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

My Lords, not yet. During the debates on the Disabled Persons Bill, the Government agreed to undertake widespread consultation on this matter. Noble Lords placed particular emphasis on the importance of this consultation and we are considering now how best to reach the widest possible range of interested parties.

My Lords, while agreeing with the consultation and thanking my noble friend for his reply, I hope that these designations can be made before too long. In the meantime, will the Government ensure that no proposed new building such as a shop or a pub can evade the tests now required? Is he aware that this legislation is the result of recommendations made by the bodies which have been considering the problems of access for disabled people and that it will remain a very tangible legacy of the International Year?

Of course, my Lords, I totally agree with my noble friend and indeed would like to endorse those sentiments. As he knows, this is a difficult subject as regards the number of bodies that have been consulted, and I am sure that his Question will have stressed the urgency of the matter and served as a stimulus.

My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that in the last few weeks I have spoken to many bodies who do not know about this legislation? With the change of Members of Parliament and councillors, does he not think it is very necessary that there should be experts to advise—because otherwise money is wasted in doing the wrong things?

My Lords, I am very grateful for the noble Baroness's question and of course I will make sure that her remarks are brought to the right authority. I think the difficulty is that the Disabled Persons Act contains provisions on many different aspects of access and Section 6 requires implementation by statutory instrument, but that other sections have immediate effect and therefore have greater priority. The Secretary of State for Social Services has agreed to co-ordinate a circle of advice from several departments concerned, and this will be ready soon.

My Lords, in view of the fact that everyone, as he grows older, is potentially a disabled person, would not the Government be content to accept the opinion of this House on the matter?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his suggestion and will think about it myself.

My Lords, will the noble Earl not agree that, obviously necessary as this legislation is, the inevitable result will be a Quango?

My Lords, at the moment of course the noble Viscount is a bit ahead of the gun and I do not think that if a Quango were thought to be necessary the Government would necessarily reject it.

My Lords, is it not a fact that the original clause which was accepted by the Government, having been moved by me this summer, asks the Government to designate a body? Therefore it is expected that these will be existing bodies and so it will not be necessary for a new body such as a Quango to be instituted.

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for that clarification.

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

My Lords, I am pleased to say that the Arts Council's grant for 1982–83, which was announced by my right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts on 4th December, will be increased from £80 million to £86 million.

My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the worst fears of the arts organisations have not been realised and that it would be churlish to deny the Minister at least two cheers for his achievement? Would he, however, ask his colleague to look again at the case of the Theatres Trust, where a grant of £15,000 has been cut to £10,000 and an intimation given that next year it may be cut to nil? Is the noble Earl aware that, while I must declare an interest as the director of that trust, it is the general view that that trust, set up by Act of Parliament, performs a very useful public service in safeguarding theatre buildings? May I ask the noble Lord whether he would not agree that it should not be denied a small grant of public money so that it may continue to fulfil this important function?

My Lords, I am indeed grateful to the noble Lord for his two cheers. As far as the Theatres Trust is concerned, I understand that the present grant was a once-and-for-all one. While we fully recognise the difficulties which the trust faces in these difficult times we cannot undertake any continuing commitment.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in 1960 the Arts Council grant was £1,500,000 and in 1965 £3,250,000, and the fact that it has now been increased to £86 million shows that its real value has been continuously and very greatly increased, and that this should be a matter not indeed for complacency but for greater satisfaction to everybody concerned?

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for adding the third cheer.

My Lords, while welcoming the increased grant, may I ask the Government whether more financial help could not be given to the national orchestras, as these are finding it very difficult to break even at present?

My Lords, I think that that is a slightly different question. But, basically, anything in which the Government have been interested in this particular round has been increased by the same percentage.

My Lords, is there not a great deal to be said for what my noble friend Lord Jenkins is asking? When everything seems to be going wrong, let us retain something worth while. The only proviso I would make is that, if he wants an increase in the arts grants, he must be prepared for a rejection of some of his other ideas.

My Lords, I am not, of course, quite sure to what the noble Lord refers, but, if he is referring to what I am thinking of, I do not think the Government give a grant towards it. If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, I think that this is a question for the Arts Council itself, which actually gives to the live orchestras, rather than for the Government.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, with such a disproportionate amount of the Arts Council budget going to large organisations, it would be better for these large organisations to receive some kind of direct grant, which would leave the Arts Council free to encourage regional arts associations to stimulate local authorities to look after small groups, such as individual artists and small troupes, in their own areas?

My Lords, I think that we are in danger here of getting rather too muddled between the various and different parts of the arts grant. We are being asked at the moment about the Arts Council. There are, of course, other grants to the arts—to the major bodies, anyway—and very substantial grants to the regional sectors as well.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl—I do so as a former county council finance committee chairman—whether it would not be a pity if the public were placed in a position where they could criticise us for subsidising chorus girls from the rates?

My Lords, we leave the subsidising of the live arts to the Arts Council.

My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that at this moment it would be appropriate for me to do no more than request him to ask his right honourable friends, when the time comes, to have another look at the problem of the Theatres Trust?

My Lords, of course I will undertake to do that.

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

My Lords, it would he for the regional commissioner to decide, through the commissioners of justice of emergency courts, on sentences appropriate to the offence in the prevailing circumstances, and to decide on the use of the statutory power to direct labour.

My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that last month the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, asked a Question on the subject and that the noble Lord the Minister wrote to him in a rather unsatisfactory way? Would he agree that this matter is now de-restricted and that noble Lords who wish to know what the Government say about it are, I believe, themselves able to refer to a copy of the circular? Is it not the case that the Government must either spend thousands of millions of pounds in providing a proper civil defence or, much better, spend the money on conventional defence and abandon nuclear weapons? Will the noble Lord at least suggest to his colleagues that this last option be examined?

My Lords, I agree that I wrote to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, a few weeks ago, as a result of a Question which was asked by the noble and learned Lord. So far as a comparison between nuclear war and conventional war is con cerned, I was not aware that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, was in favour of either.

My Lords, may I ask the Minister this question: If, unfortunately, there should be nuclear war, would capital punishment really be necessary?

My Lords, there would be exceptional circumstances.

My Lords, are not these provisions rather ridiculous in the circumstances of a nuclear war? Is the noble Lord aware that the background paper of the British Medical Association says that, even in the deepest shelters which have been prepared for the administrative class, all would be choked and asphyxiated to death, and that, therefore, these provisions in nuclear war circumstances are almost obscene?

My Lords, I must say that to listen to the noble Lords, Lord Jenkins and Lord Brockway, is not really quite the way to start a Monday at the beginning of a week. I think the way I should reply to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is that it is necessary, in the event of war, to make provision for the administration of justice. The sensible way to go about it seems to be the policy which was the policy of the previous Government, and which remains the policy of the present Government, which is that, broadly speaking, the penalties for peacetime offences would remain, but decisions would have to be taken for exceptions in particular cases.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, without being in favour of any kind of war at all, it is possible to think that conventional war is somewhat preferable to nuclear war? Is he further aware that there are many people inside this House, as well as outside it, who take the view that the nuclear weapon is not a weapon of war at all?

Mercifully, my Lords, that question does not arise from the original Question.

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

No, my Lords. To do as the noble Lord suggests would cut across the Royal Charter and the Licence and Agreement under which my noble friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary prescribes the hours and languages to be broadcast and other services to be performed by the external services.

My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, which I am afraid does not give me a great deal of encouragement, may I ask him this: While not disputing the Government's right, under existing arrangements, to prescribe and deprescribe the external vernacular services of the BBC, would he agree to discuss with the BBC the possibility of merging the Spanish and Latin-American services into a single Ibero-American service, in line with other major European broadcasters? Would he accept such a solution if it could be achieved at no additional cost within the framework of the overall saving required of the external services?

My Lords, the Government have to take their decisions in respect of which services are to be continued, the times at which they are to be broadcast, and so on, in the light of the foreign policy considerations which govern our affairs with the particular countries concerned. It was for that reason that we arrived at the decisions that we did about the service, for example, to the Spanish nation to which the noble Lord referred just now.

My Lords, does that mean the Government are unwilling to consider with the BBC perhaps the restructuring of some of their foreign services? If, for example, there were vacancies in this Latin-American service, could it not be so adapted that there would also be the beaming of some services to Spain? If restructuring is possible under the limit of the budget which the Government have set, are the Government against the BBC doing that?

My Lords, the foreign policy considerations to which I referred are paramount, but that is not to say that the Government would not be flexible in considering an arrangement such as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, or the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, have suggested. But there are considerable technical difficulties in the way of the proposal which the noble Lord now puts forward.

My Lords, would not the noble Lord get in touch with the BBC to see what can be done? If it is not going to cost any more money, why should we not have the extra service?

My Lords, we are constantly in touch with the BBC on this and related matters, but I say again that there are technical difficulties in the way of the proposal which has been advanced.

My Lords, will the Government consult with the BBC about the transcription services as they may find, if they go into it a little more fully, that it is not quite so easy as they seem to think to do without a subsidy in competition with other countries, who subsidise theirs?

My Lords, that is another question, but I went into this matter very fully when we discussed the other day the Unstarred Question of the noble Lord. I do not think that t have anything to add to what I said then.

My Lords, if the reason for proscribing the Spanish and Italian vernacular services is now solely a matter of foreign policy, which is different from what we have learned from Ministers in the past—that it is purely for economic reasons—would my noble friend be kind enough to say what is the reason behind this foreign policy decision?

My Lords, the noble Lord misunderstood what I said. The foreign policy considerations to which I referred lead us to establish a pecking order of priority of these services, and it was that reason which persuaded us to conclude that the Spanish and Italian services could not continue.

My Lords, is my noble friend suggesting that Anglo-Spanish and Anglo-Italian relations are of no importance whatsoever?

No, my Lords, I did not say that.

My Lords, will not the noble Lord agree that on 26th November at col. 918 of Hansard he said:

"We would have wished them to have consulted the BBC more fully and to have informed your Lordships in parallel"?

Will not the noble Lord agree that I am now giving him this opportunity, and will he not take it up? Furthermore, would he not finally agree that, in view of the current tensions in Spain in particular, it is particularly desirable to continue direct broadcasting to that country?

My Lords, I went into this matter very fully when we discussed the other day the Unstarred Question and when I answered the questions of the noble Lord in considerable detail in respect of the Spanish service. I do not think that the House would wish me to repeat all that now.

My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Dried Fruits and Vegetables) (Amendment) Order 1981, which was laid before your Lordships' House on 19th October, be approved, and to speak to the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Coffee and Coffee Mixtures) Order 1981, which was laid before the House on 19th October and the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Grain and Farinaceous Products) Order 1981, which again was laid before your Lordships' House on 19th October.

For the convenience of your Lordships, it is my intention, unless any Member of your Lordships' House were to disagree, to move together the three orders which stand in my name. Although they cover widely varying types of prepacked foodstuffs, all of them share the common characteristic of being necessary so as to meet our obligations to the European Communities under a directive which is commonly referred to as the Prescribed Quantities Directive. More formally and more correctly, its reference is 80/232/EEC. This particular directive was adopted in January 1980. We are required to implement it within two years of that date.

Those of your Lordships who have studied this directive closely and have noted the large array of products that it covers might be surprised that the three orders which are before your Lordships House today are sufficient to discharge our obligations. This is because, as an optional directive, it merely requires member states not to prohibit the marketing on their own territories of those products included in the directive in the prepacked quantities specified in its annexes. Naturally enough, these are expressed in metric units. It does not require that only those quantities be marketed. It follows from this that where United Kingdom law currently places no restriction on the sizes in which the relevant products may be prepacked we are already in full compliance with the directive. This is the case for all of the non-food items and for many of the food items within the scope of the directive.

Your Lordships will, however, know that for most of the staple foodstuffs which are sold in the United Kingdom our weights and measures legislation has required for many years that these be prepacked only in specified and easily related sizes. These prescribed quantities are important to consumers as they enable ready price comparisons to be made between different sizes and different brands of goods. However, for most of the directive's food items we have long since anticipated the agreement that was finally reached on ranges of sizes and have already passed the subordinate legislation to permit the metric sizes in question. Only in a very few cases was agreement in doubt before the directive was adopted and it is these items that are the subject of the three orders which we are considering today.

I must stress at this stage that nothing in the directive requires us to prohibit sizes that we already allow. Specifically this means that we do not have to abandon our existing Imperial quantities. Your Lordships will be aware that it is not part of this Government's policy to compel industry by law to go metric or to seek to influence its own judgment on the timing of any change-over to metric sizes. Consequently, there will be no further compulsory metrication orders. Packers of the foods which are the subject of the second two orders will therefore have the option of marketing them either in metric or Imperial sizes, provided of course that they select sizes from the permitted ranges. The position is slightly different for the foods which are covered by the Dried Fruits and Vegetables Order. I shall come later to that point.

