Lords Sitting of 29 April 1952

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

CHIEFTAINSHIP OF BAMANGWATO TRIBE
2.35 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House the Question of which I have given him private notice. The Question is as follows: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any statement to make with regard to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations' conversations with members of the Bamangwato tribe at present in this country.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I have had two meetings with the members of the Bamangwato Tribe who are in this country. At the first meeting I listened to all that they had to say. I gave them the fullest facilities and all six spoke at length. They also delivered to me a memorandum of their views. They claimed to represent the tribe and argued that the tribe as a whole strongly desired the appointment of Seretse Khama as chief and was prepared to accept his wife. They asked me to reconsider Her Majesty's Government's decision that Seretse Khama could not be recognised as chief. They added that, if I could not see my way to alter this decision, they would welcome a further statement of the reasons which had led Her Majesty's Government to make it.
At the second meeting I informed them that I saw no reason for alteration of Her Majesty's Government's decision about Seretse Khama, which was firm and final. My predecessor and I had been fully aware, before the decision was reached, of the views which they had expressed and the delegation had added nothing to the information already at our disposal. I pointed out that opinion
394
in the tribe had changed in the past and might do so again. I emphasised, what is so often overlooked, that at the first kgotla in November, 1948, a large majority of the tribe showed a very strong aversion to acceptance of Seretse Khama's marriage, on the grounds that it constituted a flagrant breach of tribal custom. A division of opinion in the tribe clearly existed, which was likely to be intensified in the future over the succession.
Moreover, as had been stated in the White Paper of 1950 (Cmd. 7913), the view of the tribe, or of a majority of the tribe, was only one of the factors which Her Majesty's Government had to take into account. Under Bechuana-land law the final decision rested clearly and specifically with the Government, which would be failing in its responsibilities if it did not consider what was best in the ultimate interests of the tribe and the Protectorate. The reasons for the Government's decision about Seretse Khama were already fully set out in published documents—namely, the White Paper of 1950 (Cmd. 7913), the Statement made in this House and in another place on the 27th March, 1952, and speeches in the debate in this House on the 31st March, of which I gave them copies to study and to take back with them for the information of these whom they claimed to represent. I pointed out that their claim to represent the tribe was not unchallenged. Quite recently, for example, persons of high standing in the tribe had seen fit to petition my predecessor contesting their right to speak for the tribe.
Finally, I emphasised Her Majesty's Government's determination to secure settled conditions in the Reserve, to reunite the tribe and to restore the chieftainship in the person of some other and more suitable candidate who was acceptable both to the tribe and to the Government. The sooner the tribe's co-operation over this was secured, the sooner would happiness and progress—social, economic and political—be achieved in the Reserve. I counselled them, therefore, to abide loyally by the Government's decision.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Marquess for the statement which he has made. I do not want

395
to reopen the matter, but in view of the fact that the next step has still to be taken, I hope the noble Marquess will realise that the good will of the members of this deputation may be an important factor for the future. I say frankly that I was a little disturbed to see it reported (I do not know whether it is true) that when this deputation arrived in this country no facilities were provided for them, and nobody was there to meet them. I should like to say this to the noble Marquess: I hope he will realise that it would be very wise that he should do everything possible both to make their stay in this country, so long as they do stay here, easy and comfortable and also to facilitate in every way he can their return to their own country, so that, if it be possible, they may go back as emissaries of good will and help in the negotiations which may well have to be taken in the future.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I would very largely agree with what the noble and learned Earl has said. With regard to their not being met on arrival, he will remember that these men were not an official delegation of the tribe: they were members of the tribe who had chosen of their own free will to come, and I do not think we were required to give them an official reception. But I need hardly say that every effort will be made to facilitate their return. There is no reason to suppose—in fact, quite the contrary—that they did not feel that they had been received with every courtesy.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess two questions? First of all, has he any reason to doubt that at this moment the tribe is wholeheartedly in favour of the return of Seretse? Secondly, what are these informations which he has received to the contrary and from whom do they come? And, if I may be allowed to add a third question, what other reasons beside the wishes of the tribe are in his mind?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, first of all with regard to the suggestion that they represent the whole tribe, I think it would be perfectly true to say that at the present moment they represent the views of the majority of the tribe. With regard to the second question, I do not think I will go into detail to-day,
396
for obvious reasons; but the noble Viscount must take it from me that my predecessor did receive communications from people of substance in the tribe to the effect which I have described in my reply. With regard to the third matter, it is not really a question of exactly what the tribe wants at any one moment; it is what is the proper course to be adopted with regard to the tribe, not only for the present but also for the future. In that matter we must take very much into account the question of succession.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The noble Marquess will realise that it will not create a good impression if people, who undoubtedly are representative—whether or not they are wholly representative—come with their statements, and are met with the statement that undisclosed information is available to the Secretary of State and that it has influenced his mind.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am afraid that it is always the case in public life that there are certain things which can be disclosed and others which cannot. It is not a question of whether we create a good impression or not; it is what is best in the public interest.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: But a good impression depends upon good faith.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope that the noble Viscount is not charging this Government with a breach of faith. Certainly there is no reason for such a charge. If I may say so, of the two hours that I listened to the Bamangwato tribesmen, about three-quarters of the time was occupied with complaints about what happened in the days of the previous Government.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The noble Marquess is quite entitled to say that; it is an excellent Party point, and one to which perhaps my noble friend Lord Ogmore can reply.

MINERS' WELFARE BILL
2.45 p.m.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

TRAIN FIRE INQUIRY
2.46 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when the report of the inspecting officer of railways, who inquired into the circumstances of the fire upon an express train near Huntingdon on July 14 last, the inquiry into which was held during that month, will be published.]
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Leathers, I have been asked to reply. The inspecting officer's report of his inquiry into this accident is now with the printers, and I expect that it will be published in about a fortnight's time. The report will be comprehensive and will also cover outstanding questions arising from the report on the Beattock train fire.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the fullness of his reply. I make no complaint whatever about the delay, as I have some knowledge of the circumstances causing it. However, I think it would be fair to tell the noble Lord that after we have had an opportunity of studying the report, and because it may raise matters of vital, public importance, my noble friends and I may think fit to put down a Motion for debate. I hope that will be agreeable to Her Majesty's Government.

OCCUPATION OF LAHEJ
2.48 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why the Governor of Aden has sent troops to occupy Lahej, what events led to the flight of its ruler Sultan Fadhl Abdul Karim, and what is the present state of affairs in this town and district.]
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT SWINTON): My Lords, although the Governor of
398
Aden has visited Lahej and has done his utmost to help the Sultan, reports of progressive deterioration in the affairs of the State continued to reach Aden. This was brought to a head by a report on April 14 that the Sultan had authorised the killing without trial of two Amirs. In reply to an inquiry, the Sultan virtually admitted that the Amirs, who were distant cousins of his, had been killed by his orders, claiming proof of their conspiracy against his life. There have been other incidents, though not so serious as the present, which have caused anxiety. In the opinion of the Governor and others the recent conduct of the Sultan gives ground for believing that he is mentally deranged. The Governor therefore felt that he ought to take quick and determined action. Accordingly, with the approval of my right honourable friend, he informed the Sultan on April 20 that he, the Sultan, should come to Aden for medical treatment and that an independent inquiry should be held by the Judge of the Colony. When on the following day the Sultan fled to the Yemen, the town of Lahej was occupied, by the Governor's orders, by the Aden Protectorate Levies, without any incident. The political officer with the Levies took steps to ensure that the administration was continued and that law and order were maintained pending the election of a Council of Regency by the traditional electoral body of the Sultanate. The Governor has since reported that it is hoped that the Aden Protectorate Levies will be withdrawn either to-day or to-morrow. The inquiry by the Colony Judge was held on April 25, and the Judge's Report is awaited.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Viscount for his reply, may I say that the action of the Governor of Aden seems to have been prompt and efficient, so far as one can judge. But the reply does disclose a very serious state of affairs in this Protectorate for which Her Majesty's Government are responsible. Therefore, I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government some questions, which they may be able to answer, in spite of the fact that the Judge's report has not yet been received. In the first place, can they tell us where the Sultan is or is believed to be? Secondly, can they tell us whether the families of the men alleged to have been murdered are being looked after? Further, can Her Majesty's Government tell us

399
whether action will be taken against the Sultan in any form and what the administration of the territory will be when the troops withdraw? Finally, what is the situation in the palace of the Sultan? His wives, as I understand, are numerous. I believe that his marriage to so many wives was one of the causes which impelled the Governor to take action in this case. Can Her Majesty's Government tell us whether the wives are being looked after as well?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, the noble Lord has certainly produced a covey of questions without notice. I am not sure that I can carry them all in my head or answer them all at this moment, but I will try to deal with a number of them. The noble Lord's first question was: Where is the Sultan? I believe he is in the Yemen, which is in Southern Arabia. At any rate, he crossed the border. The question of what is going to be done with him is really a hypothetical question, because if he is in the Yemen he is not available to be dealt with. If he returns to his own territory, I have no doubt that he will be medically examined. I am not generally in favour of psychiatrists, but there seems to be every ground for one being called in to deal with this case. With regard to the Sultan's numerous wives, I am afraid I really cannot answer the noble Lord's question. So far as I know, they are still in the palace. As to the relatives of the murdered men, so far as I know they are perfectly safe, now that the Sultan has disappeared and order is restored in the territory. I quite agree, and so does my right honourable friend, with what the noble Lord has said in commendation of the Governor's action. The Governor acted with the most admirable promptitude, and the action he took was greatly appreciated. This, as I understand it, is not a case of two rival factions; it is a case of a man who appears to have gone mad—as near as makes no difference—and practically to have run amok.
So far as the future is concerned, a Council of Regency is in process of being established—probably it has been established by now—and I imagine that this is just the sort of case in which it will be able to function efficiently. Cases of a somewhat similar nature have happened before—there has not, I think,
400
been one of a man going mad, but there have been cases where a Sultan has not been a suitable ruler—and there is traditionally in these Sultanates the possibility of appointing a more suitable person from the ruling house. That was done successfully, once, I think, during the time when I was Secretary of State and once in the time of the late Government. I imagine that in due course that will follow. At any rate, in the meantime, the troops will be withdrawn and the territory will be administered by a Council of Regency, which I have no doubt will function admirably.
EARL JOWITT: Would it not be desirable to send out a reliable official from the Department concerned, or perhaps some representative from this House, to see that these wives are suitably and properly treated?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: No doubt if the noble Earl volunteers for this service his name will be favourably considered. I will pass his suggestion on to my right honourable friend.

AFRICAN DEFENCE FACILITIES CONFERENCE
2.54 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any progress has been made as a result of the African Defence Facilities Conference, and which nations have accepted its recommendations.]
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE (EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS): My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who was Chairman of the Conference, will know, the African Defence Facilities Conference was convened by the United Kingdom and the Union of South Africa to consider the facilities that would be required for the movement of troops and military supplies between the South of Africa and the Middle East in time of war. The Report of the Conference has been accepted by the Governments of the United Kingdom, Union of South Africa, Southern Rhodesia and Italy. Acceptance is awaited from the Governments of Belgium, Ethiopia, France and Portugal.

