Lords Sitting of 22 March 1956

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The EARL OF DROGHEDA on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Clwyd—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with a certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; and read 1a.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (COLNE VALLEY SEWERAGE BOARD) (No. 2) BILL
3.5 p.m.
House in Committee on recommitment of the Bill (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

CIVIL DEFENCE (FIRE SERVICES) (WATER) REGULATIONS, 1956
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, these Regulations are not quite self-explanatory and it will probably be of help to your Lordships if I say a brief word about the background. Your Lordships will probably remember that during the last war large numbers of emergency water tanks were constructed throughout the country. In addition, borehole pumps were installed on bridges over the River Thames, and an underground system of unfiltered water mains was laid in London. Most of the emergency water tanks were demolished soon after the sites on which they were constructed were derequisitioned, but a few still remain. There are about 600 such tanks in London. During the Berlin crisis in 1948 local authorities were asked to preserve as many as possible of the existing tanks. Her Majesty's Government still think it necessary that they
738
should be kept. It was agreed to contribute from Exchequer funds 75 per cent. of the expenditure incurred by fire authorities on cleaning and maintaining the tanks. These Regulations will, among other things, provide statutory cover for these payments. The amount of money involved is not great. The initial cost of cleaning the tanks amounts to some £15,000 and the subsequent annual cost is running at the rate of about £5,000. So, in effect, the purpose of the Regulations is to give statutory authority for the payment of Civil Defence grant, at a rate of 75 per cent., to fire authorities for carrying out the functions referred to in the Regulations. I beg to move that these Regulations be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Civil Defence (Fire Services) (Water) Regulations, 1956, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday the 14th instant, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CIVIL DEFENCE (FIRE SERVICES) (WATER) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS, 1956
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE): My Lords, these Regulations make the same provision in Scotland as that just approved for England and Wales. They have been agreed with the Scottish Local Authority Association. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Civil Defence (Fire Services) (Water) (Scotland) Regulations, 1956, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday the 14th instant, be approved.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CIVIL DEFENCE (SHELTER) (MAINTENANCE) REGULATIONS, 1956
3.12 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, these Regulations are also simple in form and do not call for much explanation. They confer on local authorities the function of maintaining air raid shelters provided by them in the last war for the public at large and for people in or near their

739
own homes. After the war, demolition of shelters went ahead quickly in those areas where labour was available, but more slowly elsewhere. This continued until 1948 when, in the light of the worsening international situation, the Government of the day decided that demolition should cease. Since then the policy has been to retain as many as possible of the remaining shelters and the local authorities responsible have been carrying out the necessary maintenance work. The presentation of regulations relating to maintenance at this time is not prompted by a desire to make any change in the existing policy or practice. The sole purpose of these Regulations is to provide statutory cover for the payment of grant on expenditure incurred by local authorities on maintenance work. There has been no such cover since the Civil Defence (Grant) Regulations, 1953, came into force, but necessary maintenance work has continued and grant on an extra-statutory basis has been paid to local authorities.
It is solely to put these payments on to a proper statutory basis that the Regulations have been drafted. If they are approved by your Lordships, local authorities will not for the time being be asked to make any departure from the existing practice, which is to restrict maintenance to work which is essential to keep the structures from becoming insanitary or in any other way dangerous because of some defects. The cost of doing this necessary minimum of work has been, land will be, very small. The Regulations therefore have a very limited purpose and a very limited significance in the field of civil defence policy. They do not represent any new development in civil defence policy, and concern only those shelters which remain over since the war. I beg to move that these Regulations be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Civil Defence (Shelter) (Maintenance) Regulations, 1956, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday the 14th instant. be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CIVIL DEFENCE (SHELTERS) (MAINTENANCE) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS, 1956.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, these Regulations make the same provision for Scotland as the Regulations which your Lordships have just passed make for England and Wales. They are acceptable to the Scottish local authorities' associations who have been consulted. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Civil Defence (Shelters) (Maintenance) (Scotland) Regulations, 1956, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday the 14th instant, be approved.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COAL-MINING (SUBSIDENCE) (RATEABLE VALUE) ORDER, 1956
3.15 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORT-FOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, I beg to move this Motion which stands in my name. I think it would be convenient that I should say a few words in explanation of this Order which has become necessary by reason of the rating changes which come into effect throughout England and Wales on April 1. The Coalmining (Subsidence) Act, 1950, under which this Order is made, gives the owners of certain dwellings financial cover against the effects of mining subsidence. The Coal Board have to make good any damage to the dwellings covered by the Act or pay compensation in lieu. The Board can recover half the cost from the Exchequer up to a maximum of £250,000 a year, and in fact the Exchequer contribution has been at the maximum in recent years.
Section 1 (2) of the Act provides that it shall apply to dwelling houses with a rateable value of not more than £32 in England and Wales and £52 in Scotland. The proviso enables the Minister to make an Order substituting higher or lower figures having regard to any changes in the valuation of premises for rating purposes and any such Order must receive the approval of both Houses of Parliament. As rating valuations in England and Wales have recently been revised a new Order is necessary, but as there has been no alteration in Scotland the limit of £52 will remain. After consultation