Your Lordships might possibly consider it proper that I should try to deal with each order in a little more detail. Your Lordships will note from Article 2 of the Grain and Farinaceous Products Order that the foodstuffs which this order covers are concerned with such things as barley kernels, pearl barley, rice and, of course, sago, semolina and tapioca which are familiar to many of your Lordships in the eaten form every day. Not all of these are included in the directive but they are often packed and marketed by the same suppliers. Therefore it makes sense to have the same ranges of sizes for all these products, as is already required under the Weights and Measures Act 1963. The particular size of 375 grammes is not required by the directive but it has been included at the request of the trade to run in parallel with the popular existing Imperial size of 12 ounces. Further, although the existing 1 oz and 2 oz sizes have been deleted from the permitted Imperial range, they may still be marketed in the United Kingdom as the order raises from ½ oz to 75 grammes (I understand that that is in the region of 2¾ oz) the quantity below which there is freedom to pack in any size.

The title of the Coffee and Coffee Mixtures Order more readily indicates its coverage. However, I should explain that this does not include the product commonly known as "instant coffee". This particular product is dealt with by a rather different industry and was the subject of an order introducing metric sizes in July 1978. However, we are now extending prescribed quantity control for the first time to Viennese coffee; that is, coffee with fig flavouring. This and the other mixtures covered by the order have been included so as to make the total coverage consistent with separate regulations made by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the previous Administration, the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, from whom we shall be hearing soon no doubt. These particular orders define the products which may be described as coffee or coffee mixtures. This has been accepted by the trade involved in this particular brand line and other interested parties as a sensible step which avoids potential confusion.

The order also makes it clear that coffee bags are subject to the same control as coffee which is packed in the more conventional "loose" form. I understand that for these purposes we can call it the "percolator" form; the kind of beans or powder that one puts straight into a percolator or brews up in the saucepan. In this connection I have to draw the attention of your Lordships to the extracts from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, copies of which are available to your Lordships.

The Coffee and Coffee Mixtures Order includes a few metric sizes not required by the directive. Some are the equivalent of existing Imperial sizes but others simply reflect market trends. More importantly, we have freed packs above 5 kg from prescribed quantity control. This makes it possible for catering packs, which I understand represent about 60 per cent. of sales in the United Kingdom, to be sold without the danger of prosecution. This arises because although the legal restriction on the sizes of these packs applies only to retail sales, the growth of cash-and-carry type stores often leads to what are essentially catering packs finding their way, perfectly legitimately, to the retail market.

Before I leave finally this particular order, your Lordships may care to note that attached to it, on pages 4 and 5 of the order, is a list of statutory instruments. We hope that this should be helpful to trade and other interests, as I am sure it will be very helpful to your Lordships if you wish to go right through the fascinating details to be found there, as the list shows those orders and regulations which have been made to date amending those parts of the 1963 Act concerned with either prescribed quantities or with container marking requirements. Your Lordships would be able to work out from this that it is only jam and a few related items where prescribed Imperial quantities have not been either replaced by, or supplemented by, metric quantities. These few remaining products are likely to remain in Imperial sizes for some years to come, as it would be imprudent to introduce metric sizes until agreement is reached within the European Community on what the metric range should be. I am given to understand that this is not proving easy, mainly because many of our European partners are themselves in Imperial sizes and are not sure what metric sizes would be most suitable for these particular products.

Finally, I should like to turn to the first order which stand in my name, the Dried Fruits and Vegetables (Amendment) Order. Unlike the first two orders to which I spoke—the second and third on the Order Paper—this particular order does not contain any Imperial sizes. This is for one particular and, no doubt, sound reason; it is because they were phased out by the previous Administration. What the order does is merely to add two metric sizes, 1.5 kg and 7.5 kg, included in the Prescribed Quantities Directive but not allowed for in our own existing legislation. There is of course no compulsion on the trade to use either of these sizes but this merely gives them permission and allows them to do if it is convenient.

The interests who might have some concern in these particular orders—trade, consumer and enforcement interests—have been fully consulted on all three orders in my name today. There has been a wide measure of agreement on these three orders. Existing separate marking regulations required dual marking—that is to say, a declaration of quantity in both Imperial and metric units, for the foods covered by the second and third orders on the Order Paper. This will protect consumers' interests for so long as both metric and Imperial quantities are marketed. My Lords, these orders, which I move together, are necessary to meet our obligations to the European Community, and we believe that they command a wide measure of support from trade interests and indeed from all the other interests in the country. I beg to move.

My Lords, your Lordships' House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for the way in which he has introduced this measure and for the detailed comments he has made in support of it. Your Lordships' House may be equally relieved that I am going to make only a few comments and pose one or two questions. It will be accepted, as the noble Lord has said, that these orders are necessary to implement our obligations under the Community regulations. I am not sure to what extent I had some responsibility in my previous life in another place, but we accept that these changes are necessary—especially to comply with the requirement that we take action within two years. They are necessary also to enable our food producers and food processors to supply the home market and especially the export market. Although the noble Lord said that this is something in which we have the freedom to proceed at the pace we require, with Imperial as well as with metric measures, in fact, especially for the export markets, the pace will be dictated or influenced by the requirements of that market, particularly among our fellow EEC members as they also go towards the implementation of the EEC regulations. This is important if we are to compete with our competitors in Europe and in other places. So the metric system will have to come in at a pre-determined pace. This is a point we note and do not necessarily disagree with.

I am very pleased that the noble Lord has said that the organisations have been consulted and I believe he has given some indication of the agreement which they have with the orders. I was going to ask what reactions resulted but apparently they were nothing to worry about. It would be interesting if the noble Lord could say whether there were representations about the cost to the industry because it does of course mean alternative packaging, weighing, processing and so forth. I should like to know if the noble Lord can give us any indication of the cost to the food industry and eventually, of course, to the consumer.

In these orders the prescribed range of metric quantities relating to pre-packaged food is specified and one wonders if there is any time limit for any producers and those in the trade to comply with the orders—or is it indefinite and a situation where one changes only to suit the demands of the trade and especially the export market? The noble Lord made a brief reference to the first report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which had some rather critical comments to make on the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 and Coffee and Coffee Mixtures Order. It is true, of course, that the memorandum from the Department of Trade does help to explain some of the questions raised by the committee. I quote from the committee report. They say:

"So far as coffee bags are concerned, however, it seems to the committee that what the order says is not precisely what it means. It provides that the 'contents of coffee bags shall be pre-packed only if they are made up in one of the following quantities by net weight'."

They go on to say:

"Literally that seems to contemplate the pre-packing of the contents of coffee bags independently of the bags themselves … the sense intended to be conveyed, however, as is confirmed by the memorandum of the Department of Trade, is that coffee bags may be pre-packed only if the contents of the bags in a pack are of the specified amounts".

We have the benefit of the Department of Trade memorandum. I am wondering whether, when the order goes out, the explanation of the Department of Trade and the explanation we have had from the noble Lord this afternoon will be quite as clear to the industry and indeed to those who have to operate the order. On the question of coffee, the joint committee had some grounds for discontent, as they say. It would he useful to know if any action has been taken to clarify the matter a little more when the order goes out to those who have to operate the order eventually. With those few comments we support the order.

My Lords, my noble friend went rather quickly and got me slightly muddled. I understood him to say that instant coffee is not coffee. What is it?

My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me springing swiftly to my feet, first of all to try to answer as many as I can of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, as well as to preclude any further real fireball from my noble friend Lord Derwent, as well as others that might come down. I hope my noble friend will permit me to try to deal with some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, and I think I may be able to reply to what instant coffee comprises or not from some fascinating footnotes to the orders which are before your Lordships.

The first major point raised by Lord Bishopston concerned export markets, and he was worried about the metric packs that the packers and indeed the food industry would be able to package in metric form. I understand, in regard to the two orders concerning coffee and grain and farinaceous materials, that until now these two substances were only permitted to be packaged in Imperial measures. The orders we are moving today will permit the trade to package these substances in metric form. I understand that the food processing and packaging industry are very keen to be able to do this. We hope that the orders settle the fears of the packaging industry.

With regard to any possible additional costs, either to the industry or to consumers, arising from these orders, no critical points have been raised with us either by the consumer interests or by the industry. I understand that we have even been praised by some organisations. There was one letter on grain and farinaceous products from the National Council of Women. I understand they raised minor points about the Imperial sizes to be retained. This point was successfully dealt with by letter from the Government. So I hope that some of the more important fears expressed by consumer interests, from this body and others, have been settled satisfactorily.

The noble Lord raised one point of what I might call criticism from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. I understand that the committee produced some suggested amendments. It could be argued that the drafting could have been improved, but certainly we are satisfied, and we understand that the trade and consumer interests affected by the small minutiae of these orders are satisfied, that the meaning is clear to them. I hope that answers the fears that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston. If I have missed any point of substance, I hope he will permit me to scrutinise his remarks in greater detail and write to him on those and any further points he wishes to raise.

My noble friend Lord Derwent asked me a question about instant coffee. I am given to understand that the substance covered by the orders we are discussing is coffee in beans, or ground into a form which is acceptable to percolators or other machines which will produce breakfast ready or evening ready coffee, whereas I understand that what is technically known as instant coffee is an entirely different product. I referred to instant coffee being covered by other regulations. I have one or two interpretations, and I see there is an excellent comment on carbohydrates which I think covers many of the products in instant coffee. It gives some excellent details about neutral polyhydroxyl alcohol containing carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, in which the hydrogen and oxygen occur in the same proportion as in water, but this does not include any polysaccharide which is not metabolised by man. I think these carbohydrates are the contents which are added to what we call in our non-technical way instant coffee. I have not anything more detailed to assist my noble friend with regard to the products that we call instant coffee. Given the polysaccharides and the other interesting products, I am sure my noble friend will permit me to write to him with a precise and brief definition of what we call instant coffee, as against what is more normally drunk straight from the percolator, or roasted in beans or taken in other forms.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he not accept that if his definition of instant coffee was put on every jar sold there would be grounds for further confusion?

My Lords, I shall not attempt to follow the noble Lord's comment. He may well find his remarks spreading far and wide beyond the normal record of your Lordships' House. We may also need spectacles and reading glasses—the hobby-horse of one or two noble Lords—to read all these products on these two, four and six ounce jars in the supermarket. Speaking for myself, I find it hard enough to decipher the metric content or the Imperial content in the jars and to decide which of the two jars gives me better value. We will certainly consider what the noble Lord has said. I will not attempt to follow his turn of phrase. I thank him for his support and beg to commend the order.

My Lords, I think the noble Lord used the phrase "coffee roasted from the leaves". Surely it is from the beans and not from the leaves.

My Lords, I am afraid I am not able to answer the noble Lord's point without notice. If I may consult the record, I will see if the noble Lord is accurate on that point, and I may get in touch with him.

My Lords, I have already spoken at length to this Motion. I beg to move.

My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th October be approved.

My Lords, as one who over the years has urged support for the Common Fund both from Labour Governments and Conservative Governments without much success until recently, I should like to welcome the decision of the Government, inadequate though it is.

My Lords, having heard the Minister's clear exposition, I think that, to save the time of the House, I shall reply to both orders because from looking at them and from where they originate there can be no doubt that the noble Lord and the other side of the House will get full support for the order that is being moved.

I turn first to the rubber agreement. As one of the people who worked for many, many months on the commodity agreements—and we had the opportunity of calling on people, discussing the matter with various persons and digesting papers—it is of paramount importance that, so far as the commodity of rubber is concerned, we do not once again see, as some of us saw in the 'thirties, the tragic collapse of rubber agreements. It is fascinating to notice that if we look at the countries that are included in both these Common Fund agreements we find that, despite what we sometimes hear referred to as powerful warlike talk, the exigencies of economics and the necessity of people learning to live together force into committees men with many opposite points of political view.

It is good to see the Socialist Soviet Republics and the United States on both papers. In the one case there were 170 nations and in the other there were 50 nations which sat together to discuss the vital problems of the allocation of necessary supplies throughout the world for mankind. I pay tribute to all the Governments concerned—there happens to be a Government of a different political colour at present—for their constructive work of bringing together to fruition the Common Fund.

If noble Lords wish to look at it further—and I shall not quote from it and take up the time of the House—the agreement establishing the Common Fund for Commodities, which was discussed in New York in 1980 and 1981, is Cmnd. 8192. The Natural Rubber Agreement is Cmnd. 8018. I shall assume that this House would not like to me read out chunks of it, for noble Lords can read it for themselves, but I simply want to add what I would call a little caveat. Before I go into the matter of immunities and privileges, the idea of buffer stocks has been discussed for many years. All that we on both sides of the House can do is hope that we find a successful solution to this problem of the distribution, consumption and reasonable price of natural rubber.

Do these two orders imply an extension of the Diplomatic Service? They will probably involve the provision of staff for services. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is shaking his head and I am glad of that, but if the organisation comes to London, as he says, there may be problems in that direction. I shall not take a long time, but I should like to raise one or two matters.