401
We are unable to take the matter further until all Governments which participated in the Conference have indicated their attitude to the Report. We are, however, in consultation with the Union Government, as joint conveners, on further steps to be taken.
LORD OGMORE: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his answer to my Question.

NATIONAL ASSISTANCE (DETER MINATION OF NEED) AMEND MENT REGULATIONS, 1952
2.56 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this is the third time: in a period of two years that the scales of assistance of the National Assistance Board have been raised. The general system of administration remains the same, and I do not think that I need say anything about that matter. The occasion of the present increase is the invitation extended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the course of his Budget speech to the National Assistance Board to consider the implications of the reduction in food subsidies and its effect on prices This, however, is not the only, or indeed the major, consideration which the National Assistance Board have had to examine. I may say that the recommendations made by the National Assistance Board have been accepted by my right honourable friend the Minister of National Insurance and they now come before your Lordships for your approval. In these Regulations consideration has had to be given by the Board not only to the effects of the reduction in food subsidies but also to the general rises in prices which have taken place in the twelve months' period up to June 16, when these new Regulations will come into operation. It is hoped that sufficient margin has been allowed so that no further increase or alteration of these scales will be necessary, at least for an appreciable time.
The general increase is on the basis of five shillings a head per week for single adults. On top of this there is a special addition for blind persons and for persons suffering from tuberculosis. Here the increase is from fifteen shillings to eighteen shillings a week. The discretionary power of the National Assistance Board over the whole field will remain unaltered. I may say that, of the
402
1,500,000 people who are receiving assistance, about half will have their allowances increased for one reason or another. There will be no need for anyone who is at present applying to take any action, as the adjustments will be made by the Board. Perhaps, in order to avoid any misunderstanding, I should point out that payments under these Regulations will be reduced when increases are made in other spheres—that is to say, in the insurance benefits, including, of course, retirement pensions, and family allowances. In no case will the total payments be reduced, but beneficiaries will not be able to get separate increases under two different headings. In a full year, these increases are estimated to cost £25,000,000, but when the reductions which I have just mentioned come into force the estimated saving to the Exchequer will be about half that amount. I should also, perhaps, mention that persons accommodated by local authorities under Part III are outside these Regulations and no alteration has been made to their position. That will, in due course, be made by the Departments of Health in England and Scotland for the people coming in this category. Only about 20,000 are affected.
Moved, That the Draft National Assistance (Determination of Need) Amendment Regulations, 1952, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD KERSHAW: My Lords, on behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House I have to say that we welcome these Regulations which, as the noble Earl has told us, follow previous Regulations on the same subject. However, there is one point about which I should like to ask a question. Under paragraph 3 of the Regulations, the matter is left to other Regulations which have to be passed by the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland, and it seems to us that this is a departure from the usual practice, since it means that a provision made in one Order can be put into effect only by another Order, or series of Orders, being passed. If the noble Earl can assure us—and I think he can—that it will be necessary for these Orders to come before the House before they become effective, we shall be satisfied. Let me express the hope that when the question of the personal allowance—

403
at present 5s. a week—is under consideration by the appropriate Ministers, that amount at least may be doubled.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords. I should like to thank the noble Lord for his welcome of these Regulations and for the absence of criticism. He will appreciate that it is undesirable for me to say anything about the personal allowance. That is a matter which the Department of Health will have to consider in due course. I can assure the noble Lord that these Regulations have been before the Special Orders Committee, who have approved the way in which they have been drawn. Any Regulations made under Section 63 of the National Assistance Act will come before the House, and if the noble Lord wishes to make any comments then it will, of course, be open for him to do so.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AGRICULTURE (POISONOUS SUBSTANCES) BILL [H.L.]
3.2 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, this Bill, to which I am asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading this afternoon, has become necessary because of the increasing use in agriculture of certain poisonous substances contained in insecticides and weed killers. Although the use of these substances is not entirely new, the changes in the extent of their use, which have made this Bill necessary, are comparatively recent. Some new substances have come into use in agriculture, while other substances are being used in more concentrated forms and workers have been employed to use them for longer periods. Much of this kind of
spraying is now done by contractors who employ teams for the purpose. This has increased the risks, as well as the effectiveness of their use.
The substances are cumulative poisons, and cases of poisoning have occurred in two ways: either by a heavy single absorption at one time or by the successive absorption of small quantities. In
404
the former case, acute illness, which has sometimes been followed by death, may start very soon after the absorption; but with some of the substances the illness may start several hours after the absorption. When these substances enter the body they may not be noticed, and when they enter in small quantities they may not cause any feeling of illness or give rise to any obvious signs. When, however, small quantities are absorbed at short intervals, they can accumulate until a condition is reached when a further very small amount causes severe illness or death. In the case of the dinitro compounds no antidote is at present known, and in the case of organo-phos-phorus compounds, while an antidote is known, it should be given quickly after the onset of symptoms.
In view of the way in which these substances can poison human beings, it is very desirable that there should be statutory provision to reduce the risks of this poisoning to the lowest practicable level. We still have a good deal to learn about the precautions that are desirable, but the Government believe that sufficient is now known to justify making Regulations of the kind for which this Bill provides. The use of these substances in agriculture is very important for the efficiency of food production. They have helped to bring under better control pests and weeds which it had previously been extremely difficult to control effectively. Naturally, it would be preferable to use materials less toxic to human beings, if and when materials which are as effective as the present insecticides and weed killers are discovered. But in the meantime we have to see that the use of the most efficient substances at present available continues under controls that will avoid risk to the workers so far as possible. That is the purpose of this Bill.
Over the last few years there have been some unfortunate cases of poisoning, which have drawn attention to the need for measures to protect those who use these substances. The Gowers Committee on Health, Welfare and Safety in Non-Industrial Employment, which included agriculture in its review, reported in 1949 that, although protective clothing was very often supplied by employers for this work, there should be obligations to do so, and that for this purpose the Agricultural Ministers should be given power to prescribe by regulations the substances

405
in the use of which protective clothing should be provided by the employer. In 1950, the former Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Tom Williams, set up a Working Party, under the Chairmanship of Professor Zuckerman, to make recommendations for the protection of workers in the agricultural use of these poisonous substances, and in particular to advise on the recommendations of the Gowers Committee. This Working Party included representatives of the Agricultural Departments, the Agricultural Research Council, the Medical Research Council and the Agricultural Improvement Council, who were represented by a farmer and a farm workers' representative. If the Bill now before your Lordships is passed, the regulations will follow generally the lines of the detailed recommendations put forward by the Zuckerman Working Party which reported last year. The Bill is drawn in sufficiently wide terms to allow effect to be given to their recommendations. The most important of these will be covered by the topics set out in Clause 1, subsection (3), of the Bill, which includes the provision of protective clothing, to which the Gowers Committee had drawn attention.
A good deal has already been done to protect the workers. Guidance on the precautions to be taken, the protective clothing to be worn, and so on, was worked out in detail as a result of the Zuckerman Working Party's inquiry, and with the co-operation of the farmers, farm workers, agricultural contractors and insecticide manufacturers. Last year, both the Agricultural Departments and the organisations representing these interests published these recommendations widely and brought them to the special attention of those concerned. Similar arrangements have been made for the spring season that is just starting, with modifications made in the light of the experience gained last year and of the detailed knowledge that we are acquiring.
Experience shows, however, that although these precautions are generally observed they are not universally adopted. The Government have at present no power of enforcement, and it is apparent that voluntary precautions are not enough. There is general agreement that, over a large part of this field at least, the recommended precautions should have statutory backing and that
406
definite obligations should be placed on those concerned, both employer and employed. There will, however, be some matters on which, for the time being at any rate, voluntary arrangements may continue, either because sufficient experience has not yet been gained or because there is insufficient agreement. Medical examination, for example, is one. However, we propose to make regulations at once to deal with some of the more important matters listed in subsection (3) of Clause 1, especially protective clothing, washing facilities, cleanliness generally, so as to avoid contamination, periods of working, supervision and training of workers, the keeping of records and the notification of sickness and accidents.
The Bill gives wide powers to the Agricultural Ministers and I have just indicated (as does the Bill itself by way of illustration) the main topics which it is intended to cover by regulation in the present state of knowledge. A good deal of flexibility is required because, as I have said, this is a comparatively new field and we are learning more about it all the time. In the first instance the Bill will apply to two classes of substances. These are the two groups which were the subject of the inquiry by the Working Party on Toxic Chemicals in Agriculture under the Chairmanship of Professor Zuckerman. They are firstly, dinitro-compounds, such as D.N.C. (which is an abbreviation for the long chemical name of dinitro-ortho-cresol), which are used for spraying as weed-killers, and secondly organo-phosphorus compounds, such as parathion, which are used as insecticides. Should it become necessary to extend the scope of the Bill to other substances, the Minister would have power to do this by order under Clause 9. The Bill is limited to the protection of employees. It will cover the employees of contractors, as well as those of farmers and growers. It will be part of the code of legislation for the protection of employees, of which, of course, the Factory Acts are the outstanding example. It is generally in accordance with Factory Act precedents so far as these apply.
Now, my Lords, coming to the clauses of the Bill, Clause 1 contains the main regulation-making powers and is the kernel of the Bill. It seeks to protect

407
workers, both in the actual use in agriculture of these substances, such as the actual spraying or the mixing of the sub-stances, and in work generally on land where the substances are being used—for example for the protection of fellow employees who might be affected. The regulations may be made jointly by the
Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland, or separately for England and Wales and for Scotland respectively. It is the intention, where the requirements are the same for the whole country, that the regulations should be made jointly. However it may be that, on occasion, agricultural conditions will require some difference in the regulations. In that case it will be possible to make separate regulations for England and Wales and for Scotland.
The regulations will be made by statutory instrument, subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. They will, of course, be very largely technical in character, and this procedure will give the necessary measure of Parliamentary control for regulations of this kind. In the main the regulations will place obligations on employers, but they may also place them on employees and on other persons, as appropriate. In particular, Clause 2 places on employees the obligation not to interfere with things supplied for their protection and not to do anything likely to cause risk of poisoning either to themselves or to others.
In Clause 3 the Bill provides for the appointment by the Ministers of the necessary inspectors, and gives them powers of entry, examination, and so on, which are broadly in line with similar powers of the Factory Inspectorate under the Factory Acts. These inspectors are given power to take samples and are required to supply, on request, a part of such a sample to the employer concerned. It is not the intention to appoint an army of inspectors. Enforcement will be undertaken by suitable staff already in the employment of the Agricultural Departments. They will form part of the Agricultural Wages Inspectorate, but the work will be done without interfering with the Departments' responsibilities under the Agricultural Wages Acts. Enforcement will consist primarily of test checks and the investigation of complaints; but it will also include the
408
giving of advice where possible. The inspectors will already be familiar with the working conditions of farms, but they will also be given special instruction in the use of these substances and the precautions to be observed. These arrangements will have the advantage that they will not add to the classes of officials inspecting farms, though, naturally, there will be an addition to the amount of inspection work. This work will be supported by general publicity, warnings and recommendations to farmers, contractors and farm workers. The organisations concerned will help us in getting the advice across to their members.
Offences under the Bill are defined in Clause 4, which provides for penalties by way of fines, with a maximum of £50 for a single offence. Clause 5 provides for the defence in proceedings under the Bill that the contravention was caused by the act or default of some other person, and for the possible conviction of that other person. Clause 6 gives the powers which I have already said inspectors are to have for taking samples. Clause 7 applies the Act and the regulations to the Crown, but allows for any necessary modifications to be made in the regulations by the Ministers. In general, it has been thought that the same degree of protection should be given to the workers concerned wherever they are working. This will affect not only the Crown's own farms but also farms and agricultural operations conducted by a number of Government Departments, including the Service Departments and Government research stations, which may require the use of these substances. Modifications of the regulations, for example, as to the powers of inspectors, may be necessary on security or similar grounds, and provision therefore has to be made for this.
The Ministers will incur limited expenses for administration and enforcement and there is provision in Clause 8 for these to be paid out of public funds. Clause 10 of the Bill contains a definition of "agriculture" which follows that used in the Agricultural Wages Acts of 1948. This has seemed to be the most suitable for the present purpose, relating as it does to conditions of employment on farms. It covers agriculture and horticulture generally, where conducted on a commercial scale, even though not carried on for profit. It also includes forestry, since