741
with local authority associations, from whom my right honourable friend has received great assistance, it was agreed to adopt a figure of £50 for England and Wales. The Order must be passed before April 1, if a large number of persons who at present enjoy the protection of the 1950 Act are not to he deprived of it now. I beg to move,
Moved, That the Coal-Mining (Subsidence) (Rateable Value) Order, 1956, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday the 14th instant be approved.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COPYRIGHT BILL [H.L.]
3.18 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OE SALIS-BURY): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Copyright Bill, has consented to place her interest so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, your Lordships will have noticed that there are a number of Amendments down for Third Reading. I think it is in accordance with the usual practice that we should give the Bill a Third Reading formally and then discuss the Amendments. Then, on the Motion that the Bill do now pass, we offer such observations as we have on the general purposes of the Bill. I, accordingly, beg formally to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 1 [Nature of copyright under this Act]:
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "any" and to insert "the United Kingdom or in any other." The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I have just observed, there are a number of Amendments—some thirty-odd in fact—on this Bill at this stage. I know
742
it is not customary in your Lordships' House to favour Amendments on Third Reading, therefore I ought, perhaps, to offer your Lordships an apology for the fact that there are such a large number of Amendments to be taken on the Third Reading of this Bill. As your Lordships will remember, it is an unusually complicated Bill. Most of these Amendments are drafting or consequential. None of them, I think, is really contentious, and only three or four are of importance in that they clear up some difficulty still outstanding or honour obligations entered into by the Government which we have not yet been able to fulfil. We turn to Amendment No. 1, and I am happy to be able to inform your Lordships that we start with an Amendment which is completely non-contentious. This is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 11, leave out ("any") and insert ("the United Kingdom or in any other").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this Amendment is merely by way of clarification. I do not think it requires any further explanation from me. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 19, leave out from ("who") to end of line 3 on page 2 and insert ("not being the owner of the copyright, and without the licence of the owner thereof, does, or authorises another person to do, any of the said acts in relation to the work in the United Kingdom or in any other country to which the relevant provision of this Act extends.")—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Ownership of copyright in literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works]:
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this Amendment, which goes with No. 4, is intended to meet a point made on Report Stage by my noble friend Lord Conesford and I would say, by way of compliment to him, that only he could have taken it. It was an extremely subtle but valid point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 23, leave out from ("where") to ("a") in line 24.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 26, after ("engraving") insert ("and pays or agrees to pay for it in money or money's worth").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Infringements by importation, sale and other dealings]:
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved to add to the clause:
"(6) In this section 'place of public entertainment' includes any premises which are occupied mainly for other purposes, but are from time to time made available for hire to such persons as may desire to hire them for purposes of public entertainment."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is of greater substance and is concerned with a point of what we call secondary infringement. It deals with the case where the owner of a theatre lets his theatre knowingly for the performance of a work which he is aware will create an infringement of copyright and derives profit from it. The object of the Amendment is to clarify what is meant by a "place of public entertainment." This question gave us a little trouble in Committee and again on Report stage. The difficulty was to find a formula which would bring within the mischief of the subsection a place available generally for public entertainment although not exclusively used for such purposes—for instance, a room in a town hall—but to keep free private premises. When dealing with this matter the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, mentioned his barn, which on very rare occasions might be used to house an entertainment given on behalf of some special object. The wording now proposed has been discussed with the Joint Copyright Council. I am glad to tell your Lordships that they accept it and I hope your Lordships will, too. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 42, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Mancroft.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, this Amendment is entirely satisfactory, but I think the noble Lord might have been a little more complimentary to the Opposition, because we secured this only under great pressure. We had to press the Government on Committee stage, we had to press them on Report stage, and I was by no means certain that they
744
would do anything. The noble Lord might have given us a little credit—
LORD MANCROFT: Certainly.
LORD SILKIN: —and taken some for himself for being so conciliatory. At any rate, this Amendment entirely meets the point and that particular issue is now closed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [General exceptions from protection of literary, dramatic and musical works]:
(7) Where by virtue of an assignment or licence a person is authorised to broadcast a literary, dramatic or musical work, but (apart from this subsection) would not be entitled to make reproductions of it in the form of a record or of a cinematograph film, the copyright in the work is not infringed by his making such a reproduction of the work solely for the purpose of broadcasting the work:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply if—
(b) the reproduction is not destroyed before the end of the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the day on which it is made or with the day on which the work is first broadcast in pursuance of the assignment or licence, whichever is the later, or such extended period (if any) as may be agreed between the person who made the reproduction and the person who (in relation to the making of reproductions of the description in question) is the owner of the copyright.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved, in proviso (b) of subsection (7), to leave out all words from and including "made," where that word first occurs, down to and including "later," and to insert instead:
"first used for broadcasting the work in pursuance of the assignment or licence".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot remember how much pressure, if any, was brought to bear on the Government by noble Lords opposite on this Amendment, but if there was pressure, I willingly concede it at once.
LORD SILKIN: I will let the noble Lord know.
LORD MANCROFT: I am certain that the noble Lord will let me know. This Amendment is concerned with the rather tricky question of the ephemeral recording which, the House may remember, has to be destroyed after twenty-eight days. The purpose of this Amendment is to