The Common Fund will be negotiating not only with Commonwealth countries but with foreign countries and, from time to time, with diplomatic missions; and policy objectives will be needed in order to administer the fund. Britain has varied and wide overseas relations, and not many men in the street realise that, according to the official handbook for this year, Britain 1981, we had diplomatic relations with 150 countries and 20 of these have special treaty relations and special immunities. Despite our economic and social problems at home, it is often forgotten that British development assistance is providing for more than 130 countries. In itself this fund will mean that for the British taxpayer there will be a need for taxation to meet these obligations to the underprivileged, and the British Government, whatever party may be in power, must have continuity of foreign policy.

As the world is growing smaller, immunities and privileges grow; through modern, sophisticated and instantaneous communications—teleprinters and satellites—the smallness of the world is making these immunities and privileges grow. It would be interesting to know how many organisations have immunities and privileges. Before this noble House passes this order, can the noble Lord briefly tell the House what those immunities and privileges really mean?—because from time to time one has seen in the press criticisms of the privileges that some people retain. Nevertheless, it is recognised that in an increasingly interdependent world the attainment of overseas objectives and the ability to exert influence in support of them can be provided only through international co-operation. If we are to have that international co-operation, at times it is absolutely necessary for immunities and privileges to exist to cover those important discussions and the people who take part in them.

Will many organisations, like the International Monetary Fund and the Export Credits Guarantee Department, also be involved? There is a criss-cross of responsibilities; sometimes there is overlapping. Can it be avoided? Those of us who have experienced discussions at international conferences both here and elsewhere often believe that an overlapping and a waste of effort take place. This is no criticism of the Government, but life has become so complex that it is time to reconsider the number of international organisations that are increasingly growing in the need to build up a civilised system of society.

This fund has grown out of the second Lomé Convention, as noble Lords will see if they look at the White Paper; and I promise not to read it. This not only brings in the Commonwealth, but it will ultimately bring in the North-South dialogue or the Brandt Report, and the ACP countries—Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific areas—and Asia. At the Venice Summit in June 1980 these points were discussed. A number of commodities are exempt from terrific increases in taxation. When this fund is established—we use the phrase, Stabex, meaning to stabilise exports—in many cases it is liable to help areas (in particular areas which have been exploited for phosphates and very rare and important minerals) to obtain an economic price and value for their natural resources.

I see that I have been speaking eight minutes, which is quite enough on an important and agreed order like this. Without taking up too much time of this noble House, I simply want to say that we, on this side, congratulate the Government on pushing this forward, and in this direction it would be churlish of me not to give them more strength to their elbow for establishing these funds as being a concrete process towards better international understanding and thereby helping the underprivileged nations.

My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, for his general reception to these two orders. I shall simply take the points that he raised with me. I understand that there are 26 international organisations which enjoy these privileges in London at the present time. That excludes the Commonwealth Secretariat, which is perhaps not quite in the same class. There are 11 high officers, as they are called, of those organisations who enjoy certain personal privileges with regard to their official acts, and 1,071 other officers.

The general policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to privileges and immunities of international organisations is that they should be granted primarily on a basis of functional need. The principle of the independence of the organisation and the equality of its member states, in particular that no state should derive undue fiscal advantage from the funds of the organisation, are also important considerations. Your Lordships may well feel that it would not be appropriate for me to go into further detail on the general principles on this specific order, but I hope that I have said enough to set the noble Lord's mind at rest.

My Lords, I beg to move.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is a somewhat improved version of the Bill that I introduced in the last Session, which was not proceeded with owing to pressure of business, and I am very grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for facilitating the Second Reading of the Bill so early in this Session. The Bill deals with the slaughter of animals for food and, broadly stated in a sentence, it restricts the export of ritually-killed meat to animals which have been pre-stunned under the conditions of the Slaughterhouses Act 1974 and corresponding Acts for Scotland and Northern Ireland. It does not propose to amend the law of the domestic situation in any way.

A short brief on this Bill has been circulated to a number of noble Lords by the RSPCA, and I am very grateful for their help and support in this matter. My case is that the exceptions which have been granted for many years from the observance of our general laws of slaughter to the Jewish and Mohammedan communities were never intended and never envisaged as being a licence for export, but that they have become a licencee for export. This Bill proposes to put curbs upon it.

I think it should be said that the record of Governments on the humane slaughter of animals is quite deplorable. Parliamentary history shows that our present laws on humane slaughter came about by the dogged persistence of a small group of Members of both Houses of Parliament who sponsored Private Member's Bills when Governments were apathetic, when farmers were indifferent, and when the meat trade was concerned about the look of the Sunday joint.

The history begins, as noble Lords would expect, with a Bill applicable only to Scotland; the Slaughter of Animals (Scotland) Act 1928. I have to mention this particularly because that Act, although it applied then to Scotland, laid the foundations of the subsequent legislation and incorporated the principles, and I think revealed the intentions behind them, and they were clearly stated at the time of the legislation in 1927–28. Slaughter in licensed slaughterhouses by licensed slaughtermen and by more humane methods became compulsory, although to begin with not all food animals were covered by it, and of course in those days they did not have the most modern equipment for the purpose. But it was then, in the 1928 Act applicable to Scotland, that the position of the Jewish community was dealt with. It was decided in another place, and by Parliament eventually, that the Jewish community should be excepted from the provisions of the Act. That was done to avoid deep offence to Jewish members of our society.

Then later on in the proceedings on this same Bill in Scotland the question of Mohammedans was raised. Mohammedans were brought into the Scottish Bill because of the lascars in the crews of ships constantly in Scottish ports, and it was estimated that there were about 1,000 lascars on board ships in Scottish ports most days of the year. They had apparently been in the habit of killing animals according to the Mohammedan method on board ship in Scottish ports, but, as the Act proposed to make that unlawful and brought all slaughterings ashore into licensed slaughterhouses, provision had to be made for the Mohammedans who were at any time in Scottish ports. The second exception was therefore made for animals slaughtered by Mohammedans for the food of Mohammedans in the 1928 Act.

It is part of my case that the exceptions granted in Scotland in 1928 and repeated in English law in 1933, and continued in the substantive Act of 1957 (1958 for Scotland) and in the consolidated Acts of 1974 for England and Wales and 1980 for Scotland, were intended to meet the needs of Jews and Mohammedans respectively in this country and were never contemplated as extending to export. Although at every subsequent stage in the progress of legislation through Parliament the religious exceptions came under repeated criticism, they were confirmed by subsequent Acts and they were allowed to rest where they had been all along and had become accepted.

The 1933 Act laid down more firmly the intention of Parliament to protect animals from unnecessary suffering by imposing the humane killer on all slaughtering of cattle and calves in licensed slaughterhouses, and making a mechanical electric stunner compulsory wherever electric power was available. While there was no enforced protection for sheep and lambs, the 1933 Act gave an option to local authorities to include them, which 85 per cent. of local authorities did.

Then the seal of permanence and of acceptance of the present law was laid down in the 1957 Act, and the 1958 Act for Scotland. As I pointed out, the subsequent legislation, the more recent legislation, consisted of consolidation measures. The 1957 Act, and the 1974 consolidated Act, stopped all private slaughtering. All animals had to come to licensed slaughterhouses. All slaughterers had to have licences issued by local authorities, including those permitted to slaughter under the exceptions provided in the law, and these exceptions have survived time, experience, and criticism. They were put there and they stayed there to meet the requirements of the two communities concerned, but they were neither put there nor can they claim to stay there to supply customers anywhere and everywhere, yet that is what the Minister has said is permitted under the present law, and what the Government have no proposals to change.

Allow me to remind the House exactly what the statutory provisions are.

"(i) animals to be killed instantaneously by means of a mechanically operated instrument; or,

(ii) by pre-stunning by mechanically operated, or electrical means so as to render the animal insensitive to pain until death supervenes; or

(iii) by such other means as may be prescribed by Regulations",

under the Act. Such regulations have been issued, for example, to authorise the use of carbon dioxide as an anaesthetic for pigs under regulations issued in 1958. The Act excludes from these provisions animals slaughtered,

"(a) by the Jewish method for the food of Jews and by a Jew duly licensed … by a Rabbinical Commission [the composition of which is set out in a schedule to the Act]; or

(b) by the Mohammedan method for the food of Mohammedans and by a Mohammedan".

I must draw the notice of your Lordships to the difference between the conditions and qualifications of the slaughtermen for Jews and Mohammedans respectively. While the Mohammedan, like the Jew slaughtermen, must be granted a licence by the local authorities, the Jewish authorities at the highest level insist upon proper training and expertise in their method of slaughter. Mohammedans are subject to no comparable test of qualification so far as I am aware. This is an anomaly which the Bill does not deal with, and perhaps it should. At any rate, the Board of Deputies of British Jews feel quite strongly about this, and if your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading I have no doubt this matter could be discussed in Committee.

Perhaps I should mention that the Moslem method of slaughter is now permitted for a much larger community than that of the Jewish faith. Home consumption of halal meat is rising with the expanding Moslem population, which is now probably well over 1 million. That is quite apart from exports. There is bound to be a conspicuous rise in the quantity of meat produced from animals slaughtered under the exception given to Mohammedans for use of their own method of slaughter. That is perhaps an additional reason why the Mohammedan method of slaughter, and qualifications for it, should come under closer examination.

To return to the main purpose of the Bill, I wish to make it plain that it does not ban exports. The Bill requires meat for export, except for the destinations mentioned in the Bill, to be pre-stunned under the option of the conditions of the Act. The Moslem method would not, I am advised, accept instantaneous death, but unconsciousness till death is apparently not ruled out under the Mohammedan religious laws. Some companies have already been able to accept contracts for exports subject to the pre-stunning condition, and I would hope that might become acceptable as a general rule. The export problem—I have to be quite honest about it—is a Mohammedan problem and it is there that we must look for the solution.

I wish to be clear on another point. My case for the Bill does not rest on the comparative humaneness of the several methods of slaughter. I decline to be drawn into that argument; others may not. In fact, from the press cuttings I get, there is a good deal of controversy about ritually slaughtered animals anyway, but I am not in that argument. There is no perfect method of killing. There are many complaints about the methods which are obligatory under the Act: inefficiency, defective equipment, incompetent slaughter—men and the horrors of the conveyor line are all blamed for causing unnecessary suffering. What may be wrong with our methods of slaughter should be put right.

My case is that the Act lays down the preferred methods of slaughter chosen by public opinion and Parliament over many years to be the law of the land. There are no options available to any but the two religious groups. That is the fact and I draw no inferences from that to the detriment of other methods of slaughter. I have no need to. Exclusions from the obligations of the law imposed on every other section of the people and on all other religions clearly occupy a special place in our understanding and respect. By the same token, I say that those who gain from that understanding and respect should show the same to us who are not of their persuasion and who may resent, as I do, having the compact to which we came in 1928, and hold solemnly to this day, turned to a wider purpose than we intended. If the religious communities concerned are to be spared what is unacceptable to them, as they are under the law, then the rest of us are entitled to be asked to be spared what is unacceptable to us. We have to live together, and there is little sign that these reciprocal feelings exist in relation to the current volume of exports of animals killed under the Mohammedan method.

That brings me to my final plea to the House. I ask that we should be saved from the social disturbance and bitter feelings now prevalent in areas where so-called ritual slaughter is being brought into the environment against the will of a substantial section of the people locally. I do not know whether the Minister reads his press cuttings and whether he is fully informed of the controversy raging in about 16 towns in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland at the present time over the proposed introduction of slaughterhouses for halal meat production.

"Row over ritual killing", Glasgow; "Ritual slaughter storm grows", Worcester; "Ban religious slaughter: MP" and "Veterinary Association and ritual slaughter" are some of the headlines, and I Will not weary the House with the accumulation of press cuttings on this subject. As I said, about 16 cases are current. I know of one or two where local opposition has been removed, or at least minimised, by an agreement of the halal meat company to pre-stunning when using the slaughter-house for their method of slaughter. But the position appears to be beyond the control of local authorities and deep divisions are unavoidable. Halal meat companies come to where disused slaughterhouses can be restored for their purpose without further planning permission being required. So far as I know, there has not been a single case where planning application was necessary, and had it been necessary it would certainly have gone to a public inquiry.

The number of slaughterhouses in this country in current use has been falling, and it is the disused slaughterhouse which is taken as the base for the new development, and for that, all that is necessary is a fresh licence, which the local authority has little option but to grant without being accused of withholding a licence unreasonably. The attempt of one authority to secure by—law powers to regulate the method of slaughter in its area failed because although the local authority passed the necessary resolution for by—law purposes, it was not confirmed by the Secretary of State. One wonders why, in these days of democracy and consultation with the people, there cannot be more local option in controversial matters of this kind. Why confine local option to drink in Wales? There are other opportunities for it.

I do not want to introduce any bias into the discussion, but I feel I must point out that the directors of the meat companies concerned are not all British subjects; they have no claim on the tolerance of our people in this matter, and I emphasise again that I take my stand on the law as it was intended to be, as Parliament has continued it, and I believe we must now come to Parliament to ask for some check to be imposed on the misuse of concessions granted for one purpose which are now being diverted as well to another.