409
these substances may be used, for example, in forest nurseries. Clause 11 deals with certain necessary modifications to apply the Bill suitably to Scotland. The Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland.
This will, I hope, be regarded as a useful and necessary measure. It is, I believe, generally acceptable to the farmers, farm workers and agricultural contractors who will be the people primarily affected by the regulations that the Bill will enable us to make. We shall consult the interests concerned about the precise regulations to be made, in the same way that we have been consulting them about the voluntary arrangements to be made in the meantime. I am sure that we shall have their full co-operation in determining the form that these regulations should take. Accordingly, I commend the Bill to your Lordships, and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Carrington.)
3.18 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, the noble Lord has explained the terms of this Bill and the purpose which it sets out to achieve with his usual thoroughness and clarity, and we are grateful to him for the evident trouble that he has taken. We on this side of the House welcome the Bill, and I feel that we can fairly claim a modest share in its parentage—indeed, the measure of our claim emerged from some of the remarks in the noble Lord's speech. I should like briefly to say something about the preparatory action which was taken when we were responsible for agricultural policy, and which has led up to the introduction of this Bill here this afternoon. We became aware during our period of office of the growing public concern about the large number of accidents to agricultural workers, some causing serious illness and some even death, which had resulted from the use of certain new chemical insecticides and weed-killers. Our awareness of this widespread public concern led to the appointment in 1950 by the late Government (the noble Lord referred to this matter) of a Working Party to inquire into the facts and to advise on the best way of protecting people engaged in the spraying of these poisonous liquids. That Working Party reported last year,
410
while we were still in office, but I should like to say that we are no less grateful now, out of office, than we were when we occupied the position of responsibility in relation to this matter, to the members of the Working Party for their speedy and constructive Report. I think we are particularly grateful—and I know the Government share this feeling—to Professor Zuckerman, the distinguished scientist, for acting as Chairman of the Working Party, for sparing so much of his time and for his willingness to take part in a further inquiry into another aspect of the same problem.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has said, the Working Party recommended suitable measures, and urged that these measures should have the force of statutory obligations. I do not think I am giving away any secrets to which my colleagues would take exception if I say that the late Government accepted in principle the recommendations of the Working Party's Report. Indeed, if I may indulge in speculation, I have little doubt at all that had the electorate chosen differently last autumn we should have submitted a similar measure to your Lordships—not identical but, at any rate, similar—for your consideration and approval. I think we should all agree that it is a good thing when political changes are not allowed to interfere with the vital interests of agriculture. We are extremely glad that the present Government will complete the work which we have begun, and that they have found time for a measure which will benefit so large a number of agricultural workers.
I have no doubt that this Bill, which I think does give sufficient powers, will be effective in carrying out the purpose for which it is designed, provided always that the necessary regulations are made, and made in time. I was glad to hear what the noble Lord had to say about regulations being made immediately, as soon as the Ministers had the power, to cover the most essential protective measures. I should like to stress the importance of the time factor. I must admit to feeling some regret that it has not been possible to legislate before the start of the current spraying season. This might have been done if a Bill had been introduced at the beginning of the Session. I know, of course, the congested state of the Parliamentary timetable—all Governments have

411
the same sort of experience—and I cannot expect noble Lords opposite to accept the view which I hold, that measures of this kind will do the country more good than some of the larger and more controversial legislative proposals which they are likely to submit to Parliament. I hope that the Government will do their utmost to get this Bill through both Houses as quickly as possible, and that your Lordships will speed it in its passage through this House.
I should like to ask one or two questions, of which I had given the noble Lord notice, about the recommendations of the Zuckerman Committee. My questions are directed to finding out what will be done about the recommendations which are not included in the Bill, and I apologise for the fact that they do not relate directly to the contents of this measure. My first question is: Have the Government decided not to give statutory effect to the recommendation of the Zuckerman Working Party about the labelling by manufacturers of the containers in which these poisons are stored? It is surely a desirable safeguard that such containers should indicate that they have in them a deadly poison. That was the recommendation of the Report. Of course, the label should also include some reference to the precautions which should be taken and to the methods of using the contents. Although some manufacturers will no doubt do this without a statutory obligation, I do not think there can be any guarantee that all manufacturers will have the same regard for the safety of the public. The Zuckerman Committee recommended that these poisonous dinitro or phosphorus mixtures should be sold only by chemists. That seems a very sensible recommendation. There is an obvious risk to the public if they can get these poisonous mixtures from any firm or any individual, and if this recommendation were implemented it would mean that no unauthorised person—no person other than a chemist—could sell these poisons to the public. I should like to ask the Government how they mean to deal with that recommendation.
Furthermore, may I ask what has been done to carry out the recommendations of the Committee about research? I think that that is extremely important. Your Lordships will remember that the
412
Committee suggested that the Medical Research Council should try to find a material which would give complete protection without inconvenience to the worker—something very much better than any material which is being used at the present time. Are the Medical Research Council doing this work? It was also suggested that the Ministry of Supply should look into the possibility of finding a satisfactory light respirator, and that the Agricultural Research Council should experiment in insecticides and weed-killers which might be equally effective for pests and weeds but not poisonous to man. I wonder whether the Agricultural Research Council has looked into that matter.
Finally—I hope this question will interest my noble friend, Lord Douglas of Barloch—what progress has been made into the second part of the Zuckerman Working Party's inquiry? I refer to the examination which they were prepared to undertake about the risk to the public in the use of these poisonous chemicals. May I also ask whether the immediate precautions for the protection of the public, which they recommended in their Report, have been taken by way of indicating what should be done by farmers and
contractors and people who are engaged in the use of these poisonous chemicals on crops? I confess that when I read the Appendix of the Working Party's Report, which contained a list of the weeds which are condemned to extermination by the ingenuity of modern chemistry, I felt a slight pang when I saw that it included buttercups, poppies and cornflowers. It will surely be a sad day for country lovers when those wild flowers are no longer even occasionally visible in meadows and cornfields, and when the poets can no longer write:
"Not poppy, nor mandragora,
Nor all the drowsy syrups of the world,
Shall ever medicine thee to that sweet sleep
Which you owedst yesterday."
Mandragora, too, is a weed, but I am glad to note that it is not on the list of condemned malefactors. I daresay it escaped attention on account of the impenetrable obscurity of its dictionary definition. There is no obvious or apparent harm in
"A solanaceous herb, usually acaulescent, with campanulate flowers and baccate fruit."

413
Although I trust that in this Bill there will be no further casualties in the battle against some of the most pernicious enemies of agriculture, I should be less than honest if I refrained from expressing a private hope that the enemy will not be exterminated to the last buttercup. I assure the noble Lord opposite that we will do all we can to help him speed the passage of this measure through this House.
3.28 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I wish to support what the noble Earl has said from this side of the House in the general welcome which we are prepared to give to this Bill. It is a small but very important measure and one only wishes that some of the Bills which will come before this House were no more contentious than this. I give the Bill a general welcome because for some time now it has been sought for by the workers in the industry, in order that the men employed on these particular jobs might have better protection. I made a few notes of what the noble Lord said in his opening speech, and there are one or two points which I desire to endorse or ask further questions about. The first point concerns publicity. I am glad to hear that every possible measure of publicity is to be given to this matter. We cannot educate only those people who have to work and deal with poisons; therefore I hope that the greatest possible publicity, both by the Government and by the unions concerned, will be given to the provisions of this Bill. The noble Lord also referred to consultation, and I commend this principle. Sonic consultation has, I understand, already gone on with the interests concerned in this Bill, and I am certain that, when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament and regulations come to be made, this consultation with the various bodies who are chiefly concerned will be beneficial.
There is one question that I want to ask the noble Lord. He referred to an "army of inspectors." Has the noble Lord any particular number in mind? I presume that inspectors under the Ministry of Agriculture are already dealing with the regulations under which spraying now takes place. I am wondering whether it will be necessary to augment those inspectors and, if so, whether it will be possible to transfer from the
414
Ministry of Labour some of the inspectors who are now operating in regard to poisons, so that the inspectorate shall not be duplicated.
There are one or two other matters with which I should like to deal, particularly with regard to the clauses of the Bill. I have before me the regulations for last year and the draft regulations for this year, but they do not cover the intentions of the Government, when the Bill becomes an Act, with regard to the issuing of full and complete regulations on the various points which arise, particularly in Clause 1. I wish to endorse what has already been said by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in regard to the question of labelling. There is nothing in the regulations to suggest that the importance of this matter is to be brought home to those responsible. I have before me an advisory leaflet issued by the Ministry dealing with the question of precautions in the use of insecticides, fungicides and weed-killers; and it is suggested there that in certain circumstances the containers are not marked "Poisonous." Perhaps the Minister is not at the moment in possession of a copy of the pamphlet; therefore may I be allowed to read the passage to him? It deals with the precautions which users should take before dealing with these various weed-killers and it says:
"See that the containers are prominently and securely labelled 'Poison' and store them away from harmless preparations."
This suggests to me that some of the containers may not be so labelled, and I am anxious to ensure that all poisonous substances should be labelled. I take it that the manufacturer is responsible.
Then there is the question of colour. This matter was covered by the working party but there is no regulation as regards colouring of poison. I think this should be made obligatory. The next point in this connection is the question of the age and health of users of poisons. At the moment, under the draft regulations, no person under eighteen is allowed to carry out this operation; but I think we ought to ensure that everyone who is in bad health, who has, perhaps, been affected by gas in war time, or who is in certain other ways unfit, shall not be called upon to do this particular work. This can, perhaps, be