745
make clearer the effect of a Government Amendment accepted by your Lordships on Report stage. As I then explained, it is the practice of the broadcasting authorities, when an artiste in a series like Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh and Take It Front Here, is going abroad, to record programmes some time before their broadcast. Since twenty-eight days from making a recording would not always be long enough, it was our invention in these cases to allow the broadcasting authority to keep its ephemeral recording until twenty-eight days after the date on which the recording was first broadcast. But the Amendment then agreed to was faulty in two ways. First, it referred to the
"day on which the work is first broadcast in pursuance of the licence or assignment."
If, as is usually the case, the broadcasting authority is working under a blanket licence arrangement with the owner of the performing right, the first broadcast of any given work may take place a long time before the particular performance by the particular artiste which the broadcasting authority finds it necessary to record. Secondly, it referred to the date of making the record. Since this cannot be later than the first broadcast of the recording, the reference to two dates is unnecessary. I hope this Amendment now clears up a rather difficult point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 14, leave out from ("is") to ("or") in line 16 and insert ("first used for broadcasting the work in pursuance of the assignment or licence,").—(Lord Mancroft.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I said that I would refresh the noble Lord's memory where necessary. This is another Amendment which we pressed very hard, and for a long time without success. I am glad that it has now been accepted. The noble Lord said that the Amendment which the Government agreed to was faulty. For the sake of accuracy, would it not be correct to say that the Amendment which they themselves put down was faulty.
LORD MANCROFT: I said that.
LORD SILKEN: At any rate, if we are agreed, I do not want to make heavy weather of it. I want to exonerate my own friends. We did not put down an Amendment which was accepted by the
746
Government and then found to be faulty; it was the Government's own Amendment which was found to be faulty and they are now putting it right, and putting it right in the way we urged them to do right through the various stages of the Bill.
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lord is quite right. I remember well that there were certain flaws obvious in the Amendment, and I must take responsibility for them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7:
Special exceptions as respects libraries and archives
(5) The copyright in a published literary, dramatic or musical work is not infringed by the making or supplying of a copy of the work, or of part of it, by or on behalf of the librarian of a library of a class prescribed ay regulations made under this subsection by the Board of Trade, if—
(b) the librarian by or on whose behalf the copy is supplied does not know be identity of the owner of the copyright in be work and could not by reasonable inquiry have ascertained it; and
(c) any other conditions prescribed by the regulations are complied with.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved to add to subsection (5):
"Provided that the condition specified in paragraph (b) of this subsection shall not apply in the case of an article contained in a periodical publication."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now move on to the question of libraries, which has caused some uneasiness, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. I gave hint notice that I would try to deal with this point to-day and I hope that had he been here, he would be happy with this Amendment. It is concerned with the arrangements between libraries for exchanging works photographed by the libraries and passed round on an inter-library basis. Subsection (5) of this clause provides librarians of prescribed libraries with exemption from infringement in the copying of works for other prescribed libraries. But by virtue of paragraph (b), the exemption operates only if the librarian does not know, and cannot readily ascertain, the owner of the copyright in the work copied. So far as copying by libraries for students is concerned, this requirement is imposed only