Governments are ready enough to close loopholes elsewhere, and there are many cases where it is alleged that provisions of legislation passed years ago are being distorted, abused and exploited, and amending laws should be introduced. The Government themselves feel that the immunities granted years ago to trade unions have been stretched far beyond the original intention and they are introducing a Bill to correct that. But on this matter we get the reply that if the meat is destined prima facie for the religious communities concerned, no matter where they are, export is permitted under the present law.

If literally that is so. then I think that morally it should cease to he. If that is what the Act means, can we not look at what Parliament intended and amend the law accordingly? That is what the Bill does. It draws the line at Britain becoming the halal slaughterhouse of Western Europe. ft says that if Mohammedans will agree to pre-stunning, they can export to whom they like, so long as they are Mohammedans. But we cannot permit a growing export trade to shelter behind the immunity granted to Mohammedans out of respect for their religion and the good will towards them as fellow citizens.

I realise that, as nearly always in these circumstances, there are huge vested interests rapidly growing up: trade, capital investment, employment. I know that in many people's minds these are the real issues today. But I must keep on saying that the Bill interferes with no trade or commercial interest so long as it is conducted under the conditions imposed on the rest of the British people. As it is, this unhappy development is straining race relations in areas hitherto free from any tension, and I say categorically that race relations work both ways.

The happiest outcome would be for those concerned to adjust their trade to meet substantial public opinion; otherwise, the law should step in to end a potential source of social disharmony. I think that we should stop it somehow. Even if the Ministry of Agriculture is not concerned with the social aspect of this matter, the Home Secretary surely is. I ask your Lordships to send the message to those who will listen by giving the Bill a Second Reading and my case for it your approval. My Lords, I beg to move.

My Lords, the shortness of the Bill raised hopes that this might be a very short debate, but the noble Lord who has just sat down has obviously devoted a great deal of time and attention to his speech as he has devoted a great deal of time and attention to writing and speaking on these subjects, and one sympathises with his viewpoint. But I am bound to say that when I received the Bill and the supporting memorandum, two questions came to my mind: first, was the Bill really necessary; and, secondly, was it wise? I must say that my tentative answer to both questions was, no; but I believe that I listened with an open mind today to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, to see whether he could persuade me to the contrary. I must say that following a speech in which one learnt, very interestingly, the history of the development of slaughterhouses in this country, I simply cannot see the need for the Bill.

We are today a multicultural society, and that sense of multiculture is reflected in, among other things, the exceptions provided in the consolidated Slaughterhouses Act 1974, which the noble Lord has quoted. As he rightly pointed out, we had very early on recognised the distinctive Jewish view of slaughter, and in time we came to acknowledge a similar view as Mohammedans, though in a different way, of course. Therefore, we expected those two minority cultures (as they were) within our community from the requirement of our Slaughterhouses Act, and it seems to me that it was a very sensible thing to do.

Since that time no doubt the Mohammedan element in our community has grown a good deal, and it is likely to grow more in the future. They have their own slaughterhouses in different parts of the country, and I cannot see that they would need, or that there would ever be a case for saying they would have to have, a planning permission distinct and separate from that usually obtained for normal slaughterhouses. After all, a Mohammedan slaughterhouse or a Jewish slaughterhouse has to be licensed, and is open to inspection in exactly the same way as is one of our slaughterhouses. A Mohammedan or Jewish slaughterhouse is not itself physically different; what are different are the provisions for the slaughter.

When I ask myself the question, is the Bill necessary? it seems to me that the RSPCA and the noble Lord would be much keener on animals being slaughtered in licensed slaughterhouses in this country and exported as carcases, rather than their being exported live. That is what I have understood their viewpoint has always been. Whereas we in the West may disapprove of the Jewish method of slaughter or the Mohammedan method of slaughter, and if it was left to our personal choice, no doubt we would resort to and advocate the pre-stunning method, is it not much better to have the animals that are exported to those countries exported in carcase form, having been slaughtered in this country according to the cultural ritual?

The noble Lord is well aware of the fact that these days a number of people have raised the question that he did not wish to deal with—I am not criticising him for not dealing with it—of whether the pre-stunning method is in fact as painless a method as we in this country have accepted it to be. Grave doubts have been expressed on that matter.

It appears to me that, with the development within our country of very considerable minority cultures of this kind—they have the throughput in their abattoirs, as we have in ours—in a way it is inevitable that an export trade would develop. I imagine that the export trade is relatively small, probably quite small, and it seems to me that on balance it is wise not to interfere; I do not think that it is necessary to do so. From our point of view in this country, holding the views that the majority of us hold, it is probable that we would like to see our sheep slaughtered in licensed slaughterhouses here, rather than exported live.

My Lords, I have listened with interest and sympathy to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, supporting a good cause, as usual, and doing it with his customary vigour and enthusiasm. Let me say immediately that when we fasten our minds on it, the whole subject of slaughterhouses is inevitably distressing, however the animals are killed. I can well remember years ago being conducted around the Chicago stockyards. That made a tremendous impact on my mind, and as a result of it I seriously considered becoming a vegetarian because, as all of us do, I dislike seeing animals killed and animals in large numbers being prepared to be killed. This is a very unattractive, horrid subject. Of course, the logic of vegetarianism is such that if you are really to succeed, you would have to give up drinking milk or eating eggs. You cannot have milk without slaughtering bobby calves, you cannot have eggs without slaughtering the day-old cockerels, and therefore you would be very restricted in your way of life. I think that we in the Western world in the main are not prepared to face that.

However, I sympathise with the noble Lord in his interest and his concern to try to reduce pain and suffering in the slaughterhouse. I make the point solidly that anyone who knows anything about a slaughterhouse knows that it is a very unattractive place, however the animals are killed, however carefully they are killed.

The noble Lord inveighed against the records of past Governments. But the fact today is that slaughterhouses are carefully controlled, they are licensed and inspected by local authorities, and if anything is wrong or incorrect in terms of hygiene or practice, it is very quickly picked up and corrected. If it is not, the slaughterhouse would lose its licence. So the general conditions today are such that we can at least be sure that this business is done as efficiently and humanely as possible.

But there is the exception for the domestic market, for domestic consumption, which the noble Lord accepts, of ritual slaughter for the Jewish community and the Moslem community. He accepts—and I think the noble Lord is quite right to do so, in the attitude of tolerance which is common to all of us— that these religious communities have strong feelings about these methods, and therefore these exceptions should be allowed although they conflict somewhat with our own ideas about the most humane way of slaughtering.

The noble Lord's point is solely to deal with the export of animals slaughtered by the ritual process—in other words, without stunning—and this is, as he rightly says, mainly concerned with the Moslem community, because there is not much export that I know of for the Jewish community. I understand there is already a significant trade, as the noble Lord has said, in the export to North Africa and to the Middle East of animals that have been ritually slaughtered; and, of course, inevitably certain slaughterhouses arc tending to concentrate on this particular demand. But the logic of prohibition (which the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, has already picked up) would be that these countries are still going to get supplies of meat, and, therefore, if the animals are to come from here, they would have to be exported live, and the export of live animals, however well it is done, is a pretty rough business.

However well they are shipped, it is a miserable business for the animals; and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, would not wish to see that. If these animals are going to be slaughtered, they are much better off to be slaughtered here, they really are. To condemn them to being shipped abroad, spending several days in a ship—not a very good ship, as a rule—is really adding to their suffering; it is certainly not reducing it. Alternatively, the countries concerned may be able to get their supplies from somewhere else, but, again, the overall degree of pain and suffering for the animals involved will not be reduced. So the logic here is that the noble Lord's admirable purpose of reducing pain and suffering for animals, if they are to be slaughtered for human consumption, is not going to be achieved; it is only going to be diverted to some extent, and possibly, indeed, it could be increased.

I am sure the noble Lord, with his great experience of public administration, sees the logic of these arguments. It really is irrefutable. The noble Lord makes the point that the law did not intend to provide the exception for an export market. Even if that argument were sound—and the Act says nothing about it either way—it is a natural development in the world as it is today, with supplies of all sorts moving freely about, that a certain amount of this ritually-slaughtered meat should go for export. I do not think there is any great vested interest involved that I know of; it is just a normal movement of trade.

So much for the arguments. But if there is a case here, which the noble Lord has made out, that the trade is growing to an extent that is causing serious local disturbance, would it not be better to wait for the report of the Farm Animal Welfare Council, who are studying the whole question of the operation of slaughterhouses and will he reporting, I understand, next year? Then we shall have an expert, objective report before us which would help to guide us as to whether new legislation is needed, whether some restriction or some control should be established here. This new creation, the Farm Animal Welfare Council—and I congratulate my noble friend and his right honourable colleagues on setting it up—is a valuable body set up to cover just such sensitive, difficult problems as this. I would have thought that the right plan for all of us in dealing with this particular matter is not to legislate in a hurry now but to wait until we have all the facts before us, and then we can decide whether legislation is really needed.

It is normally the practice of this House, and certainly my own personal inclination, to give a Second Reading to a Private Member's Bill so that it can go to a Committee. But, here, this simple one-clause Bill does only one thing, and that is to prohibit the export of these ritually-slaughtered animals. I just cannot agree with that: there is simply not the evidence to support it at present. When we know that we are going to get an expert report in the next year or less—and perhaps my noble friend will be able to tell us when we shall get it—surely the right thing to do is not to proceed with this Bill but to wait until we get that report and then look at the matter again. I most earnestly hope that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will not press the Second Reading of this Bill to a Division, because I am afraid that if he does I shall have to go in the opposite Lobby to his.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he agree with me that the real evil of all slaughtering is not the act of slaughter but the driving of an animal, which has been happy on a farm for two or three years, perhaps, into a lorry, out of a lorry and on to a queue at the end of which animals are being killed, whether after being stunned or by being turned upside down and having their throats cut? The last stage is a 15-second affair. The thing which is really bad is the whole process leading up to it, whether it is done after stunning or by ritual slaughter.

Yes, my Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. Having been a farmer for most of my life, I accept that farming is a process of creating life and destroying it. The process of sending animals to market, whether they be chickens, pigs or whatever they are, is an odious one; but it is part of the process of feeding the community, and one has to accept it. It is the total process, and especially when the animals are being driven into the slaughterhouses, which is most objectionable. I sympathise with the noble Lord; I feel just the same about it. On the other hand, if we need to eat meat to keep alive one has to accept the logic of it.

My Lords, this is a very short and simple Bill, but, I feel, a very necessary one. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, questions whether it is necessary. I take exactly the opposite view. It has become necessary, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, because of changing circumstances. The export of these ritually-slaughtered animals has increased enormously; and I do not think that it is right that animals that have been slaughtered by, after all, a method which we allow only on tolerance should be exported for the sake of money-making.

As to the question of pre-stunning and the Moslem method, there is some uncertainty as to whether or not the Moslems object to pre-stunning. Some years ago, I remember, the Imam of Woking said that they had no objection to it at all. I think that is worth looking into if we wish to go on exporting this meat. Possibly we could make some regulation by which only pre-stunned carcasses were sent. But, apart from that, I think this is highly necessary because there is no doubt that, human nature being what it is, the moment any opportunity for making money offers itself, conscience too often goes to the winds. I think that this is unfortunately one of those cases, and I therefore sincerely hope that the House will give this Bill a Second Reading.

My Lords, my first word must be one of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby for introducing this Bill. It is characteristic of him and of the many contributions he has made to this House. I think that perhaps he ought to be known as "Lord Houghton for Animal Welfare" Fifty years ago I was a member of an all-party delegation to examine the methods of slaughter. I think it was in the year 1930. I remember it as vividly as though it were yesterday. We saw both the gentile and the Jewish methods of slaughter. The gentile method was that of stabbing a calf in the neck. The animal writhed as though in pain for several minutes; but I was assured that the brain had been destroyed and that this writhing was only a physical reaction. I hope that that was true.

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord would wish to make it clear that that method is now entirely outlawed in this country.

My Lords, I was describing something that happened 50 years ago. The Jewish method was to push cattle into a barrel, the barrel to revolve, the beast's neck hanging out. The neck was then slit and the blood poured out. Both methods were utterly distasteful and we then recommended that there should be stunning of all animals before they were put to either of these two methods. Subsequent legislation agreed to that.

I do not think that there is any doubt, despite what has been said during this debate, that the original intention was that this method should apply universally. It was not applied to exports. This Bill quite generously recognises Jewish feelings on this matter and the feelings of the Mohammedans who have so largely grown in numbers in this country since those years; and it recognises that slaughter in this country both by the Jewish method and the Mohammedan method should be maintained. It also agrees that there should be no changes in methods of slaughter for animals for our dependencies and on aircraft and on ships. The concessions made in this Bill seem to me to be very generous.

May I say a word about the Mohammedan community, of which I have some knowledge. I would strongly urge that there should be discussions with the leaders of the Mohammedan community. I know for a fact that the most progressive elements in Islam accept the stunning method. These elements are very strong in North Africa, to which our exports very largely go. I believe that, in discussions with the Islamic community, it would be found that they would agree to the stunning method.

