded by those who seek to advise me that the tide will not rise if I command it not to do so, waving the Civil Aviation Act in my hand. My Lords, I am in no doubt at all that so long as the supply of seats is greatly in excess of the demand for those seats at approved fares, discounting will take place on a substantial scale openly, covertly or both.

There seem to be two schools of thought among those who look to the Government to solve the problem which we are discussing this evening. On the one hand, there are those who say that the Government should put a stop to discounting by prosecuting offenders, while others say that the only thing wrong with the present situation is that "respectable" agents, for example those who are members of ABTA or who are approved by IATA, should be allowed to get in on the act. I confess that I am not entirely certain to which school the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, belongs. I shall try and deal as succinctly as I can with both.

Let us take the prosecutors first. First, we need to look at the law and the offence that may be being committed. In my Answer to the Question from the noble Baroness on 11th June, I told the House where the legal provisions are found. What I am sure noble Lords will have observed is that the position of agents is different according to whether they are acting on behalf of a British or a foreign airline, but that in all cases the offence relates to the carriage of passengers or cargo in contravention of the operator's operating licence or permit. For a prosecution to succeed against either an airline or an agent, the court would have to be satisfied that the passenger actually travelled at a fare other than an approved fare and had not simply bought a ticket; and, secondly, that the airline carrying that passenger had a condition in its operating licence or permit to charge only approved fares.

It is the second condition which presents a particular difficulty. All British airlines have such a condition in the licences they obtain from the CAA, but not all foreign airlines have such a condition in the permits they obtain from the Department of Trade. Moreover, approved fares may well not specify clearly a particular sum for a particular class of travel. Fares filings with the CAA for purposes of approval often refer only to a tangled web of IATA resolutions. It would be all too easy to convince the court in such cases that reasonable doubt existed as to what the approved fare actually was. Sometimes an approved fare might indeed have been paid, but one or other of the laid-down conditions—for example, advance purchase—is not insisted upon. Such an arrangement is no less contrary to the terms of the licence than is charging the wrong fare. My noble friend Lady Elliot referred to that during the course of her remarks.

So far as a prosecution against the airline is concerned, one would need to establish to the court's satisfaction that, before the flight began, the operator knew or ought to have known that the passenger concerned was travelling at a fare that would put the operator in contravention of his licence or permit. Where the ticket shows an approved fare, though the purchaser obtained it at a discount from an agent or sub-agent, it could prove extremely difficult to establish that the airline knew or ought to have known that it was committing an offence in the manner described.

So far as a prosecution against the agent is concerned, the court would have to be satisfied that, before the flight began, the agent in selling the ticket knew or ought to have known that the accommodation was likely to be provided on an aircraft in contravention of the operator's licence or permit. But this condition, difficult as it is to satisfy, appears in the Civil Aviation Act only and not in the Air Navigation Order, so that it could only be used to prosecute an agent selling tickets on British airlines and not on foreign airlines. As your Lordships may know, I have spent some of my life in the air transport industry. I can assure the noble Baroness that of all the examples that she and those of her acquaintance have brought to my attention, none was one that would stand up in court—not only, I think, in the eyes of my advisers but in my own eyes, placing myself in the position of an airline that might be called upon to defend an action based on that evidence.

In this situation, it is natural to ask whether it might not be right to amend the law so as to make successful prosecutions more likely. Certainly that is an option which can be considered, but I am bound to say that I would have some doubts as to whether such a measure should be accorded legislative priority. It would certainly be controversial, since it could be presented as tending to increase the price of air travel to the customer, and effective implementation might well call for significant numbers of additional staff to enforce it. But quite apart from these objections, serious enough in themselves, it is very doubtful whether legislation and prosecution of offenders would actually solve a problem which has its roots in the powerful dictates of the market place.

I turn now to those who believe the Government should wave their magic wand and throw discounting open to all. I have explained on numerous occasions the Government's obligations under its bilateral air services agreements which prevent us from doing this even if we wanted to. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, referred to this matter during his remarks. I have also explained in the House and to representatives of the travel trade and the airlines that it is not for Government to lay down which sections of the travel trade airlines should deal with, nor to compel trade associations to relax their terms of membership. I have told the agents that they should discuss their problems with the airlines and get the airlines to take it up in the IATA forum.

I understand that IATA has now set up a working party to consider the subject of discounted air fares. Indeed, the chairman of the new working party came to see me only recently. I am told that it is proposing to pay particular attention in the first instance to discounting on the London market. It will be open to representations from travel agents and other interested parties as well as from its own network of IATA enforcement agents. The working party is due to report to the director general and executive committee in September and I think everyone who is concerned with this problem will await the report with keen interest.

Obviously I cannot forecast what the outcome will be. I remain convinced that it is primarily for the economic interests involved—the airlines and the agents and their trade associations—to find a workable answer to the present situation of disorderly marketing. But I think it must be apparent to all of us that uncontrolled discounting will only recede when airlines have more freedom than they do now to compete openly and legitimately on fares.

Where the Government do have a role to play is in the encouragement of an international framework which will favour the sort of competition which will give the customer a fair choice of legitimate low fares, while enabling the airlines and the agents to make a reasonable living. The mini-prix fare to Amsterdam is a good example of the sort of fare which we should like to see more widely introduced. On a broader front we are expecting the EEC Commission to present a report to the Council of Ministers very shortly on the liberalisation of the regulation of air fares. We have encouraged the Commission to include a draft directive with this report, and we shall be using our tenure of the presidency to ensure that their proposals are fully discussed. Progress in these matters is not as fast as we should like, but we cannot move faster than our partners are willing to go. I am in fact meeting Commissioner Kontogeorgis, who is responsible for transport matters, tomorrow and we shall be discussing these matters.

I think that the House has heard enough tonight to appreciate that the problem of dicounting is not one which is easily solved. The present situation is unsatisfactory in many ways. On that, we are all agreed. The policy which we are following together with the efforts which the industry are making on their own account will not bring instant results, but I am satisfied that there are no reasonable alternatives.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down (which is my only way of asking him a question) may I ask whether it is the intention of his department to reply to the letter of 11th June from Thomas Cook's chief executive asking what further evidence the department's legal advisers would require in order that they themselves may initiate a prosecution?

My Lords, I shall certainly ensure that all the correspondence that I receive is replied to as quickly as possible.