747
if the work copied is something other than an article in a periodical. This Amendment, therefore, put the "interlibrary" copying on all fours with copying for students in this respect.
It will be noted that in prescribing the libraries which may take part without infringement in this inter-library copying, the Board of Trade are not bound by the requirements of subsection (2)—for example, the requirement that the libraries prescribed may not be established or conducted for profit—a point which was worrying the noble Lord a good deal. If, therefore, it were considered desirable, it would be possible to permit commercial libraries to join in this general scheme by which libraries are, under prescribed conditions, able to help each other. It is more than likely that articles in out-of-print scientific periodicals will figure largely in these exchange arrangements. The Amendment will make easier copying for this limited purpose. I do not pretend that the Amendment goes the whole way the noble Lord. Lord Chorley, would like, but it will help him to a certain degree. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 42, at the end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Special exception in respect of records of musical works]:
Lord Mancroft Lord Mancroft moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "two years" and insert "one year." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is to enable the Board of Trade to hold a public inquiry into the rate of statutory royalty for compulsory recordings within one year of the coming into force of the section, instead of after two years, as the clause now provides. During the Committee stage the noble Lord. Lord Lucas of Chilworth, asked whether the period of two years could be cut and I agreed to look into the point. I am sure that the noble Lord would welcome this Amendment, which meets the point he made. I beg to move.
Amendment moved.
Page 12, line 1, leave out ("two years") and insert ("one year").—(Lord Mancroft.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I will send a signal to my noble friend, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who is on the high seas. I am sure he will be delighted to hear that this Amendment has been accepted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Special exception in respect of industrial designs]:
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11 go together. I am afraid they are technical and complicated, but I am happy to say they are not controversial. They deal with technical points of the borderline between copyright and registered designs. I do not think it is a common case; in fact, it is probably somewhat rare. However, the Amendments have been put down to meet a point raised by the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 16, leave out ("this subsection") and insert ("any proceedings under this Act").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 18, leave out ("in question") and insert ("when the articles were sold, let for hire, or offered for sale or hire").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 21, leave out ("and") and insert ("or
(b) before the time referred to in the preceding paragraph an application for the registration of the design had been made, and after that time, but before the date of the act alleged in the proceedings to have constituted an infringement of the copyright in the artistic work, that application had been refused, and no appeal against that refusal had been allowed before the date of that act or was pending on that date,
and, in either case").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Copyright in cinematograph films]:
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this Amendment is a little more than drafting, and it is designed to meet a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, on the Report stage. We now seek to make clear the intention that when the copyright in the film has expired, no one who causes the film to be seen, or to be seen and heard, in public