I want to express my appreciation for the introduction of this Bill; because it reflects my philosophy—could almost say my religion—and my belief in identity with all life and particularly with the animal kingdom so near to us in creative evolution. I have been a vegetarian for 75 years—and I think I am a pretty good advertisement for it. I think it indicates clearly that eating flesh is not necessary either for health or long life. I am not asking all of your Lordships to be converted to that belief, but I am asking you to support this Bill which will do so much to prevent cruelty to the animals who are slaughtered.

My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I intervene in this debate. My name is not on the list but the appropriate notice has been given to both Front Benches. I wonder whether, with your Lordships' usual tolerance, I may make a short intervention as a Member of your Lordships' House who is proud to be a member of the Jewish faith. I think that it is interesting that your Lordships should have such an intervention, especially after the speech that has just been made by a beloved figure among us, my noble friend Lord Brockway. He referred graphically, and, I am sure, quite truthfully, to something that he saw 50 years ago. I should hate your Lordships to be left with a feeling that the great faith of which your Lordships are the inheritors in many cases should have been indulging in something which looks like a cruel method of slaughter of animals. Kindness to animals and the removal of all threat of pain to animals has been and is a principle, and, indeed, a dogma, of my faith; for it is the faith that preached that if you find your enemy's ass or ox by the wayside and if it is overladen, it is your duty, even though that man is your enemy, to help the ox or ass and to see that it is not overladen.

My Lords, if I may say so, I object to the phrase "ritual slaughter" applied also to the method of slaughter which has been the ancestral tradition and doctrine of the Jewish faith. For example, I wonder how many of your Lordships know—and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Brockway wishes the House to be kept up to date—that before anybody is allowed to slaughter an animal according to the Jewish tradition, he has to have a period of training of some six years in order to ensure that he is skilled and that the method of slaughter is absolutely humane. I wonder whether your Lordships are aware—and I had to make this intervention after my noble friend's speech— that objective scientists, at the request of the Jewish community, have looked at their method of slaughter and that expert, independent and objective scientists have said that in their view it is the most humane method; and more humane—and this has been said—than pre-stunning which so often unfortunately results in mistakes being made before the animal is rendered unconscious so that the animal accordingly suffers a great deal.

My Lords, I made that intervention because I thought that I ought to. May I now turn to the Bill itself. Nobody who has known my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby can ever doubt his good intentions in regard to anything which deals with cruelty to animals. I found myself in some difficulty when reading this Bill to see the logicality of it. I wondered what people would feel who were reading this Bill outside the United Kingdom. It would look as though something which, it is inferred, is less than kind by way of a method of slaughter is permitted in the United Kingdom but that you dare not export—you have to use another method—to anywhere in the world apart from the dependent territories; meaning thereby that you have to be more considerate when exporting than when you are doing something in the United Kingdom. This seems to me to be somewhat of an illogicality.

The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, also referred to another matter which I think I ought to emphasise: all of us, if we show true tolerance and understanding of our fellow human beings, respect the genuine religious faith that they hold. I bow to nobody in this House in my respect for the Moslem religion which has existed for many centuries and has known many glorious eras of cultural gifts to the world and to civilisation.

It is a fact—and I utter this with that respect in my voice—that whereas one community, the Jewish community, has to have all this supervision within its faith, continual inspection of the slaughterers and their methods, insists upon the instruments that arc used being inspected at least once a year—but much more often during the year—and does have to be licensed under the Act by the Rabbinical authorities to see that all this happens, this is not at the moment a requisite of the Moslem community which now numbers something like 1½ million in this country today. I would have thought that it was sensible—but that has nothing to do with this Bill—to have discussions with the religious leaders of the Moslem community to see, among other things dealt with in the debate this afternoon, whether the similar situation of licensing by their own religious authorities and exercising supervision and care, should not take place within their midst as it does with such emphasis, control and care by the Jewish community.

Having said that, your Lordships will have realised thst I find myself somewhat out of sympathy with this Bill, but never out of sympathy with the principles which, quite obviously, encourage the noble Lord to bring the Second Reading before the House today.

My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful for the opportunity of hearing my noble friend Lord Mishcon, who has just spoken from a particular interest; also the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, to which I may refer a little later; and of course the noble Lord, Lord Somers, the brief intervention of the noble Lord. Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, and the comments of my noble friend Lord Brockway.

We have had a debate which so far has spread widely over the various interests concerned. The main tribute must go to my noble friend Lord Houghton for bringing the Bill forward and for the dedicated work which he has put in over many years in the field of animal welfare. Of course today we are dealing with a subject which can have very deep and emotive undertones because we recognise that any method of slaughter is distressing, for it must result in the death of an animal.

However, having said that, we have to recognise that it would be misleading and indeed unjust for it to be thought that those like my noble friend who are particularly identified with the work of animal welfare societies, are greater in their compassion. I am sure that he would be the first to say that the compassion he feels is shared with the industry, with the farmers, producers, processors and with the consumers. The whole nation is concerned about animal welfare. I recognise this because three years or so ago, when I was Minister of State for Agriculture, I had a phone call at my home in Newark at about 11 o'clock on a Saturday night. I was asked to go to Fishguard to rescue 900 animals which were on a stricken vessel which had caught fire and were knee-deep in water. I recognised then the concern that we all have and I was pleased to have that opportunity, although I would not have suggested at the time that going to Fishguard was the best way to spend a Saturday night. But we all have this concern.

What is required on these occasions is objectivity and clear thinking and at the same time being sensitive about the effects on animals. We must all seek to know and recognise what is likely to be cruel and what is not. This is a matter which has engaged the attention of Parliament and the nation for many years. I was rather doubting the assertion by my noble friend that we have a deplorable record of lack of concern for animals because over many years parliamentary debates and legislation have reflected a concern not only of MPs, Members of your Lordships' House and officials, but, as I said a moment ago, of a wide cross-section of our society, consumers and many others.

The matters which we now have in mind have been before Parliament between 1932 and last year. I think that my noble friend claimed that the measure passed in 1932, the first of the three Acts mentioned in the Bill, was designed to deal with a limited market of Jews and Moslems in this country. Mention has been made of others. It was not intended that the export trade generally should benefit from the concessions, as they were, of the three Acts which have been mentioned.

The Bill makes reference not only to the slaughter measure of 1932 but also of course to the most recent Act of 1980. So this House and the other place have considered the relevance of the conditions of the 1932 Act as recently as 1980 in a very different situation, as my noble friend has averred. It would be right to assert that there is a continuing concern. The factors which my noble friend has mentioned about the changing situation must have been taken into account last year when the Bill went through the various Committee stages in both Houses. So there have been reviews.

It would be misleading and wrong to claim that a lot of changes have been made, and Parliament and the nation have shown little concern. There was the 1964 Brambell Report; the report which Professor Roger Brambell issued to my noble friends Lord Peart and Lord Ross of Marnock, who respectively were Minister of Agriculture and Secretary of State for Scotland at the time. There were the recommendations of the 255-page report of the departmental committee on experiments on animals under the chairmanship of Sir Sydney Littlewood, which reported in 1965. That was not quite the matter that we are dealing with today but nevertheless was concerned with animal welfare. There was a review which led to the setting up of the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee which was the forerunner of the FAWC mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. That was set up in 1967. Later there was the Farm Animal Welfare Committee, as it became, in 1979, a body which is still active and to which I shall refer at the end of my comments.

Of course, there is the most recent report, the first report from the Agricultural Committee, Session 1980–81, on animal welfare in poultry, pig, veal and calf production. That is in two volumes. The minutes of evidence in Volume 2 alone cover 478 pages. That shows the extent of general concern for animals. I should like to stress—not only for your Lordships but also for the wider public—that successive Governments, Ministers and Members of both Houses have been very much concerned.

The present law requires the pre-stunning of food animals slaughtered in the United Kingdom. Exemptions are permitted on religious grounds, as we have been told, for Jews and Mohammedans. The RSPCA and my noble friend Lord Houghton assert that these exemptions were intended, as I said a moment ago, to meet the needs of the Jews and Mohammedan communities resident in the United Kingdom, but only resident in the United Kingdom, apart from the provisions for supplies to the associated territories and also for victualling on ships and aircraft. It has been said that no one envisaged at that time that, as they put it, the law would be exploited to allow the rapidly expanding export trade in carcases to the Middle East and North Africa.

There have been many reviews of the ritual slaughter laws since that of 1932, referred to in the Bill. There were reviews of the Acts in and 1974 and the most recent was in 1980; so we have been very much aware of the changing circumstances and we have been sensitive to the problems and needs of animal welfare aspects which are so important.

I mentioned a moment ago the Farm Animal Welfare Committee. It is important that the House should be aware that we have a standing committee which is in session all the time, looking at these matters. We do not depend upon matters coming before Parliament for various reasons owing to great gaps in sensitivity and lack of concern. There is a continuing concern. The advisory committee was set up in 1967 and one of the recommendations of the Brambell Committee was that a statutory Farm Animal Advisory Committee should be set up to advise Ministers. That was done in July 1967 with the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee established by the agriculture Ministers in Great Britain to advise them on matters pertaining to the welfare of livestock on agricultural land.

In 1979 the Government felt that a different kind of body with wider terms of reference and with a membership which would equip it to deal with farm animal welfare matters over a much wider range should be formed. There was therefore established, in July 1979, the Farm Animal Welfare Council and the Council's advisory body, whose members are appointed by the Ministers on the basis of individual merit and suitability, who have a wide range of private interests and a common desire to improve the welfare of farm animals. So there is this important body and I shall be making a recommendation regarding that at the conclusion of my remarks.

The Farm Animal Welfare Council is staffed by 23 members, I believe, and they include a wide range of people—a professor of anatomy, a farmer of 3,000 acres of hill land, a director of a company of nutrition consultants, a management consultant, the chief veterinary officer of the RSPCA, dairy farmers, the principal of the West of Scotland Agricultural College, a director of the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, a writer and lecturer on animal welfare, a partner in a veterinary practice, an executive director of the RSPCA since 1978—and one could go on. These are the people with a watching brief, a constant concern and the ability to report to Ministers on aspects about which the House should know.

I want to comment on the Bill, because I think it would he helpful to my noble friend when he winds up to reply to questions which may be engaging the minds of some noble Lords and indeed of those who have spoken. The Bill includes the restriction that animals ritually slaughtered in the United Kingdom should be for food for Jews and Mohammedans respectively for consumption in the United Kingdom. The food would he also for consumption in British dependent territories. These include, as I am sure your Lordships know—here I am indebted to Schedule 6 to the British Nationality Act which was passed only a few weeks ago—Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, the Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Hong Kong, and so on. These are the territories to which the Bill says meat can go. I will not read the full list.

Clearly we have to ask the question: why cannot this meat go into the EEC? I should like to ask the Minister when he replies to say whether there are any difficulties about banning exports of ritually-slaughtered meat from this country to the EEC and to other countries, except for British dependent territories, although we can import meat which has been so slaughtered from other places. Perhaps we might be told why it can be sent to Bermuda but not to Brussels, to the Falkland Islands and not to France and to the Cayman Islands and not to the Commonwealth. These are genuine questions which require some answer, and it would be helpful if my noble friend could say why he has restricted the area of exports. Clearly he is anxious that the range of export areas should not be extended beyond what was originally intended, despite the fact that the House considered the matter as recently as 1980, and to ascertain whether we are right in saying that we can ban inter-Community trade in this way.

Obviously when one mentions trade and exports one ought to be quite clear about any action that is not in conformity with animal welfare requirements as laid down; I am sure we would all say that this is not justified by what is thought desirable from a financial, economic or trade point of view. My noble friend made it quite clear in his introduction of the Bill, I think, that he was not claiming that ritual slaughter was a second-rate method of slaughter. He was fair enough to say that he would not like to make comparisons between one form of slaughter and another. Certainly, I, having been a Minister myself and visited abattoirs and slaughterhouses, have—and I think I speak for all of us—a dislike for any sort of slaughter in any way. I think that my noble friend claims—and many of us would agree—that this ritual method of slaughter is not in any way less humane than any other, but having accepted the principle that that is so, but would claim that we should nevertheless restrict the area to which the meat goes.

It is difficult to see that is wrong regarding the extent to which these principles are put into practice. We have to ask ourselves several questions. For example, is it possible to restrict ritually-slaughtered animals to the food of Jews and Mohammedans only? Is it possible or desirable to restrict the consumption to those two groups within the United Kingdom and the British Dependent Territories, and the categories mentioned in the Bill, ships and aircarft being victualled in the United Kingdom, and not to export elsewhere? Also, if we do export to those areas in the British Dependent Territories, how can we be sure that the meat sent is not taken to a depot there and then exported somewhere else, so that the aim of the measure is reduced or defeated?