415
provided under Clause 1, subsection (3). I know that it is difficult for a man to refuse to do a particular job, but he should have the right to protest or in some other way to make his position clear if he considers he ought not to be employed on this job when a farmer asks him to do it.
Then there is the question of records. The noble Lord, Lord
Carrington, referred to quick antidotes to one or two poisons. I am anxious, if it is possible to put it into a regulation that when spraying is carried on in any particular district some means of advising the local medical practitioners or the hospitals, as is suggested in the Working Party's Report, should be adopted. The suggestion that in order to overcome a particular poison a quick antidote is necessary indicates that the local medical people should be on their toes to go to a case if a need arises. There is another point in regard to records. In the draft regulations there is a suggestion that some farmers need not keep records. That provision may have been altered by now, but the draft, I think, makes a suggestion that a farmer whose farm is under a particular acreage, or who has under a particular number of greenhouses or under a particular crop of fruit, need not keep certain records. I consider that it is necessary that everybody who uses poisons should be obliged to keep records, and that there should be no exemptions. I ask the Minister to look at that point and see whether it is worthy of consideration. In regard to this matter of records, Clause 1, subsection (5) provides that an inspector appointed under the Act can exempt particular cases or certain persons from the operations of the regulations. I think that that is wrong.
LORD CARRINGTON: That, of course, is for research work.
LORD WISE: If that is so, then it is all right and I have no more to say on the point; but I think it may be necessary to redraft that subsection. Certainly I do not think that anybody should be exempted from the full operation of the Act.
There is one further point I wish to raise, and that concerns the protection of the public. The Working Party's Report refers to this matter, and I am
416
wondering what steps are being taken in the regulations for the protection of the public from spraying operations. There may not be much in the point, but the fact remains that it is quite possible for someone walking along a road to be poisoned in this way. The public are entitled to some measure of protection, and I am wondering whether in the case, say, of a small farmer, who is spraying and whose spraying operations in his fields cause a member of the public to become ill by poison, the public can be covered by some sort of Third Party insurance. At the moment, I expect, there is the remedy of a Common Law action against the farmer. But the farmer may be a "small" man and the member of the public who is walking along the road may be a "big" man, in the sense in which those words are so often used. There should be some sort of protection, and I hope, therefore, that in the regulations, or in some other way, that matter will be covered. In conclusion, I congratulate the Government on bringing this measure through very quickly. Like my noble friends, I hope that we shall pass it through the House without much alteration and that it will soon be upon the Statute Book.
3.41 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, like the other noble Lords who have spoken, I welcome the introduction of this Bill. It is, at any rate, a first step towards dealing with what is now becoming an extremely serious problem. My regret is that the scope of the Bill is so extremely limited. It applies, as it stands, to only two classes of poisonous substances which are used in agriculture, but there are a great many more which have come into use in recent times. For example, there is the class of chlorinated hydro-carbons, to which D.D.T., chlordane and other chemicals belong, and which are known now to be poisonous, and in some cases highly poisonous. There are a great many other poisonous substances being used for agricultural purposes.
I believe that in the United States—I do not know what the number is here—there are more than a hundred different kinds of poisonous chemicals now being used for insecticides, for weed-killers and for other agricultural purposes. It is true that the Bill provides that other classes of

417
poisons can be brought within its scope by regulation, but I do not think that that is a sufficient safeguard. There ought to be some provision by which no poisonous substances can be brought into use at all without the permission of the responsible Minister, and until those substances have been subjected to tests which are sufficient to indicate whether or not the substances are poisonous and under what conditions it is safe to use them. As the Bill is drafted, what will happen? The additional substances will be named by regulation after some unfortunate people have been killed by the use of them, as has already happened with those classes which are named in the Bill. I submit to the House that that is a very unsuitable way to deal with these matters. Because we know that many of these things are highly poisonous, and they are used because they are so, there ought to be some provision by which they are not brought into use, except for experimental purposes of course, until there is sufficient knowledge of their effects. Only then should they be licensed for use by the Ministry of Agriculture or by the Secretary of State for Scotland, as the case may be.
In addition to that, I should like to join with my noble friends who have already spoken in drawing attention to the fact that there is no provision in this Bill for the protection of the public generally. It is a Bill only for the protection of people who are engaged in using these substances or of others who are working upon the particular piece of land upon which the substances are being used. But some of these things—in fact, many of them—are applied as sprays, and if the sprays are very fine droplets it is easy for them to be carried three or four miles upon a gentle breeze; and in certain cases it has already happened that innocent passers-by have been poisoned by the use of these substances. That is a matter to which attention was drawn in the Report of the Zuckerman Committee, and it deserves very serious attention upon the part of the Government.
In addition to that, of course, there is the far wider problem of what effect these substances may have upon the people who consume agricultural products. One particular case which is mentioned in the
Report of the Zuckerman Committee is an insecticide called schradan, which is
418
one of the organo-phosphorus poisons and extremely poisonous indeed. It is used as a systemic poison—that is to say, it is intended to be taken up by the plant and to circulate in the sap. It is used upon plants such as cabbages, in which the consumer eats the plant and the sap. This is only one illustration, of course—there are other poisons which also affect the produce. For example, D.D.T. is a poison which affects meat, milk and plant products. In a recent investigation made by the Texas Research Foundation in which they purchased through ordinary retailers samples of meat, milk, Indian corn and sunflower seed, they found that all the samples of meat were contaminated by D.D.T. to the extent of from three parts per million, up to sixty-eight parts per million. All the samples of milk were contaminated, and every sample of Indian corn and sunflower seed, where there had been spraying at any time during the life of the plant, was also contaminated.
I do not want to elaborate this point but I feel that it is absolutely essential that attention should be drawn to it, because it is now known that a number of these poisons are cumulative poisons; and it is also known that some of these are capable, when they are consumed over long periods in very small quantities, of producing serious illness. They are not in the same category as the cases which have given rise to this Bill; they are not cases in which people are suddenly struck down dead or die within a few hours from acute poisoning. I am referring now to cases of chronic poisoning manifesting themselves, possibly, only after years. It has already been found by experiments upon test animals that D.D.T. and a number of substances of that chemical group Produce liver injuries. I implore the Government to devote most serious consideration to this matter, because there are now so many substances of different characters getting into food, in the course of growing, processing and preserving, that the ultimate results are quite incalculable. The problem deserves the very greatest attention.
3.52 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I find myself very much in agreement with the last two noble Lords who have spoken. This seems to me to be an extremely

419
complicated Bill, and one upon which I should like to ask my noble friend who introduced it so well this question. When he was referring in a general way to Clause 3 I think he let fall the expression that some of the scientists were not entirely in agreement. When we are dealing with really deadly poisons, that statement must occupy our very serious consideration. I congratulate my noble friend on the admirable way in which he was able to pronounce some of these chemical expressions. He brought out to a good many people the chemical meaning of these substances, but it was altogether above my head. I should like to ask my noble friend whether really exhaustive tests have been carried out with regard to these dangerous substances—for instance, as to the possible effect they may have on human beings. The noble Lord who has just sat down has referred to that matter. Some of your Lordships may know that this is a subject in which I have been interested for a good many years, and upon which I have attended many lectures, where I have met very eminent men. I have found that they are not all in agreement, and they are undoubtedly concerned as to the influences which this sort of, shall I say, fertilisation may have.
With regard to spraying I hold a very strong view. In this case, undoubtedly a great deal of this spraying will hit not only the plant but also the soil, and may thereby upset entirely nature's intention in regard to the construction of the soil. Here again, I am perhaps repeating what has already been said, but I hope that my noble friend will take the greatest possible care to see that further research is undertaken in this matter. I have only one more remark to make. With this spraying going on in a field, and with a high wind blowing, I cannot for the life of me see how people on a walking tour clown a particular road, can avoid catching some of the spray. The noble Lord has said that the effect of it has been felt sometimes a mile or two off. That seems to me an extremely dangerous situation, and one which may arise at any time. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will take seriously into consideration the various questions that the two noble Lords and I have raised, because I believe that they are of very
420
great importance. I am not going to say any more about the Bill, nor do I oppose it.
3.53 p.m.
LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, I should like just to say one word following upon what my noble friend Lord Teviot has said. I was greatly moved by what the noble Lord, Lord Douglas said. We really do not know just how dangerous these substances may be. Anyhow, I do not pretend to know how dangerous they may be, nor do I think that anybody else knows yet. Perhaps the point I wish to raise is one rather more for the Committee stage than for Second Reading. May I refer to Clause 2? I am concerned more with the public than with the employee, because I think there is a danger here. It is said that it is a remote danger, but we do not know what the effects of these poisons will be. Clause 2 says:
"No worker…shall wilfully interfere with or misuse any appliance, clothing, equipment, facilities or other thing provided.…"
I have been given by the Ministry a document entitled Ministry
of Agriculture and Fisheries: Use of Poisonous Substances in Agriculture. Voluntary Precaution Scheme, 1952. One suggestion made in respect of personal cleanliness is that workers shall be provided with an adequate supply of paper handkerchiefs, and that suitable hygienic arrangements should be made for their disposal after use. There is a danger that paper handkerchiefs will blow about. I do not see that a voluntary scheme will do any good. I think these handkerchiefs will be used day after day, not only after washing but after other purposes. And it is quite possible that they may be left about, and that some spectator looking at this interesting proceeding will use them and may be considerably injured. As I say, I do not know how dangerous these substances are, but I would suggest that it is not good enough to make them the subject of voluntary action. Though it may not be quite to the point to say that they are dangerous, I think that we need to make a punishable offence any act that is of a stupid or a dangerous nature, and it should not be left to voluntary action. How are you going to stop people from doing foolish things by voluntary regulations? I feel that we cannot be too careful in regard to the precautions we take.
4.0 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think that on the whole your Lordships have given this Bill a welcome, although one or two noble Lords appear to be rather frightened lest we have not gone far enough in sonic of its provisions. With your Lordships' permission, I will try to deal with some of the questions which have been put to me in the course of the afternoon. First of all, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked me four questions of which he kindly gave me private notice in advance. The first question was why do we not implement the recommendations of the Zuckerman Report as regards the labelling of containers holding these poisons. The Zuckerman Working Party recommended that the words "Deadly poison" should be put on the containers, and that a statement of the dangers, of the precautions that ought to be taken and of the known antidotes ought to be clearly set out on the tins.
Under Section 18 of the Pharmacy and Poisons 1933, the Home Office has power to make what are called Poison Rules, and we felt that if we added further provisions to this Bill, which deals with something quite different—it is dealing here with the use of these substances by men employed on the land—it would complicate things rather unnecessarily. However, we referred to the Poisons Board in February this year the suggestion of the Zuckerman Working Party as regards putting "Deadly poison" on the tin. The Board were rather against such a step because they felt that it would detract from the use of the word "Poison" without the use of that qualification on some other poisons which are also sold in shops. However, they do recommend that the manufacturers might apply the word "Poison," followed by these words:
"Caution. This substance is poisonous; the inhalation of its vapour, mist, spray or dust may have harmful consequences. It may be dangerous to let it come into contact with the skin or clothing."
We are at the moment discussing with manufacturers other recommendations in that part of the Zuckerman Working Party's Report with regard to labelling, precautions, antidotes and the drugs which can be used. I hope that next year we shall have poisons labelled with the words which I have just read out to your Lordships, and that the precautions which
422
should be taken will also be stated on the tin.
The second question which the noble Earl put to me concerned restriction of sale. The Zuckerman Working Party thought that there should be statutory control of the sale to the general public of the dinitro compounds and the organo-phosphorus compounds. Here again, the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933, Section 18 (20), provides that the Secretary of State may make rules as to retail sales. The Ministry of Agriculture has asked the Secretary of State to do this. I believe that he has agreed and has now prepared a statutory instrument. The third question which the noble Earl put to me related to research. He wanted to know whether research was continuing as recommended by the Zuckerman Committee. This research is continuing. The Medical Research Council are continuing research to find out materials which will afford complete protection against these poisons and give comfort to the wearer. The Ministry of Supply and the British Standards Institute are looking into the question of finding a light-weight respirator. At the same time, the Agricultural Research Council are very busy endeavouring to find non-toxic substitutes for these two particular sorts of poisons.
The last question which the noble Earl asked me was with regard to the second part of the Zuckerman Working Party's inquiry. He wanted to know how that was going. As the noble Earl knows (although I do not know whether your Lordships generally are aware of it), the Committee were asked to look into the question of whether these substances have an adverse effect on the consumer. This is, I think, an answer to Lord Douglas of Barloch and, in a sense, to Lord Teviot. The Working Party are inquiring into the effect of these poisons on the consumer, though I must say here and now that there is no evidence whatever to show how they could have any effect whatever on the consumer. They are cumulative poisons and take a very long time indeed to have any ill-effects on human beings. I am glad to note that the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, agrees with me there. I think I have now dealt with all the questions which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, put to me. I am very grateful to him for the way in which he welcomed this Bill, but I am afraid that I cannot match him