749
infringes any of the rights given under Part I: that is to say, the rights of the author or composer. The film includes the sound-track, by subsection (8), and the sound-track itself is defined in subsection (9). The clause, as amended, does not allow the public performance of the sound-track alone without the consent of the author of the words and music embodied in it. That was the point that was worrying the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, and I think this clears it up. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 6, leave out from ("film") to ("any") in line 8 and insert ("a person who, after that copyright has expired, causes the film to be seen, or to be seen and heard, in public does not thereby infringe").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Copyright in television broadcasts and sound broadcasts]:
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this is a drafting. Amendment, designed to meet a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who had some doubt as to the actual meaning of the words. I hope that we have now resolved his doubts by this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 38, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 44 and insert ("either—

(a) have been admitted for payment to the place where the broadcast is to be seen or heard, or have been admitted for payment to a place of which that place forms part, or

(b) have been admitted to the place where the broadcast is to he seen or heard in circumstances where goods or services are supplied there at prices which exceed the prices usually charged at that place"). —(Lord Mancroft.)

LORD SILKIN: My Lords, this Amendment does meet the difficulty that I had. As I said on the Report stage, I think Clause 14 was probably the most controversial clause in the Bill, and I should like to pay my tribute to the Government for the way in which they have handled this matter and produced a clause which is entirely satisfactory to all the critics and, I hope, also, to those who will be responsible for showing sports events, and so on. They, too, have behaved very well in this matter, and I think that credit is due all round.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the subject matter of this Amendment was put into my mind by my noble friend Lord Saltoun, and I am grateful to him for it. The Amendment clarifies our intention to exempt clubs whore watching television is an extra amenity and not the main purpose for which the subscription is paid. This fulfils the undertaking I gave to your Lordships on the Report stage to look at the drafting in order to clear up the point the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, had in mind. I think this meets his point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 46, at end insert—
("Provided that for the purposes of paragraph (a) of this subsection no account shall be taken—

(i) of persons admitted to the place in question as residents or inmates therein, or

(ii) of persons admitted to that place as members of a club or society, where the payment is only for membership of the club or society and the provision of facilities for seeing or hearing television broadcasts is only incidental to the main purposes of the club or society.")—(Lord Mancroft.)

LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, those who instructed me, and I myself, are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for the Amendment he has just moved, which removes all our trouble. We are grateful to the noble Lord for the great care he has taken in this Bill and the immense trouble he has gone to to meet all the points. I should like to associate myself with everything that has been said so gracefully by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Supplementary provisions for purposes of Part II]:
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 9, leave out ("personal") and insert ("private and domestic").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Penalties and summary proceedings in respect of dealings which infringe copyright]:
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to allow a defendant to a criminal prosecution to take advantage of the same defences as are open to a defendant to a civil action