Another question on which I hope the Minister will comment is whether we can apparently flout our obligations to the EEC by not exporting to Community countries. And another question concerns our own export trade. I believe that the noble Lords, Lord Hooson and Lord Nugent, asked whether, if we are not going to export ritually-slaughtered animals generally, the markets we are at present supplying would be filled by other people. While I would have some confidence about the enforcement of methods in this country, over which we have control, one may raise a query about the way in which slaughtering is done by any method in some other countries. When it comes to the export of animals, if you are not going to export carcases in any form, then the alternative is to supply those markets to which we formerly exported with live animals. I mentioned just now my experience on a Saturday night, when 900 cattle were awash off Fishguard on their way to another country—albeit not from this country—and the conditions under which cattle sometimes have to travel. So there is that point about whether we export live cattle and the conditions of slaughter when they get to their destination.

There is also the query about what will be the effect on our slaughterhouses. We all know that the abattoirs and slaughterhouses in this country are, indeed, facing what the Farmers' Weekly called last week "bleak prospects" They said:

Britain's slaughtering industry is plunging deeper into crisis and plant closures are inevitable".

I want to say, once again, that if the method is wrong there is justification for concern here. But this is not so, because the principle of slaughter has generally been accepted. However, it can have a very serious effect upon our own industry.

I pose these questions, because my noble friends on this side of the House will be voting as they think fit. For my part, before finally deciding, I should like to have the comments of my noble friend and the observations of the Minister on some of these questions which are relevant to this situation. Having tried to put the "pros" and "cons"—and my noble friend has put the "pros" very well, indeed—so that the House may consider most of the facts, I want also to be constructive, because, if the House does not give the Bill a Second Reading, I should like to think that there is no void or vacuum in which our concern can float around, or whatever it does in vacuums. We should certainly like to know that that was not the end and that there were some alternatives which we could press for.

I referred at length to the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which is in business all the time and is continually reviewing matters of animal welfare. I should like to suggest that they might look at this matter. I understand that the Farm Animal Welfare Council has been conducting a three stage review of Welfare at animal slaughterhouses. The first, a study of poultry slaughterhouses, has been completed and a report was submitted to the Minister of State on 23rd October, which I understand should be published in the new year. Secondly, a study of slaughterhouses for red meat animals is at an early stage and a report will be submitted to the Minister in due course—probably, in the second half of 1982.

Of most relevance and importance is the fact that the council will, subsequently, make recommendations relating to the provisions for ritual slaughter of both poultry and red meat animals. Here is something which I am sure the whole House will agree should be a matter for review and, indeed, the council have already taken it on board. But there are also one or two other points on which we ought to check. Apart from the fact that this would enable the FAWC to have regard to the objectives of the Bill, and to the concern expressed by everyone here and, I am sure, by many outside, we ought to have a look at some of the points raised by noble Lords here today.

Instead of extending present legislation, it might be better to see how the existing legislation can he improved. I have in mind the need to consider whether licensing should be introduced and enforced for both Jewish and Mohammedan methods of slaughter. My noble friend Lord Mishcon made a point about the six years' qualification for anyone concerned with Jewish slaughter. He could have said much more about the smoothness of the instruments, and the methods used and actions taken to ensure that unnecessary pain and suffering are not experienced. So we need to look at the possibility of licensed operators and to carry out discussions not only with Jewish authorities, but with Moslems as well. I am sure that they would co-operate on this and, if the Moslems did not demand the exact methods of ritual slaughter and were prepared to accept pre-stunning, that would take away some of the force of my noble friend's argument.

There might be a need for a wider commission, such as the Rabbinical Commission which is so concerned with Jewish slaughter. Another aspect which needs looking at is the matter of checks and inspections and the enforcement of legislation, because it is no good having any legislation unless there is enforcement of it. It may well be that some of the so-called cuts in public spending can be a greater threat to animal welfare, it adequate checks are not made and that is what we shall be pressing for as an early priority.

I apologise to noble Lords for saying so much, and there is still more that one could say. But those are some of the questions which will be engaging the minds of noble Lords as we wind-up this debate, and am sure that my noble friend will have an opportunity of making comments then. I have asked certain questions. I have put forward what, I hope, are constructive proposals in order to allow my noble friend Lord Houghton to satisfy our doubts. We do not, of course. doubt the motives behind the Bill, which are to ensure the greatest safeguard for animals well-being, and which we all share. I hope that my suggestions will bring more organisations into the wider discussion under the umbrella of the FAWC or, if necessary, by other means.

As I am speaking for the opposition, I will say that my noble friends will vote as they think fit, but I think that they will be helped by replies to some of the points that I have raised. I am sure that they would wish me to end by thanking my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby for the service which he has, again, given to us and to the nation. If as a result of this Bill, whether it receives a Second Reading or not, some on-going action can follow from the suggestions which I and other noble Lords have made. that will he to the benefit of animals generally.

My Lords, we have listened this evening to a number of most interesting speeches on what is a very sensitive subject. One never ceases to learn things when one listens to your Lordships' debates, and one of the things one learned this afternoon was that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. has been a vegetarian for some 75 years. The noble Lord is a unique and remarkable example of many things, and, indeed, he is a remarkable example of the efficacy of the diet of the vegetarian. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is in his place, too, and he is also a remarkable example of a great many things. Whether he is, with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, also an example of the efficacy of the diet of the vegetarian, I would not know. But the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, nevertheless, said that he would not necessarily wish to inflict—if that is the right word—the diet upon others.

It comes with little surprise to me that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, decided to introduce this Bill, because it is very similar to a Bill which he introduced in the last Session, but which we did not have the advantage of debating. This is another example of the deep and commendable concern which I know the noble Lord has for the welfare of animals, and which he has demonstrated on a great many occasions. I hope that, when I come to outline the Government's attitude on this matter, I shall not be considered as criticising in any way the motives of the noble Lord or those who share his views.

I agreed so much with my noble friend Lord Nugent, when he said that nobody likes slaughterhouses, whatever the method. This is abundantly true. I recently visited a very modern slaughterhouse, which was efficient, clean and humane. I did not enjoy the experience and am bound to say that I did not enjoy my lunch afterwards. But I should like to emphasise at the outset that the Government are concerned that proper measures should be taken to safeguard the welfare of animals. That is why, shortly after we took office, as the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, said, we set up the Farm Animal Welfare Council in order that the Government should receive independent and expert advice on a wide range of animal welfare issues. One of the issues which they are considering is welfare at the place of slaughter. This report will be taken into account when it is published.

The question of practices in red meat slaughterhouses is now being considered by the council. It is clearly an important question and the Government will give most careful consideration to any recommendations which the council may make. I am sure that as part of their review the council will be considering the provisions in the slaughterhouse legislation which relate to the use of religious slaughter methods. When the council have completed their report on the subject, your Lordships may well wish to give it further consideration. I would therefore make the general comment—I agree with my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford—that in the light of this review which is being undertaken by the Farm Animal Welfare Council this is not perhaps the most opportune of moments to be considering amendments to this particular form of legislation.

The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, asked whether I knew full well the controversy which is generated by the legislation which permits animals to be slaughtered by religious methods, subject of course to the avoidance of unnecessary suffering which is part of the legislation. No one who holds a ministerial responsibility for agriculture could fail to be aware of that controversy, and I acknowledge it. I know, too, that many people hold sincerely to the view that slaughter by these methods without prior stunning involves more suffering than other methods. Equally I know that to many members of the Moslem and Jewish faiths the tenets of their religion make stunning before slaughter unacceptable.

It is not particularly appropriate today to embark on a discussion of the extent of the suffering which may or may not be involved in the religious methods. It is enough to record that there is a divergence of view and of interest. I would only say that when it has discussed the problem in the past Parliament has always taken the view that the evidence on the question of possible suffering is inconclusive, and that in the interests of religious tolerance the right to use the religious method should be available to those communities who require it. The law of course specifically requires that no unnecessary suffering should be caused to animals which are slaughtered in this way. In those circumstances, I would ask your Lordships to consider whether there would be sufficient justification for altering these provisions relating to slaughtering methods which over the years have been found to be broadly acceptable.

It is, I believe, relevant to make these general comments on the question of religious slaughter even though the Bill will prevent these methods being used only when the meat is for export from the United Kingdom. But I have little doubt that if Parliament were to accept the principle of the amendments which this Bill seeks to make to our present law it would be seen to be expressing a view on the desirability of religious slaughter in general. This would, I believe, be regarded with alarm by the religious groups concerned in this country, even though they may not themselves be affected by the ban on exports.

It would also be asked—and this is indeed a pertinent question to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, addressed himself—why Parliament had concluded that religious slaughter was all right if the meat was for consumption in this country but all wrong if the meat were going for export. It is, in logic, a non sequitur. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is trying to secure amendments to the law which he believes have a chance of being accepted even though they do not go as far as he himself would wish. I commend him for this. It is a reflection upon his substantial political and parliamentary experience. But the fact remains that the discrimination which the noble Lord seeks to make in his Bill boils down to the ultimate destination of the meat. In reality and in logic, the religious slaughter should be either acceptable or unacceptable. The ultimate destination of the meat should, I suggest, be immaterial.

It would in some ways be curious if Parliament were to permit animals to be slaughtered by this method, controversial though it may be, in order to satisfy the legitimate requirements of those who hold certain religious affiliations, but yet to confine such products to the United Kingdom only and to prevent us supplying them to those of a similar faith who live outside the United Kingdom. In terms of global animal welfare—and presumably it is animal welfare which is the motivating force behind the Bill—it achieves nothing. The same number of animals in total will be subjected to ritual slaughter, whether or not this Bill becomes law. The only difference is that if it does become law the slaughtering will take place in different countries, with possibly less strict hygiene and enforcement procedures than we have.

It may be helpful to refer to the provisions of the licensing of slaughterhouses and slaughtermen, because this is important. Under the Slaughterhouses Act 1974, no private slaughterhouse may be operated without a local authority licence. Provided that the local authority are satisfied that various requirements, notably the provisions of the regulations of 1977 concerned with slaughterhouse hygiene are met, or will be within a reasonable period, they are obliged to issue a licence to any applicant. No special or additional licence is required for a slaughterhouse in which religious slaughter is to take place. in addition, all slaughtermen must hold a valid licence which is issued by a local authority under the Act. To obtain such a licence a slaughterman must he at least 18 years of age and be, in the opinion of the local authority, a fit and proper person to hold one. A Moslem slaughter-man requires only the normal licence, although Jewish slaughtermen must also be licensed by the Rabbinical Commission. A licence may be refused if the applicant has failed to comply with any conditions of a previous licence or has been convicted of certain offences relating to the humane treatment or slaughter of animals.

The noble Lord, Lord Somers, and the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, thought that stunning ought to be acceptable as part of ritual slaughter. It would be inappropriate for me to comment upon whether or not that is suitable from the point of view of those who hold certain religious faiths, but my understanding is that the Jewish opposition to stunning is based on the view, handed down from the early prophets, that an animal must be alive and healthy and have suffered no injury at the time of slaughter. Some Moslem groups, but not all, also believe that stunning is inconsistent with their religious beliefs, as handed down in the Koran.

If we were to accept this Bill, I am bound to tell your Lordships that amending the law in this way would be likely to lead to considerable difficulties of enforcement. In order to enforce the provisions effectively it would be necessary to keep a track of all meat which is produced by religious methods as opposed to more conventional methods after it had left the slaughterhouse in order to ensure that it was not exported. This would be particularly difficult in view of the fact that each local authority is responsible for enforcing the slaughterhouse legislation in its own area, and it is not at all clear that local authorities would have the resources available for enforcing adequately this additional piece of legislation.

The noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, asked whether we would be in conflict with the European Community law if this Bill came into operation. I am bound to tell your Lordships that we would be in some considerable difficulty in relation to the European Community law if these amendments were passed because they would be held, or they could be held, to constitute a restriction on exports of a kind which is prohibited by Article 34 of the Treaty of Rome.

This is of course a Private Member's Bill and the House must make up its own mind about it. I have merely endeavoured to explain to your Lordships the difficulties which the Government see if this Bill were to become law. I hope that your Lordships will take account of the reservations I have expressed together with all the other relevant factors which your Lordships will doubtless wish to consider when coming to a judgment on the Bill.

My Lords, I am very grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It is, of course, a difficult subject, but somebody has to deal with difficult subjects if they are important in the minds of the public. There is not the slightest doubt that, up and down the country, this matter is becoming of increasing concern and of increasing controversy. Far from being inopportune, it is probably opportune for your Lordships' House to consider a state of affairs which, if it is allowed to continue, will only get worse. I am afraid that this is my considered judgment after studying this matter very closely.

The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said he did not think this Bill was necessary, or at least he questioned whether it was necessary. When is it necessary to check something which in the opinion of many is a misuse of statute law? When is that point reached? When the alleged loophole gets too big to ignore? When public opinion is too restive to be quietened by indifference? How does one define the point of necessity? I think that is a matter of judgment, and I would say that the longer that some of these loopholes are allowed to continue the more difficult it is to close them without serious harm to considerable vested interests.