423
in the poetry which he quoted to your Lordships at the end of his speech. He seemed to be rather frightened that some of the wild flowers, such as poppies, might disappear from the fields. Up to a point I agree with him, but I must say that I prefer to see poppies on someone else's farm rather than among my own crops.
The noble Lord, Lord Wise, also asked a number of questions. The first was about publicity. I entirely agree with him that we must publicise this matter as much as we possibly can—and we shall do so. Then he asked me about consultation. He wished to know whether we are consulting all the interests concerned. These are very technical matters, and we cannot do without the technical advice which we are getting from those interested. We do have these consultations and we shall continue to have them, particularly when framing regulations under the Bill. I think the noble Lord must have misunderstood me, for he referred to my saying that there was "going to be an army of inspectors." I said: "There is not going to be an army of inspectors." I explained that we should do the inspection under the Bill with the inspectors we already have in the Department who are now doing agricultural wages work. The noble Lord also asked me about the labelling of containers, but I think I have answered that point.
The colouring of these poisons was the subject of another question. There is no difficulty about the colouring of the dinitro compounds, because they are a sort of yellowy mustard colour, and so they can be recognised fairly easily. But there is considerable difficulty about colouring the organo-phosphorus substances. They are not very easy to colour. However, there is a possibility that at one stage of manufacture a magenta dye can be introduced. We are not quite sure whether this is going to be successful. The difficulty is that the magenta dye may stain the flower before it has spread and starts fruiting. However, we are continuing to work on those lines. The noble Lord asked me about antidotes and about methods for spreading information concerning them among doctors. We have circularised doctors about all these matters and they are fully aware of the antidotes. As the noble Lord will see from Clause 1 (3), paragraphs (g) and (h), we recommend that
424
people should be trained in first aid and that facilities should be available on the spot.
The views of the noble Lords, Lord Douglas of Barloch and Lord Teviot, on these subjects are well-known to your Lordships. You will remember a debate in July of last year which the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, introduced on the same sort of subject, and he quoted some of the examples again this afternoon, notably that concerning the use of D.D.T. in Texas. I must say that I thought he was fully answered on the last occasion by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and I do not think it is necessary for me to go into the matter at length again. Certainly, in this country there has been no evidence that D.D.T. has been at all harmful to human beings. Conditions in this country are very different from those in Texas, and the noble Lord should not worry himself unduly about the effects of D.D.T. With regard to the fears which both Lord Douglas and Lord Teviot felt about spraying this substance from the air, or, indeed, from the ground, in a high wind, I think both noble Lords were again unnecessarily anxious. I gather that Lord Douglas feels that there is some danger that the spray will affect passers-by. As I have explained, these poisons are cumulative, and it takes a comparatively long time to get any kind of dangerous dose from these sprays. I assure the noble Lord that he may walk a number of times up and down a road and receive some spray on his face and still be as well as he is this afternoon.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I would rather the noble Lord should make that experiment than I.
LORD CARRINGTON: I am quite prepared to do so, but perhaps the noble Lord and I can go hand in hand and do it together. I think I have answered all the questions put to me.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question arising out of his reply to my remarks, for which I am extremely grateful. Has he any indication of when the Zuckerman Working Party are likely to complete the second part of their inquiry?
LORD CARRINGTON: No, my Lords. At the moment they have completed the reading of literature on the subject into

425
which they are now inquiring. They have just started to take evidence, and it may be some little time before they report. I do not think I have left any question unanswered. I am grateful for the way in which your Lordships have received this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

POACHING OF DEER (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
4.12 p.m.
House again in Committee (according to Order):
[The LORD TERRINGTON in the Chair]
Debate resumed on the Amendment moved on April 8 by Lord Morrison to insert after Clause 1 the following new Clause:
Close season for deer
" .The Secretary of State shall within three months after the passing of this Act, make Regulations establishing an annual close season during which the killing of deer except for humane purposes shall be an offence under this Act; and such regulations shall be laid before Parliament and shall not come into force until they have been approved by both Houses of Parliament."
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Your Lordships will remember that when this Bill was last in Committee, before the adjournment your Lordships agreed that the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, inserting a new Clause after Clause 1, remain on the Order Paper for further discussion to take place. Perhaps it would be convenient if the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, now stated his views.
LORD MORRISON: For some reason that the public will have some difficulty in understanding, your Lordships' House are making very heavy weather of this Bill. Perhaps at the outset I may explain why I think we are making heavy weather of it and why it may be difficult for anyone outside this House to understand this. We have had two long discussions on this question and it seems to me that we are in danger of making ourselves look somewhat ridiculous in the eves of the public. In our Second Reading discussion, and again in the Committee stage discussion, of which this is an adjournment, your Lordships were unanimous
426
and the Government were sympathetic towards what speakers in all parts of the House were asking for—namely, a close season. We said that the Bill would not be of any great importance unless a close season clause were inserted. The Minister in charge of the Bill, the noble Earl, Lord Home, whom we are glad to see here again this afternoon, said the Government were sympathetic with that point of view and that without a close season the Bill would be of little value.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (THE EARL OF HOME): May I correct the noble Lord? I must not be quoted as saying that. What I said was that if we had to insert in the Bill provision for a close season, that would improve the Bill, but we attach great value to it as an anti-poaching, Bill.
LORD MORRISON: We will let it go at that for the moment. The question that immediately comes to mind is: why do we not provide in the Bill for a close, season clause? Everybody is in favour of it and the Government are sympathetic. Why is it not in? What powerful interests stand in the way? I have heard of only two explanations and I should like to say a word on both, especially in view of the explanation which was given by the noble Earl, Lord Home, who said on Second Reading (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 175, col. 744):
"On the question of the close season, as I said at the beginning I agree that if we could include such a provision it would add to the value of the Bill. It is desirable, both from the point of view of eliminating cruelty and also, as one or two noble Lords have pointed out, because there are owners of deer forests, as is well known, who do shoot the deer all the year round and market the meat, often for the use of the greyhound racing tracks."
That is one explanation that has been given about why, in spite of the unanimous opinion of your Lordships' House and the support of the Government, we have no provision for a close season in the Bill.
The second explanation, which was given by the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, dealt with another point which seems to me to be important. The noble Duke said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 176, col. 101):
"The lack of progress is most unfortunate, especially if it is correct that the problem could be settled amicably in the majority of the Highlands, and that the trouble exists only in a small part of one county"

427
I do not know what the public will think of this House when they read these statements and when they read in the Press this morning the speech of the Minister of Food yesterday in which he said he had little hope of improvement in our meat supply in the near future. What would they think if they saw in the Press such headlines as "Priority Venison for Dogs"?
THE EARL OF HOME: It would not be fit for human consumption in winter, in the close season.
LORD MORRISON: That was exactly the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Brocket: that the deer were being shot and sold to greyhound racing tracks for feeding dogs at a time when their flesh ought not to be eaten by dogs, and certainly not by human beings. That is exactly the point. I say it would be humiliating to read a headline which showed that the House of Lords were helpless and apparently unable to do anything about it. Although your Lordships' House are unanimously in favour of a close season, apparently it cannot be achieved because, according to the noble Duke, a few people in one part of one county in Scotland will not co-operate. Without being disrespectful, it seems to me that this strong Government of all the talents is unable to proceed, although agreement has been apparently reached almost throughout Scotland, because in one part of one county there are people who refuse to co-operate, and although the public would be highly indignant if they were aware of the traffic which is going on and which, as the noble Earl has said, is a means of making quick money. These people are killing deer at a time when they ought not to be destroyed, in order to sell venison to the greyhound racing tracks. If I may repeat the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, during our previous debate, it seems to me to be reducing legislation to a farce. At the end of the proceedings on the last occasion the noble Earl, Lord Home, who I know has been trying hard to get agreement, promised that he would try again immediately. Therefore, the Committee stage was adjourned, and we have now reopened it in the hope that we shall have a report from the noble Earl on the further negotiations that have taken place.
428
In case the noble Earl has a difficult reply to make to your Lordships, I should like to thank him for his persistent efforts to meet the obvious wish of many members of the Committee.
I should like to say, in regard to my Amendment which is before the Committee at the moment and is being considered in conjunction with similar Amendments by other noble Lords, that I am not in any way tied to the actual words of the Amendment. We are all anxious to be as accommodating as possible, and even at this stage, if the Government would agree to establish a close season, I should be willing to change the wording of my Amendment to extend the time for the close season to come into effect, in order that an opportunity may be given to those who are not in agreement still further to consider their position. I should also be willing (I do not think I can give any more concessions without giving up my Amendment altogether) to insert words making the close season applicable to such counties or areas as the Secretary of State may decide. If the statement made by the noble Duke the Duke of Buccleuch is correct (and I have no reason to doubt it), that the greater part of the country would accept a close season, and that the difficulty is confined to a comparatively small area, that would enable the Minister to impose a close season for the rest of the country, leaving the others to attempt to hammer out amongst themselves some amicable agreement.
I do not wish to trespass on your Lordships' patience any further, because I am sure other noble Lords wish to take part in this discussion. My final word is this. Nothing that I have said in connection with this matter—and this is the third occasion upon which I have taken part in such discussions during this Session—has been said in any Party sense whatever. There is no question of this being a Party measure, but I should like it to be clearly understood that in anything I have said I have not committed my Party in any way. I say that because, after your Lordships dispose of this Bill—assuming that we do dispose of it at some time—it will go to the other place, and I do not wish any Member to be misled into thinking that I have been laying down a Party political policy in