This position has not developed so far that it would be really difficult to impose this curb upon the export trade. Of course, if the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, is aware, as I am sure he must be, of what has been going on in the Isle of Anglesey regarding the slaughterhouse there, he will know that if the compromise reached in the Isle of Anglesey prevailed generally where these slaughterhouses are being set up, there would be no need for this Bill. In the Isle of Anglesey, although the local authority lacks the statutory powers, it has written into the licence a condition that pre-stunning shall be observed in that slaughterhouse. That condition has been voluntarily accepted by the meat company concerned. The local authority realise that they have no means of statutory enforcement of the condition they have written into the licence and which the meat packing company has accepted. This is the uneasy state of affairs, when a compromise has to be reached with no enforcement on one side and purely voluntary acceptance on the other, and the matter rests on mutual good will and confidence. Even that would be better than continuing the situation elsewhere, where exports are going on, much to local indignation, of animals which have not been pre-stunned.

I have all the papers here about the Isle of Anglesey case. I have here the papers about the Belfast case, where the meat company said that they were unable to get customers in Libya to accept pre-stunning. The Belfast City Council, after inspecting the slaughterhouse, decided that they would invoke in the licence the condition that no contracts were to be accepted unless pre-stunning of the animals was agreed to. There is another arrangement, which was come to by the local authority and the meat company. If we had this Bill on the statute book, it would regularise much that is being attempted in these various areas at the present time.

If this Bill is given a Second Reading, I believe that it will have a very favourable influence upon conditions and negotiations now taking place between local authorities and meat companies in different areas. I believe it would also give a reassurance to many of the objectors locally who feel that, without pre-stunning, they cannot accept the intrusion into their local environments of a large-scale method of slaughter which they find unacceptable. This Bill would have a favourable influence on those discussions and negotiations. If your Lordships were to reject the Second Reading of this Bill, I believe it would seriously prejudice the discussions which are taking place in different parts of the country at the present time. I believe that for your Lordships to express an opinion on this matter in the sense of this Bill would be of great advantage in overcoming some of the difficulties which are still going on locally.

When I am asked to wait for something I say, "Wait for what, and for how long?" This is now an ongoing thing. Every month brings a fresh application because the slaughterhouses are there and the trade is increasing. There is big money in it. This trade is in the hands of half a dozen people. These are not just little slaughterhouses serving the local community; they are not that kind of business at all. We are talking about big business and the export trade to the Middle East and to North Africa. Exports to the EEC are not in it—they are not in it! They are all going to Libya and to the North African and Middle East countries. I do ask your Lordships to pause before regarding this Bill as unacceptable in principle at this particular moment. I think that it would be a very bad day for us if we were to reject the principle of this Bill. No one has challenged my contention that Parliament never intended nor envisaged this situation right throughout the piece, for the simple reason that this development is so recent. It really stems from the time when the Middle East countries acquired new wealth and were able to go abroad for increased standards of living which they felt they should have.

I listened carefully to the reference made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers to the Farm Animal Welfare Council. Unless I am wrong, and the Minister can correct me if I am, what will not be referred to the Farm Animal Welfare Council is the principle of the exceptions granted in a statute law ever since 1928, to the Jewish and Mohammedan communities in this country. That is so fundamental to them on religious grounds that I am quite sure no Farm Animal Welfare Council would be given a reference to re-examine the exceptions. I think the Farm Animal Welfare Council might well examine the point I mentioned in the course of my speech earlier; namely, the qualifications of the slaughterers who are allowed to slaughter according to the Mohammedan method. I pointed out that the stringency of the conditions imposed by the Jewish community upon their slaughterers does not find any comparable standards of qualifications in the Mohammada slaughterers. That could well be referred to the Farm Animal Welfare Council. But make no mistake about it, the principle that I am dealing with, the principle that we have put in the legislation since 1928, will not be tampered with by the Farm Animal Welfare Council—it is too important, too controversial, too political. So, with great respect, I do not think we need wait for the Farm Animal Welfare Council to deal with any matter which relates to the vital point of the exceptions.

The Minister said that there is the element of discrimination between the exception methods of slaughter and the statutory method of slaughter when one decides to impose a condition according to the destination of the meat; he says that it is the destination of the meat that brings in this discriminatory restriction upon the ritual slaughter method. He is applying the logic which I am sure prevails in his department on a subject to which logic was never applied in the first place and to which logic cannot be applied now. It was not logic that granted these exceptions; it was the violence that would have been done to religious opinion had they been withheld. It was knowing that the tolerance of the British people towards communities of other persuasions required that every respect should be paid to their religious views and practices. And that is a feature of British administration. That was conceded in all the circumstances, and for the numbers that were involved; it was conceded as being fair and reasonable and making for social harmony. Had there been 20 halal slaughterhouses in Britain at that time Parliament would have had to take a different view. I do not believe that these concessions would have been granted in the circumstances they were had today's conditions prevailed then. This is a development out of earlier conditions which was never contemplated, and I think we are as free to deal with what we find now as they were to deal with what they found then.

I do not apply logic to this. I apply judgment. political judgment related to the condition of the British people, our problems of a so-called multiracial society. our desire to have harmonious relations with communities not of our religious faith or of our culture. And here there has to he give and take; there has to be reciprocity. There have to be concessions to one deeply felt opinion and concessions to another deeply felt opinion. That is what this Bill is about. It is little to ask, if it is permissible, as I suggest it is, that where pre-stunning is permissible it should be observed, because that is the law of England. And if the British people desire to impose a modified exception in certain circumstances, none is going to say that is discrimination, surely, and none is going to say that it is unreasonable either. That again is what this Bill is about.

The question has been raised of whether, if there were no restraint upon exports, animals would be exported live. I must say that the Bill does not restrain anything if the pre-stunning condition is acceptable; that is the issue here. If the law of the land can be observed in regard to exports. no matter whether they are ritually slaughtered or not, then that applies to everybody and there is no discrimination. But if animals were not to he exported dead on account of the conditions of this Bill, would they be exported live? Where to? Noble Lords know that licences are necessary for the export of live food animals for slaughter or for further fattening. The question of their destination arises again. I hope it is not suggested that we should go the way of Australia. and convert oil tankers into sheep transports with 20,000 and 30,000 sheep on board for a trip to the Middle East. I hope that is not being suggested as the likely alternative to the modest conditions of this Bill. When one from New Zealand caught fire with about 20,000 sheep on board that disaster was so appalling to the New Zealanders that they decided not to do it again. Was that discrimination or just plain commonsense and humanity?

I do not myself regard the exporting of animals live to the Middle East as a serious proposition. I have taken as firm a stand as anybody on curbing the transport of live animals across the Channel to Europe, and I am not for a single moment willing to lend myself to any measure which I thought would increase that trade. But as for the conditions in our own slaughterhouses, I hope noble Lords bear in mind that the transport of live animals to Europe in the first instance was due to the American judgment that our slaughterhouses were not good enough for them. Live animals were exported to Europe to meet the needs of the American troops in Europe and they did not like the look of our slaughterhouses. So that we cannot really say that by exporting animals live they will necessarily have a worse condition of slaughterhouse there than they would have here. However, I do not think that that is an alternative which we need seriously consider. I profoundly hope the Government would not feel that if eventually a Bill of this kind were passed they would be obliged to open up the export of animals live from this country to the Middle East.

The question of enforcement has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, and by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. There are difficulties about enforcement of the law as it is; there is no doubt about that. We have to do our best with it. There would be difficulties of enforcement because there might be difficulties of identity. But bear in mind, my Lords, that local authorities are already reaching agreement with the meat companies in certain areas on exactly the lines of this Bill. So they are evidently going to overcome problems of enforcement. What they are going to do is to rely on the integrity of those with whom they have reached agreement. So I think enforcement difficulties will be no greater here than they are at the present time. I do not want to go into a lot of detail about what the difficulties of enforcement are now, but there are obviously some, and anybody who knows anything about it knows what they are. My noble friend Lord Bishopston cannot, I think, have been at the party meeting when I explained this Bill.

I was.

I am afraid I did not think his long speech very helpful. Anyway, I must not grumble about my Front Bench. He raised the question of why the British dependent territories are in the Bill. It is a quite simple explanation. There is a small export trade of kosher meat to Gibraltar and it seemed to me that a satisfactory way of dealing with that was to include in the Bill an exception for British dependent territories.

Well, there we are. I think I must ask your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading. It is so important a matter and the crisis is so closely upon us at present that I think your Lordships should register an opinion upon the principle of the Bill. I think that, for good or ill, your Lordships' judgment is called for and I sincerely hope that it will be for good, because I believe that the message that this House could send out this afternoon to all concerned would be of great benefit to them in the difficult public attitudes and negotiations which lie ahead on individual cases up and down the country. Therefore, I hope profoundly that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.

rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the allegations that the Government of Libya is promoting assassinations outside Libya contained in the "Panorama" programme "Trading in Terror", broadcast on BBC on 23rd November.

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Paget, on that distinguished speech which was delivered with his customary skill. I agreed very much with the general tenor of his remarks. It has been a well worthwhile exercise on his part to raise this subject after the Panorama programme, which received such wide publicity, had raised the points with which he dealt. This subject has been raised many times before. There have been hints in various aspects of the media about it, but there had been no definite contribution to prove what had been going on until the Panorama programme was produced.

It appears, as the noble Lord pointed out, that there is a network of terrorism operating throughout the world. It seems to be a fairly loose network, because while there are interrelated factors and connected ones, there does not seem to be a centrally controlled operation, for not only are the terrorists' activities separate and operated in different directions and for different reasons, but there appears to be no link to tie them together. Notwithstanding that, there seems to be a thread running through the operations with a central organisation for training terrorists, recruiting operators and distributing arms and equipment and so on.

It appears—this was confirmed by Panorama—that the Libyans are centrally effective and may even be the kernel of the operation. What is not clear to the ordinary person like myself, who is dependent for the most part on what he reads in the newspapers, is who is involved and what exactly is going on. I propose therefore to put my remarks very much in the form of questions, in the hope that my noble friend Lord Trefgarne will be able in some degree to provide answers.

For instance, how much inter-relationship is there between the IRA and the Libyans? The noble Lord, Lord Paget, drew attention to this aspect, but how far does it go? Is it the provision of arms, training and equipment, or is there even greater co-operation? Do they work together, for instance, in attacks on and murders of British diplomats abroad, attacks on our embassies and on our politicians at home? What relationship has there been with the Welsh Nationalists? I understand that before the referendum on possible independence there was some contact between the Welsh Nationalists and the Libyan authorities. I wonder whether that came to anything or indeed whether that relationship still continues.

There have been attacks on Arabs and dissident Libyans in this country without significant results in arresting them. Was the murder of the Bulgarian journalist by means of an umbrella part of one of these operations? I believe he was not the only person in that department of the BBC to meet a premature end. Are such activities controlled or assisted by Libyans operating here or further afield? These are questions which we should be asking ourselves in view of the information that has been afforded to us recently.

What contact is there, or known to exist, between Libya and Russia'? Perhaps it is of a limited kind with, say, the KGB or some other agency. There seems to be some relationship and, as the noble Lord pointed out, the Russians have provided a considerable amount of equipment to the Libyans. Does it go much further than that? We know that part of the overall strategy of the Russians is to cause the utmost disruption in the West, and terrorism is obviously an important arm in that sort of operation.

The noble Lord, Lord Paget, dealt with the Middle East, and he did so in a debate on foreign affairs on 10th November. From all he said, it would appear that there is a pattern to the policy of assassination. How much of it is by direct contact and how much by imitation, as a result of it being seen to succeed, I do not know, but in the uncertain state of the world, assassination is becoming a regular feature. It is worth noting that in the recent decade the West has thrown up three prominent and outstanding leaders—the Pope, President Reagan and President Sadat—and in each case an attempt, one successful, has been made to eliminate them. That must be to the advantage of the Eastern bloc, although on the face of it there is no direct relationship between the assassination and the Eastern bloc. It seems almost too much of a coincidence that these three great leaders should have been attacked. And it does not apply only to the leaders; as has been pointed out, a great many others, further down the scale, have suffered the same fate.

Have Her Majesty's Government any knowledge of these events, of whether there is co-ordination and whether it comes from Libya? If it does, surely some action is required to be taken to deal with it before the situation gets completely out of hand. We are, naturally, particularly interested in what happens in this country, and I would ask whether the Government have any information to substantiate the claim in the Panorama programme that the Libyan Embassy is used as the centre for these undercover operations, what I understand is known as a people's bureau. There have been suggestions that it is used as a staging post for terrorists, that it is a centre for monitoring or controlling the operations in this country. If so, we should take steps to ensure that it does not continue.

To conclude on a general note, until recently it was very rare indeed for criminals in this country to carry guns. Nowdays it is all too common. Not only guns, but explosives and other weapons, too. Our subject tonight covers only one facet of this law-lessness, but it is nevertheless an important one and in the ever-increasing state of law-lessness which exists in this country, it is one which threatens every law-abiding citizen, who is in danger either of attack or of being fortuitously involved in one of these terrorist operations. I suggest that this situation is totally unacceptable, and if it is true that any foreign embassy is acting as a centre for such operations, immediate steps should be taken to bring that situation to an end and, if necessary, it should be closed. I hope that we shall be able to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, when he replies, not only that the Government are fully alive to the situation, but that they intend to take the necessary steps to ensure that it does not continue.

My Lords, my name is not on the list of speakers, but I thought I ought to say a few words before the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, rises and I have given her notice that I intend to do so. I speak for the reason that I now feel that the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, is an extremely grave one, and one which we simply cannot push under the carpet. It must be considered at some stage, and therefore I feel that some words from these Benches would not come altogether amiss. I propose in any case to speak only for a minute or two.

I did not see the "Panorama" programme, but read the transcript of it in The Listener over the week-end. The evidence there of the installation by Colonel Gaddafi of a large centre for encouraging assassination all over the world is possibly acceptable, but depends, I think, on deserters from the CIA, and we ought to be very careful before we take it as being absolutely literally true, because such characters might be guilty of a certain exaggeration. However, whatever view we come to on the centre, there is no doubt that Colonel Gaddafi has been encouraging assassinations—the ones referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Paget—over the last 18 months, of Libyans to whom he objects in other countries. This is of course possible, and I do not know what, if anything, we can do about it.

If there is any truth in the idea that he has sent an assassination squad to America to murder the President, that is something so outrageous that one can hardly bear to think about it. He has, I believe, repudiated this allegation, and that is all to the good. But if an attempt were made on the life of the President, nobody knows what would happen. The situation, now grave, would become even graver.

I believe that if the whole matter has not been discussed in the European Economic Community it should be so discussed in that body and subsequently no doubt in NATO. I do not know whether any action is possible, but, if it were to be taken, obviously it would have to be taken multilaterally by a number of states acting together. The noble Lord, Lord Paget, referred to the suppression of the Barbary Coast pirates in the 17th century. That was perfectly true, and, so far as I remember, Admiral Blake, acting on the instructions of Cromwell, went and suppressed a nest of these pirates, with a good result for a period of years. But, my Lords, we are not living in the 17th century, and I doubt whether we now have that independence in our foreign policy from which we were able to benefit some 300 years ago.

I repeat: I am sure that the Government are taking this matter extremely seriously and I hope that they will give us some assurance that not only Colonel Gaddafi but also terrorism generally, which has been referred to by the noble Marquess and by the noble Lord, Lord Paget—indeed the whole question of how to cope with terrorism all over the world—will soon be the subject of intensive discussion in the European Community, and, I suggest, NATO, too.

My Lords, I wonder whether I may intervene for just one minute, and I shall restrict myself to what I actually saw, or thought I saw, in the programme. It caused considerable disquiet, but to my mind, at any rate, the disquiet was not limited to the allegations about Libya itself. The position of some members of the CIA was ambiguous, to put it mildly. No doubt these matters will he ventilated in the law suits which I understand are now proceeding in the United States of America.

I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply a question. There was a suggestion of some connivance or co-operation in related activities in the United Kingdom between CIA members—some retired and some conceivably not retired—and official British agents. That is the impression that was given in the programme, and I give the noble Lord who is to reply the opportunity of saying that there is absolutely no foundation in that suggestion.

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Paget of Northampton, of whom, if I may say so, the House is very fond—and I hope he will not think me presumptuous—is highly intelligent, and, I am sure, a man of temperate habits, but he does, occasionally, use very intemperate language. My noble friend tonight referred to what he had said in the debate on the Queen's Speech, and I think that I must say at once that no one on this side of the House could possibly agree with my noble friend's recommendation that the only way to deal with people like Colonel Gaddafi is, as he suggested, "to exterminate them". We cannot agree with that kind of thinking or argument.

My noble friend has made a very powerful and indeed far-ranging speech, but his Question is to ask for a statement from the Government about the "Panorama" programme "Trading in Terror". Those of us who saw the programme, or who have read the transcript, found every aspect of it profoundly alarming and indeed revolting, and we very much look forward to hearing how the noble Lord the Minister will reply.

I do not myself propose to make a speech about the Middle East. Despite what some noble Lords have said, I think that it is improper to do so under the terms of this Unstarred Question. But the supreme irony of the situation, as we see it, is that Colonel Gaddafi, an extreme Islamic leader, has been able to purchase vast quantities of Soviet arms, as my noble friend has said—and very sophisticated arms at that—mainly through the sale of oil to the West. So some of those arms, which the whole House was horrified to hear might be used against President Reagan, might well have been paid for by the West.

In this connection, I know that many noble friends on this side of the House are disturbed by the action of the Midland Bank in giving a loan of £2,300,000 to Colonel Gaddafi, without apparently any stipulation as to its use, at such a disturbed and disturbing time. And for the bank's spokesman to say,

"Politics have nothing to do with it—it was a purely commercial decision",

seems at best naive. It is not only the Americans and the West generally who are alarmed. As the London Times said last month, many African States are also alarmed by the 5,000-strong so-called "Pan African Legion" composed of political exiles from black African countries currently being trained in terrorism in the Libyan camps.

It seems to us on these Benches that, with all the potential dangers rife in the Middle East and their serious implications for world peace, everyone concerned should try to treat this situation with wisdom and restraint. The indignation, and indeed fury. of the United States' reaction to potential threats against their President and their Administration are wholly understandable. But we on this side would deprecate the two suggestions which we read in the Daily Telegraph this morning of how to react—they were quoted from an American paper. Talk of a blockade of Libyan food imports or, worse still, a United States air strike against the Libyan camps is not helpful. Despite what my noble friend has said, and here I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, the only way to cope with terrorism is by international consultation and, if possible, action.

I do not want to say more. The problems of many Middle Eastern countries are economic, rather than military. The world should concentrate on getting adequate aid to countries such as Egypt and Sudan, rather than supplying them with vast packages of arms—and there I agree with my noble friend. We hope that the Government will urge on the United Nations and the United States, and will indeed follow the advice themselves, that the IMF and other world agencies should be geared in this direction. At present the IMF mainly offers loans under conditions of such draconian austerity that they contribute to the poverty and inevitable unrest in the poorer countries in this volatile and dangerous area of the world. It is that situation which exacerbates violence and breeds support which, notwithstanding the incredibly complex political problems, could otherwise be turned into peaceful directions.

My Lords, it is, unhappily, the case that relations between the United Kingdom and Libya have not always been smooth. As recently as May and June of last year Her Majesty's Government were obliged to take certain steps with regard to a number of Libyan diplomats in London. This was made necessary because the activities of the gentlemen concerned were incompatible with their status as diplo mats. Indeed, I repeated two Statements in your Lordships' House at the time which related to these events. I will not recount the details of what occurred, but your Lordships will recall that we successfully sought the withdrawal of four Libyan officials early in May, and we expelled the then head of their mission in London in the following month.

I cannot say that since then our relations have become entirely normal. However, it is possible to point to a constructive dialogue with the Libyan Government which I believe bodes well for the future. The present Libyan mission in London is called a People's Bureau, and we accord to the head of it the status of Chargé d' Affaires. We understand that this meets the wishes of the Libyan authorities. Our own mission in Tripoli is of course an embassy in the normal sense, and is staffed to an appropriate level. Our ambassador, Mr. Edes, is accredited in the normal way.

I think your Lordships may find it useful if I now outline the present policies of Her Majesty's Government towards Libya. I have just referred to the problems we encountered after the events of last year, when two Libyans were killed in London. We made it clear to the Libyan authorities at the time that we wished to maintain good relations with Libya but that our relations could not improve unless the campaign of harassment ended immediately. We have since sought, and received, assurances at a high level that there will be no repetition of the events of last year.

We have long been a major trading partner of Libya. We take little Libyan oil, and the trade balance is therefore well in our favour. The Libyan market holds out major opportunities, and we know that the Libyans are keen that more British firms should tender for work in Libya. We have in the past few weeks received as an official guest in Britain the Libyan Secretary for Heavy Industry, Mr. Omar Muntasir, who held talks with British Ministers and officials and visited a number of British firms. We hope that our relations will develop in such a way as to make further such exchanges possible.

I turn now to the "Parorama" programme which the noble Lord has referred to in his Question and, indeed, in his speech tonight; and his concern has been echoed by other noble Lords and the noble Baroness. Her Majesty's Government are not, of course, responsible for the programme, nor its content. Allegations concerning contraventions of United States law are for the authorities of that country, and not for me. However, I should like to make it clear that I know of no evidence that British law has been broken as described. If BBC officials and others concerned with that programme have such evidence, doubtless they will bring it to the attention of the police. Suggestions that the British authorities were turning a blind eye to illegal activities are, of course, without foundation.

Equally, I reject the suggestion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that there is some sort of collusion between the British security services and Messrs. Wilson and Terpil (I think their names are) who were referred to in the programme.

My Lords, will the noble Lord make it clear that the suggestion was not mine? It was in the programme to which I referred.

My Lords, I accept that that was a possible interpretation of some of the items in the programme, and, of course, I equally reject it on that basis. I want to turn now to some of the other points made during the course of discussions this evening. First, my noble friend Lord Salisbury asked in particular about the crimes that took place in this country in the early part of 1980. I earlier reminded your Lordships of the Statements I made in May and June 1980 about the action that the Government took at that time, but your Lordships may recall that since then three people have been convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment for these crimes.

Since then we have lost no opportunity to make clear to the Libyan authorities at every level available to us that it is an absolute condition for the development of our relations that there should be no repetition of these climes. We have insisted that relations can develop only where there is mutual respect for the sovereignty and law of the other party. The Libyans have told us that they understand the damage done to their own interests by events in the past, and they have given us assurances that there will be no repetition of them in the future. Naturally, we have paid great attention to these assurances and to Libyan actions since they were given, and I am certain that the Libyans are under no misapprehension about our position.

My noble friend also referred to the possible connection between the forces in Libya and the murderers of the late Lord Mountbatten. We have no reason to believe that members of the IRA, for example, arc being trained in Libya; neither do we have any evidence to connect Libya with the murder of the late Lord Mountbatten, or with attacks on British politicians or British embassies. We know of no evidence to connect Libya with Welsh Nationalists; nor with the death in London of the Bulgarian broadcaster, to whom my noble friend also referred.

The noble Lord, Lord Paget, suggested some fairly forthright proposals in connection with the destruction of the Libyan forces. I think his proposals were really aimed at the Americans, but may I say this? Although we do not agree with Libyan policies we must accept that Libya is a sovereign state, and we respect her right to self-determination. We would naturally reject any suggestion that force might be used against Libya.

As to the connection between Libya and the USSR, it is a well-known fact, as more than one noble Lord, I think, has suggested this evening, that Libya buys most of her arms from the Soviet Union, and the relationship appears to satisfy both of them. The Libyans have access to Soviet weapons and the Russians presumably gain much needed hard currency. But there is little evidence to suggest, although foreign policy objectives of Colonel Gaddafi and Moscow may sometimes coincide, that either side is interested in a closer political relationship. Nor is there evidence of Libyan involvement in President Sadat's death. Although Libyans have always made known their opposition to Camp David and welcomed Sadat's death, nonetheless relations between Libya and Egypt, although tense after Sadat's death, appear to have improved a hit since.

I think my noble friend Lord Salisbury referred to the possibility of the People's Bureau as a centre of terrorism. I should say that we have been given assurances by the Libyans that there will be no repetition of the terrorist acts in the United Kingdom and we have accepted those assurances. We do not, of course, agree with all the policies followed by the Libyan Government. This is true of many Governments with whom we have relations. But our relations are such with Libya that we are able to speak frankly when we disagree with their policies or activities, and we shall continue to do so. As I have made clear, we made known last year our opposition to the Libyan involvement in Chad, and we have been pleased to see in recent weeks that the Libyan Government have acceded to a request by the transitional Chadian Government that their troops be withdrawn. This move has also been welcomed by the Organisation of African Unity, who are organising a peace-keeping force to replace the Libyans.

My Lords, we do not believe that the way to make our views known would be to boycott or isolate Libya. We believe it to be more effective to encourage the Libyans to adopt acceptable policies by maintaining a dialogue with the Libyan Government and trying to develop as near normal relations as possible.

My Lords, one can understand about keeping open channels of communication; but is it necessary at this juncture for our banks to donate to Libya some £2¼ million—money which is badly needed for investment in industry here?

My Lords, that is a specific matter for the Midland Bank and I suggest that inquiries should be addressed to them. The Government have no particular control over the Midland Bank or any other bank.

My Lords, I cannot pretend that everything is as we would wish it in our relations with Libya. But I hope I have made it clear that while we must, and shall, ensure that foreign diplomats working here shall do so in accordance with our laws and, we hope, proper norms of civilised behaviour, we none the less seek the best relations we can having regard to all the circumstances. So far as Libya is concerned, we have noted and accepted the recent assurances to which I have referred, but we look to the authorities in that country to ensure that those assurances remain valid. Provided this is done, we may look to an improvement in Anglo-Libyan relations in the future with reasonable hope and confidence.