429
regard to this matter. In all that I have said I have been giving my own views, in my own way, and nobody else is committed to them.
4.24 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: I am sure we all realise that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, in what he has said—and many of us have said a great many things on this comparatively short Bill—has been expressing his own view, and that there is no Party issue involved here. Perhaps I may be allowed to recall the origin of this Bill. It was brought forward as a non-contentious measure (as we hoped) to stop a real evil—namely, gang poaching of deer. That evil, I am sure your Lordships will agree, must be stopped. Therefore, whether there is a close season or not, I hope that your Lordships will allow this Bill to go forward so that it may operate next season when these gang poachers are likely to get busy. So far as the close season is concerned, on the Second Reading of the Bill, in response to the unanimous wish of those of your Lordships who spoke on that occasion, I agreed—although it would be a difficult thing to do: it would mean altering the title of the Bill, and involve a good many other technical difficulties—that I would examine the possibility of including a close season in the Bill. I also agreed to see the National Farmers' Union, the Black-faced Sheep Breeders Association, the various land owners and all the people interested in this matter. A number of discussions then took place. The noble Lord, Lord Brocket, suggested at one time that if we could not go ahead with the close season it might be said that the country was being governed by the Black-faced Sheep Breeders Association. Of course, that is not so. Any Government have a responsibility in this matter to see that the right thing is done when large interests are affected.
The Government would be quite willing to include a close season in this Bill if we could be satisfied about two things. The first of those is that we could protect the agricultural interests. Noble Lords must realise that if there is a close season the number of deer will increase, and the problems of farmers will, if anything, get worse, at a time when the Minister of Food, the Minister of Agriculture, the Government and everybody else are exhorting the farmers to increase their supplies of beef and mutton. I
430
believe that it would be wrong for the Government to impose a close season for deer unless they could be certain that the agricultural interests were protected—I think there will probably be general agreement on that point. We can see a possible way to protect the agricultural interests, but only by a widespread system of licensing of tenants to shoot deer. If you have to license hundreds and thousands of tenant farmers to shoot deer—and it is not a question only of one county; five or six counties are affected by these marauding deer—then you come to the point where the cruelty aspect, which is the motive largely behind your Lordships in seeking a close season, will be just as bad as if you did not have one. Nobody can contemplate with equanimity hundreds of tenants, using all sorts of weapons, firing indiscriminately at marauding deer. Therefore, the reason why I cannot advise your Lordships to try to insert a close season clause into this Bill is that the Government have not found a way in which they think it can be equitably lone. They have been unable to find proper means of protecting agriculture without opening the door wide to just those abuses which we are trying to stop.
I have had further conversations with the interests concerned, but unfortunately they revealed no fundamental agreement. As the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, has quoted the Duke of Buccleuch, perhaps I may be allowed to say (I have not been able to ask his permission, because he is not here) that I had a letter from him privately yesterday saying that, having had further time to consider the matter, he is now convinced that a close season could not at present be imposed by legislation. I am satisfied that the Government would not be justified at this stage, without further examination of the problems involved, in proceeding with the institution of a close season. It is an unfortunate result, but I am quite certain that the fundamentals of agreement are not there. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, saying on the Committee stage, or at the end of the Second Reading, that to impose a close season on a lot of unwilling people, in the Highlands of all places, would lead to considerable trouble. Therefore, I am going to ask your Lordships—of course, the matter will be threshed out in the other place,

431
and it is open to them to insert a close season and return the Bill to your Lordships—to be satisfied with the immediate appointment of an impartial Committee to investigate this matter and to make a report. At the moment, as we see it, the Committee would be under the guidance of a chairman specially chosen for his judicial qualifications. While the members chosen would not, I think, be chosen as members of the interested bodies, we should seek to get people who understand this business, who are fair-minded and impartial persons, to hear the case and to report. The particular difficulty about accepting the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, and fixing any date, is that so far as we can see at present the most likely line of approach would involve an Amendment of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948, and it is difficult to say exactly when that would be undertaken. I would ask your holidays, if you will, to support the suggestion made this afternoon.
LORD MORRISON: Would the noble Earl answer one question? Is it proposed that the Committee about which he speaks should be set up before the present Bill has run its time in another place?
THE EARL OF HOME: I should like to consider that matter with the Secretary of State. In any case, the Committee would be useful, because there is a good deal for them to investigate. First, they should probably establish, roughly at any rate, the numbers of deer in Scotland and the areas in which they operate most materially to the disadvantage of the farmers. There would be great advantage, too, in having the Committee recommend the dates within which the close season should be defined. At any rate, there is a case for setting up a Committee, even before the Bill goes to another place, but I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will consult with the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, or with anybody else on that aspect of the question, and we should take what people felt was the most convenient and proper line. I ask noble Lords who have Amendments on this matter to consider this question of a Committee. I think it would be the best way of solving what is a very vexed and difficult problem and, in those circumstances, I hope that noble Lords will withdraw their Amend-
432
ments in order that the matter may be threshed out again in another place and that a Committee of investigation, composed of impartial persons under a judicial chairman, may recommend to us steps which will, in the end, lead to an agreed close season.
LORD BROCKET: As I have an Amendment standing in my name on the Paper, I do not know quite what I should do. The Amendment we are now discussing is Lord Morrison's Amendment and, so far as I am concerned, if he likes to press it or withdraw it, I will support his views. I cannot speak on my Amendment at the moment.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The noble Lord, Lord Brocket, will remember that your Lordships agreed that a general debate should take place on Lord Morrison's Amendment, and that the question should be decided on that Amendment. In those circumstances, Lord Brocket would be quite in order if he spoke on this Amendment.
LORD BROCKET: I accept the Deputy Chairman's ruling. With regard to the general Amendments, I cannot help feeling that this is a very unsatisfactory position. On the Second Reading debate, and in Committee, your Lordships, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, said, were unanimous on the need for a close season. We know that the noble Earl, Lord Home, has done his best to get the various interests affected to agree on details. We also know that in different counties of Scotland there are different conditions, and that in the district of West Inverness-shire, which I know best, the question of marauding deer does not arise, because there is very little arable land. But in such counties as Perthshire, Angus, Aberdeen and Moray and Nairn, the circumstances are different and deer may come down and maraud the crops. None of us would say that it was a good thing for food production for crops to be spoilt by deer, because deer can do a very great deal of harm. I know that on my own farm, where occasionally they may get through a fence, one stag can do a great deal of harm to a field of oats. I cannot help feeling that it is very unsatisfactory for legislation or the wishes of this House or another place to be held up because various bodies cannot agree. If the

433
Amendments on the close season are withdrawn, I think it would be the duty of the Secretary of State in the Scottish Office to find a way to impose a close season, seeing that it is certainly the wish of this House.
In the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, a period is mentioned of three months after the passing of the Act, and it is hoped that the Secretary of State will, within those three months, make regulations. Judging by the speed of the negotiations, the period of three months would have to be extended fairly liberally. In my Amendment I was not so optimistic as the noble Lord, and I suggested that your Lordships should lay down that there shall be an annual close season on such terms and conditions as the Secretary of State may decide, and that it shall come into operation before December 31, 1953. I put that Amendment down because I realised that the noble Earl, Lord Home, would probably announce that a Committee would be set up by
the Secretary of State. I thought that that would give them quite enough time to produce their Report and that it would give Her Majesty's Government enough time to produce legislation, if need be, or regulations if legislation were not necessary, to establish a close season on reasonable and sensible lines. My reason for suggesting December 31, 1953, was that any close season in any year would be bound to start somewhere about the middle of January or on February 1, and would extend until probably some time towards the end of June or the middle of July. If legislation or regulations were brought in before December 31 in any one year, the close season would be operative during the next calendar year—namely, starting in January or February and going on to June or July.
If in due course this Bill goes to another place without provision for a close season in it, it will be up to another place to take a decision on the matter, and I feel that that would be a very great pity. On the last occasion when this Bill was considered in Committee, I mentioned that the value of the meat produced from deer might be in the neighbourhood of £200,000 a year. I believe that that is a fairly reasonable estimate, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, has said, when stags are shot in the middle of the
434
winter they probably go to greyhounds, because they are not fit for human consumption. I know of an instance where thirty-five stags were shot in February, all of them unfit for human consumption. Assuming that a stag in that part of the world is worth round about £20, there is £700 of meat which could be well utilised in this country, which is so short of meat, being diverted to greyhounds or even packs of foxhounds. That meat is not going to be consumed by human beings. Such a state of affairs is extremely reprehensible. The stags to which I referred were actually shot by somebody legally entitled to shoot them. He had the shooting of that particular place himself. It is not a question of poaching—it is a question of somebody legally entitled shooting deer during what should be a close season. The close season, therefore, applies just as much to owners of deer forests or owners of farms as it does to poachers, and I cannot help feeling that it will be a great pity if this Bill goes forward without provision for a close season in it.
On the other hand, it would be a pity if the Bill did not go forward, and no doubt your Lordships will weigh up whether it is better to delay the Bill a good deal further by insisting on a close season or whether it ought to go forward as it is on the assurance of the noble Earl that this Committee will be set up. I must admit that I have not a great deal of faith in Committees. Committees are very often set up to delay matters. They are not in this case: I am sure that at least this Committee is not being set up to delay matters. There is nothing to say that the National Farmers' Union of Scotland, the Black-faced Sheepbreeders' Association and, as I said jokingly on a recent occasion, the Black Market Poachers' Association, will approve the rules and regulations for a close season any more if the recommendations of this Committee are accepted by the Secretary of State for Scotland. Therefore, I feel that it will be a great pity if we allow our views to be entirely over-ruled. But, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, if the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, considers that at this stage it is better not to press his Amendment with regard to a close season, I am quite willing to fall in with what he says about his Amendment; and perhaps he will be willing to

435
fall in with what I do about my Amendment. But I thought that my Amendment, if I may say so, was a reasonable one, because it says in effect that the Government do not have to make up their minds until December 31, 1953—I suppose they would have to make up their minds before the Christmas Recess of that year.
LORD MORRISON: I will support the noble Lord's Amendment or any other Amendment for a close season which is on the Order Paper. My point is that I do not wish to make a Party matter of this question, with the putting on of Whips and so forth. It is not a matter of Party differences at all.
LORD BROCKET: I entirely agree with the noble Lord. The fact that the noble Lord and myself are both fighting for a close season shows that it is not a Party matter. This Bill has never, so far as I know, been regarded as a Party matter. Certainly I personally have never regarded it as a Party matter or as a Landlords' Protection Bill or any other kind of Protection Bill. But I do regard it as a matter of considerable importance from the point of view of the meat production of this country. Before the end of the debate on this subject of a close season, I think it may be of use if the noble Earl, Lord Home, will say what he thinks about my Amendment, which postpones the decision until the Committee which he is going to set up has had time to report.
4.43 p.m.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: Like my noble friend who has just spoken, I happen to be the owner of deer forests, and all such owners will support strongly the terms of a Bill such as we have before us to-day, which has for its object the stopping of cruelty and of the poaching of deer. I am not quite clear at present whether roedeer are included in the terms of the Bill, and I should be grateful if the noble Earl would say a word about that matter. Another point to which I wish to draw attention is that concerning the powers of the constables. Large powers are given to constables to do this, that and the other, to search people and so forth. But the constables in parts of the country such as those in which we live work under very great dif-
ficulties. They are very far apart—in
436
some instances forty miles. By the time you have got a second constable—
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: May I remind the noble Duke that there is on the Paper an Amendment to Clause 7, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, which deals with that point and which will be called in due course?
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: I thank the noble Lord. I would add, on this subject of constables, that there ought to be special constables, enjoying the same powers of search and of dealing with poachers as the ordinary constables have. I was not quite clear about the punishment for offences. I gather that the punishments are all based on particular offences—so much for the first offence, so much for the second, and so much for the third and so on. But, just as there are lies and lies, so there are offences and offences. Maybe a poacher will go out on one night, have good luck, and get away with a stag. On another night he may be caught and fined up to £20. On yet another night he may go out and bring in three deer. According to the Bill, so far as I can understand it, he would be punished for the first offence by a fine of up to £20. Is his punishment for the next offence, in which he may have got away with three deer, to be the same as that for getting away with one? I feel that the gravity of the offence, as well as the offence itself, should be taken into consideration.
LORD TEVIOT: I must thank the noble Duke who has just sat down for having talked quite a good deal about the later Amendment standing in my name. I am sure that what he has said will help us to arrive at a conclusion. I wish to ask the noble Earl, Lord Home, about this proposed Committee. Supposing that the Committee is set up, shall we get its Report, and shall we be able to debate it? I ask this because, if this Bill goes to another place and comes back here more or less unaltered, can we in this House deal with any recommendations made in the Report with which we may want to deal? I should be glad of guidance in that respect.
I know that my noble friend has done everything that he could to try to get this Bill into a more or less lucid condition. I agree with all who have spoken

437
in favour of a close season, and I think the Amendments standing in my name might almost be said to be consequential. Certainly there should be a close season of some kind. This is developing into a general debate on the Bill, and perhaps I might be allowed to ask my noble friend this question. It was suggested at one time, I think, that there had been an enormous increase in the last few years in the number of deer in Scotland. I wonder whether that is really so. I have asked many of my friends who have deer forests and they say: "Certainly not in mine." If there is, in fact, not this enormous increase which has been suggested, then I consider we should think of the preservation of deer. There is no doubt that deer-stalking—the sporting side—is of immense value to Scotland. People come from all parts of the world for it. If we deplete the deer population too much these people will not come.
My noble friend referred to the probblems of the black-faced-sheep farmers. From what I hear, I am not at all sure that those problems have not been very considerably exaggerated. Farmers in this House know that the best kind of pasture anywhere is mixed grazing. We have already had it from the noble Lord, Lord Loyal, that since he has had large quantities of cattle on his deer forests they have never been better. And certainly there appears to be no doubt that the pasture, if one can call it so—that is, heather and so on—has improved in quality and has not proved detrimental to breeding. We know that the worst neighbour for a sheep is another sheep. They all get this terrible worm condition and the more sparsely sheep are scattered about the better. It does help that there are other beasts in the area—as I have said, mixed grazing. I am really saying some of these things because I want the Committee which it is proposed to set up to consider these matters. Then there comes this question of the shooting of deer. I see no difficulty in making it obligatory that notification should be given when deer are shot, and that a heavy penalty should be imposed on anybody who does not notify the authority which will be no doubt set up to deal with that matter—either the police or some local body, who can easily be contacted and to whom one can say: "To-day, we had five deer off the hill." and so on. I think that that would in
438
itself deter the poacher and also the buyer of fresh deer meat, because I suggest that on the notification certificate which would be received there should be a slip which could be torn off and handed to the butcher with the meat if it were taken to be sold.
I do hope that, if this Committee is set up—and I believe that my noble friend would not have referred to the fact unless he had in mind that it would be set up—it will consist of people, as he says, who are impartial and without prejudice. Also, I should like to see a time limit as to when the Report should be made, because this is a question which ought to be dealt with as quickly as possible. I have several Amendments down on the Order Paper. No doubt they will he called and I shall have an opportunity to deal with them. There is one standing in my name that I particularly want to discuss.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I want to say only a very few words. The noble Lord, Lord Brocket, said that it would he regrettable if this Bill, which had the support of the House the last time it was debated, did not go forward. The support that I gave to the Bill when I spoke on the last occasion in regard to a close season was tempered by the hope that the noble Earl, Lord Home, would be able to report some agreement between the various parties interested. It was on that condition that I supported the suggestion of a close season. We are all most grateful to the noble Earl for the efforts he has made to arrive at an agreement between the interested parties, but so far he has been unsuccessful. He has give us to-day a number of reasons which prevented the various parties interested from coming to an agreement. Very well. Now we are at a stage where he asks the Committee to allow the Bill to go forward, subject to the setting up of a Committee to inquire into all the vexed problems that surround the Bill.
For my part, I most willingly accept the proposition put forward by the noble Earl. I do not think that a time limit, as has been suggested by certain noble
Lords, and the proposal to set up this Committee, go hand in hand. I think that if the Committee is to be set up it must have a free hand. I hope it will pursue its activities with all due speed, but it must have a free hand and must not be

439
hampered by the fact that a Sword of Damocles, in the form of a time limit, is hanging over its head. I have had some experience in another place of attempting to get a Private Bill upon the Statute Book. A Bill which I introduced into another place was a Bill to mitigate the cruelty to which worn-out horses on the Continent were subjected during their voyages abroad. I accepted Amendments to that Bill which, far from being strengthening Amendments, were very much the reverse—but I did get the Bill on the Statute Book. Thereafter, another Bill came along. In this case, too, I hope that we can get this Bill on to the Statute Book, even if it is not all that we want—indeed, in many respects, it is very far from what we want—and that the time will come in the not too distant future when we shall get a close season upon which all interests are agreed.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: The noble Earl, Lord Home, will, I am sure, again explain to us why the appointment of a Committee could not go hand in hand with Lord Brocket's Amendment. But, if that is quite impossible, may I suggest that at least one member of this Committee should be someone who has had experience of game laws in many parts of the Empire? There are many such people available, some of them living in Scotland, who have solved similar difficulties in Tanganyika, Uganda, Kenya and elsewhere.
LORD SEMPILL: With those of your Lordships who have spoken, I pay tribute to all that the noble Earl has done to try to bring about agreement. He has done his best. It is most unfortunate that he has not been successful. In order that I might bring myself right up to date with these matters which have been so intensively before your Lordships, I have just come back from spending a day or so at Inverlochy, in the Great Glen, and I am more certain than ever of the vital need for introducing a close season. As my noble friend Lord Elibank, who has just sat down, says, let us proceed with the suggestion which the Minister has put to your Lordships, bearing in mind the fact that we are all anxious that at the earliest date a close season should be introduced. In the meantime, I feel
440
that we should accept this suggestion subject to the expansion of the plan that the noble Earl has in his mind, which has already been asked for by the noble Lord, Lord Brocket.
In connection with this matter, may I suggest that, so far as penalties are concerned, the powers of ghillies to be bailiffs should be analogous to those already existing so far as salmon are concerned, and that to mitigate the cruelty question the weapons used against deer should be restricted to rifles of the normal calibre, and making illegal the use of the 22 or any repeating rifle and shotguns. I think if that was done it would at least mitigate the cruelties of the present situation which, when you come right into the forests and hear what is actually transpiring there, present a terrible and horrific picture. But as these measures will require a greater measure of control, I suggest to the noble Earl that, when he considers the application of that control, it should be exercised by people who have nothing at all to do with the marketing of the products of deer stalking.
THE EARL OF HOME: As a matter of courtesy, may I say a word in answer to some of the questions that have been raised? As Lord Morrison and other noble Lords have recognised, had it been possible, it was the object of the Government and the Secretary of State to put such a provision into the Bill. I have been under instructions from the Secretary of State to try and get agreement upon this matter among the various interests concerned, and when this Bill goes to another place the Members there will have full knowledge of our discussions. If they are successful in finding a way of putting in an Amendment in regard to a close season, nobody will be happier than I, because I have really striven as far as I possibly can to get agreement in this matter. I turn now to Lord Bracket's Amendment, which gives a specific date. I think the Government could not be tied to a particular date, for this reason: so far as we can see now, we think that any close season would involve the amendment of the 1948 Act, and no Government, certainly not this Government, could guarantee at this stage that the 1948 Act could be amended by a certain date. That is the real difficulty which we are up against.

441
My noble friend Lord Teviot, asked certain questions, one of which dealt with the estimated number of deer—whether they had increased or otherwise. The figures given to me by the Nature Conservancy—there has been dispute about this—say that there are now 100,000 to 150,000 deer in Scotland, and that the number should be in the region of 60,000. About that the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, would probably not agree. There are differences of opinion upon the matter. But probably one of the reasons justifying the setting up of a Committee is that we may establish more nearly the facts of the situation. I can give the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, the assurance that if there is agreement among the various parties, the Secretary of State will set up the Committee as a matter of urgency and ask them to report as a matter of urgency. I do not think that we should give them a date by which to report—that would undoubtedly hamper them—but we should ask them to report as a matter of urgency. If we get agreement, I think the time will have been well spent. Therefore, once again, I hope that the Committee will agree to the withdrawing of these Amendments. We are willing to set up this Committee as quickly as possible after consultation with the noble Lord. Lord Morrison, and other persons interested, as to whether it should be done before or after the discussion in another place.
LORD SEMPILL: May I ask the noble Earl whether he will consider promoting deer from vermin to game, as has been done in other countries?
THE EARL OF HOME: I, personally, am not in a position to consider anything more about deer at present, but I hope that at the appropriate time it may be possible to do that.
LORD MORRISON: On behalf of all noble Lords who are interested, may I again thank the noble Earl for the great trouble he has taken to try and get an amicable solution to this difficult problem? I ask permission to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.7 p.m.
LORD BROCKET LORD BROCKET moved, after Clause 1, to insert the following new clause:
close season for red deer
". There shall be an annual close season during which it shall be an offence under this
442
Act to kill red deer on such dates and under such conditions as the Secretary of State may decide, and such enactment or regulation to carry this into effect shall come into operation before the 31st December, 1953."
The noble Lord said: I have to decide whether later to withdraw my Amendment. In view of what Lord Morrison has said, and what Lord Home has said, that he would ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to treat the setting up of this Committee as a matter of urgency, I should like to ask the noble Earl, it being now the end of April, whether, if this Committee is set up, there is any chance of its delivering to the Secretary of State its views on a close season in time for there to be either a short Bill enabling a close season to be given effect to or, if that is not necessary, a regulation enabling a close season to be given effect to, so that if possible that close season may start in the early part of next year. I do not know whether the noble Earl can tell me if he thinks there is any chance of the Committee reporting in time for legislation to be brought in (of course, subject to the programme of the Government), in the autumn, bringing about a close season for 1952. Perhaps I ought first, formally to move my Amendment
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Brocket.)
THE EARL OF HOME: I think there is no doubt that if the Committee reports, and it is a Report in favour of a close season, we shall have to introduce a separate Bill for the purpose. That might involve the amendment of the 1948 Act, which would probably be undertaken some time in the not too distant future. But I am afraid I cannot give a categorical answer.
LORD BROCKET: I quite understand that the noble Earl cannot give a categorical answer; but the noble Earl knows the opinion of this Committee, at any rate on the question of a close season, and he will be able to convey that opinion to the Secretary of State for Scotland, who, I hope, will move expeditiously. Therefore, as Lord Morrison has withdrawn his Amendment, if the Committee agree, I am willing to withdraw mine. But I hope that the noble Earl will realise the unanimity of the Committee on this subject.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2:
Killing of deer.
2.—(1) If any person—

(a) between the expiration of the first hour after sunset and the commencement of the last hour before sunrise, takes or wilfully kills deer; or

(b) takes or wilfully kills deer otherwise than by shooting;

he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such fine and imprisonment; and

LORD BROCKET: I beg leave to move the second Amendment standing in my name. The Committee will remember that on the earlier occasion, when this Bill was in Committee, I moved an Amendment to Clause 1, to make the fine £30 instead of £20 for a first offence. This Amendment is not really consequential upon the Amendment to Clause 1 which I withdrew, because the crime is slightly different. Without detaining the Committee too long, I should like to repeat my argument that, when a carcase of a stag may be worth £20 or £25, I consider that a fine of only £20 is too little. As I said in my Amendment to Clause 1, if the poacher has already disposed of the carcase of his stag he will make a profit even though he pays a fine. We are always told that Scotsmen like to make profits rather than losses, but I think in these circumstances it is a rather unfortunate profit. Therefore, I should like the noble Earl to consider whether the fine under this clause should not be raised to £30. On the Report stage or on Third Reading, whichever it may be, I shall move that the fine under Clause 1 shall also be increased to £30, to bring it into line with the fine under Clause 2. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 1, leave out ("twenty") and insert ("thirty").—(Lord Brocket.)
THE EARL OF HOME: This afternoon, of course, we can deal only with the Amendment as it applies to Clause 2, because we disposed of the Amendment as it applied to Clause 1 the other day. The Government feel that the fines which we have set out in the Bill for inflicting on the individual poacher are rather high, on
444
the whole, in comparison with the penalties for comparable offences under the Salmon Poaching Act and the Game Laws. This Bill is primarily aimed at poaching by gangs. No one, I think, wants to be too hard on the man who may occasionally go out to get "something for the pot," though he must suffer a just penalty for his breach of the law. We have thought about this matter a good deal, and we consider that a fine of £20 is the right fine to impose on one individual who kills a deer and is convicted. But the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, will notice that in the case of Clause 2 it is rather different. An offender under Clause 2 will be liable under Clause 9 to forfeit not only the deer but also his firearms and ammunition as well. I am sure that bad cases of poaching under Clause 2 will in most instances be taken on indictment, and may also involve a charge under Clause 3. If I may refer to Clause 1, I should like to say that we felt that £20 is the right fine in the very limited case in which it might be applied, and that in Clause 2 £20 is the proper fine also.
LORD BROCKET: The noble Earl is very determined not to accept any Amendments. In view of his determination and of the fact that he persuaded me to withdraw my Amendment on Clause 1 when the Bill was previously in Committee, I will withdraw this also; but I reserve the right to move both Amendments again on the next stage of the Bill because, to a certain extent, they go hand in hand. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 5 agreed to.
5.14 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT LORD TEVIOT had given notice that he would move an Amendment, after Clause 5 to insert the following new Clause:
Close seasons for red deer
".—(1) If any person shall kill or take—

(a) any stag during the season specified in the Schedule to this Act as the close season for stags; or

(b) any hind during the season specified in the Schedule to this Act as the close season for hinds;

he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds for every stag or hind so killed.
(2) The Secretary of State may if it appears to him necessary or expedient so to do direct that the Schedule to this Act shall have effect as respects such lands as may be specified in the direction as if for the respective close seasons specified in the said Schedule there were substituted such close seasons as he may deem proper. Any such direction may he given as respects all lands in Scotland or as respects the lands in any county or any part of a county or as respects any particular lands or classes of lands.
(3) For the purposes of this section the words "stag" and "hind" mean respectively the male and female of the species cervus elaphus.")
The noble Lord said: As the Amendments which I have put down on the Marshalled List to follow Clause:5 are all consequential on there being a close season, with the leave of the House I shall not move them, but I should like to take the opportunity of asking the noble Earl something. We are doing all this with the idea that perhaps at a later stage, if the Bill comes back—
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The noble Lord will have to move his Amendment if he wishes to speak.
LORD TEVIOT: can move it and then withdraw it later?
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Yes.
LORD TEVIOT: Then I beg to move the Amendment. What I want to know is this. I imagine that in view of the fact that a Committee is to be set up, and of what will happen in another place, the Bill will come back to us. Can the noble Earl tell me whether we shall then have an opportunity—I suppose we shall—to make Amendments in connection with this matter? Can the noble Earl give me some information with regard to that? I beg to move my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 5, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Teviot.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think the position would be this—though I speak subject to correction. The Bill will go from here, and if another place makes no Amendment we shall not be further concerned with it. On the other hand, if another place makes an Amendment then that Amendment will come back to us. It will then be for us either to accept or reject that Amendment, or, as is always possible, we can put forward
446
a further Amendment "in lieu." But if there were an Amendment made in another place dealing with penalties (to take that as an example) which came to this House, it would not then be in order for the noble Lord to move as an Amendment to that Amendment an Amendment dealing with a close season for deer.
LORD TEVIOT: I thank the noble Viscount for the instruction which he has given me. It seems very complicated to me, but perhaps that is my fault. I now beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Powers of search and seizure.
(2) A sheriff or any justice of the peace, if satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground to suspect any offence against section three of this Act to have been committed and that evidence of the commission of the offence is to be found on any premises or in any vehicle or boat, may grant a warrant authorising any constable at any time or times within one week from the date of such warrant to enter, if necessary by force, the said premises and every part thereof or of the said vehicle or boat for the purpose of detecting the offence.
LORD TEVIOT LORD TEVIOT moved, in subsection (2), after "constable" to insert:
"or person appointed by the Secretary of State in pursuance of this Part of this Act"
The noble Lord said: I feel I must move this Amendment, because this question of constables is one which I consider to be of great importance. Noble Lords who have been to my country know that you might go for many a day and see no constable, and if you wanted one in a hurry you might well be in a great difficulty. You might find that he was anything from forty-five to a hundred miles away—particularly in certain parts of the country. Therefore, to restrict this power of search to "any constable," as is done in this clause, seems to me to be wrong. I suggest that the Secretary of State should have power to appoint, shall we say, special constables, perhaps for this purpose alone. We have plenty of precedents for that. Many of us know a good deal about special constables—no doubt some of your Lordships have acted in that capacity yourselves. I was one

447
on one occasion. I feel that if my Amendment were accepted it would enable the Bill to function better. It would be an advantage, I suggest, to have people readily available, particularly in the wild parts of Scotland. I should be guided in this matter entirely by the Secretary of State as to whether he thought it necessary to have power to appoint special constables, other than fully qualified constables, to deal with questions relating to deer. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 31, after ("constable") insert the said words.—(Lord Teviot.)
LORD SANDHURST: Before the noble Earl replies, may I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that a special constable on duty has all the powers of a constable? Therefore the word "constable" covers "special constable." If it is desired to have people appointed who are not constables at all, that is one thing, but if all that is wanted is merely to have special constables, then there is no need to put extra words into the clause.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: It is as the noble Lord has just said. But "constable" does not cover a "person."
LORD SANDHURST: That is what I said. If you want power to appoint another person you must put it in the Bill, but if you want only a special constable there is no need for any further words.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: We want to give the Secretary of State for Scotland only permissive powers, and he is not compelled to appoint any person if he does not want to do so. I cannot see any objection to this. As my noble friend Lord Teviot has pointed out, in these widespread areas one does not see a constable for days, and often he may be away at the other end of the county. In a previous debate the noble Earl, Lord Home, raised certain objections to giving these powers to any person other than a constable, but the power in the Bill is only permissive and appointments would be made in consultation with the chief constables of the areas concerned. I hope that the noble Earl will accept my noble friend's Amendment.
LORD BROCKET: I rise to support my noble friend Lord Teviot in his Amendment. Speaking with experience of the West Coast of Scotland, I should say that this is a most important Amendment if we are to make this Bill workable. In my opinion, it is impossible to work this Bill satisfactorily if only constables have these powers. Take Loch Hourn. The head of Loch Hourn is twenty or thirty miles from Mallaig. The Mallaig constable cannot get there by road and has to go by boat, which may not do more than seven or eight knots, and it may well take the best part of three hours for him to get to the head of Loch Hourn to arrest a poacher. Then, if a keeper catches a poacher on Loch Hourn, he has a three hours' walk to the nearest telephone. Altogether, there may be six or eight hours delay, and one cannot imagine any normal poacher waiting for the constable to come round from Mallaig in his boat. In the outlying parts of Scotland, particularly on the coast, unless other persons are authorised by the Secretary of State, I think poaching will go on just as much as it does now. I should like to support this Amendment as strongly as I can.
THE EARL OF HOME: All I can do this afternoon is to promise my noble friend Lord Teviot that I will consult the Lord Advocate again on this matter. There are some real difficulties, as the noble Lord will see in a moment. In theory, the police, armed with wireless telephones and motor patrols, ought to be able to deal with this problem in the Highland areas, where roads are few, and I think we should give them a chance to see how they can work it. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, speaks of special constables, and the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, suggested that if we wanted to use special constables there was no need for any Amendment in the Bill. I understand that special constables can be used only in cases of national emergency, to tackle riots or tumult. That is the advice we have at the moment from the Law Officers of the Crown.
LORD SANDHURST: I have been out on duty in London, I should say, 300 or 400 times in the course of the last two years. There are special constables on duty every night of the week, and so far as I know there has been no special emergency.
THE EARL OF HOME: May I ask the noble Lord what he was supposed to be doing?
LORD SANDHURST: I was doing the full duties of an ordinary police constable, including the arrest of bag thieves, car thieves and others.
THE EARL OF HOME: This precedent may be very valuable, but I should like to bring the matter to the attention of the Lord Advocate and ask him to consider it once more. If we leave the special constable out of the question, I think the only people the Secretary of State could appoint would be gamekeepers. I here are serious objections, when both sides are going to be armed, as they would normally be in this case, to asking the Secretary of State to permit gamekeepers to perform these police duties. When both sides are armed, there is obviously a real risk of trouble.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Does the noble Earl limit this to gamekeepers? Would it not be possible to appoint other responsible persons, in consultation with the chief constable?
THE EARL OF HOME: It is difficult to see who else would be on the spot, apart from stalkers, gamekeepers and river watchers. There is not the same objection if these persons are the servants of a public body, though there was a good deal of 2ontention about that matter in another place on the Salmon Protection Bill, as the noble Viscount will remember. In this case, these men would be employees of private persons. I should think that 90 per cent. of them would be gamekeepers, and there would he a real risk,
450
since both gamekeepers and poachers are normally armed. If my noble friend Lord Teviot is content, I will have another conversation about this matter with the Lord Advocate and ask him about the possibility of having something inserted in the Bill in another place.
LORD TEVIOT: I thank my noble friend for the assurance that the Lord Advocate will look into this again. That satisfies me for the time being, but I hope to have another opportunity of raising this matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Remaining, clauses and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

CANTERBURY AND DISTRICT WATER BILL [H.L.]
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the Orders made on March 6 and 31 last discharged, and Bill committed.

CLIFTON SUSPENSION BRIDGE BILL [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at half past five o'clock.