751
for infringement: for example, that what he did, although admittedly without the consent of the copyright owner, was no more than fair dealing within Clause 6.
I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 28, leave out from ("performance") to first ("of") in line 29 and insert ("constitutes an infringement").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Provision for restricting importation of printed copies]:
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the next Amendment is drafting, and also consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 41, leave out ("personal") and insert ("private and domestic").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved, after Clause 28 to insert the following new clause:
Reference of questions of law to the court.
" .—(1) Any question of law arising in the course of proceedings before the tribunal may, at the request of any party to the proceedings, he referred by the tribunal to the court for decision, whether before or after the tribunal has given its decision in the proceedings:
Provided that a question shall not be referred to the court by virtue of this subsection in pursuance of a request made after the date on which the tribunal gave its decision, unless the request is made before the end of such period as may be prescribed by rules made under the Third Schedule to this Act.
(2) If the tribunal, after giving its decision in any proceedings, refuses any such request to refer a question to the court, the party by whom the request was made may, within such period as may be prescribed by rules of court, apply to the court for an order directing the tribunal to refer the question to the court.
(3) On any reference to the court under this section with respect to any proceedings before the tribunal, and on any application under the last preceding subsection with respect to any such proceedings, every party to the proceedings before the tribunal shall be entitled to appear and to be heard.
(4) Where, after the tribunal has given its decision in any proceedings, the tribunal refers to the court under this section a question of law which arose in the course of the proceedings, and the court decides that the question was erroneously determined by the tribunal,—

(a) the tribunal, if it considers it requisite to do so for the purpose of giving effect to the decision of the court, shall give to
752
the parties to the proceedings a further opportunity of presenting their cases respectively;

(b) in any event, the tribunal shall reconsider the matter in dispute in conformity with the decision of the court;

(c) if on such reconsideration it appears to The tribunal to be appropriate to do so, the tribunal shall make such order revoking or modifying any order previously made by it in the proceedings, or, in the case of proceedings under section twenty-seven of this Act where the tribunal refused to make an order, shall make such order under that section, as on such reconsideration the tribunal determines to be appropriate.

(5) Any reference of a question by the tribunal to the court under this section shall be by way of stating a case for the opinion of the court; and the decision of the court on any such reference shall be final.
(6) In this section 'the court'—

(a) in relation to any proceedings of the tribunal in England or Wales, or in Northern Ireland, means the High Court; and

(b) in relation to any proceedings of the tribunal in Scotland, means the Court of Session."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is of some considerable importance, and it goes with Amendment No. 28. It provides for an appeal to the court on questions of law arising before the tribunal. This matter was raised by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, during the Committee stage, and again by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, on the Report stage. During the debate on the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack accepted the principle that there should be an appeal on questions of law, and undertook to propose the necessary Amendment as soon as it was possible to find the most appropriate form of words. There will, I think, be general agreement on the object of this Amendment, in spite of the fact that not many questions of law are likely to arise before this tribunal, which is primarily a fact-finding and rate-fixing body.
The scheme of our new clause is broadly as follows. The tribunal may refer questions of law to the court at the request of a party to the proceedings made within a prescribed time limit. The tribunal may refuse to refer to the court if, for example, the tribunal considers the application a frivolous one. If it does, the party making the request may apply to the court for an order directing the tribunal to state a case. Subsection (4) requires the tribunal to take the necessary action if the court has decided that

753
the tribunal went wrong on a point of law. For example, it may be necessary for the tribunal to have a further hearing, or it may be appropriate for the tribunal to confirm, revoke or modify its order.
The main difficulty involved is one of time. There is a danger that, at the very time when everyone wants to know what his position is, the tribunal's order may still be sub judice. The obvious example would arise in connection with the broadcasting of a sporting event. We do not think it is possible to provide a solution which will be appropriate in every case. We have therefore thought it better to provide that rules may be made empowering or requiring the tribunal to suspend its orders when a question of law is referred to the court, and to enable the court to suspend the tribunal's order if an appeal is made against the tribunal's refusal to refer a question of law to the court. It seemed to us better to adopt this more flexible approach, since it is impossible to foresee rill the circumstances which are likely to arise, and it is therefore better to leave it to the good sense of the parties and the tribunal, und the wisdom of the court, to find solutions to these difficulties as they arise. Another difficulty arises from the need to inform the people affected that orders of the tribunal have been suspended, and power is therefore taken to make rules for the publication of the necessary notices. I believe this meets the very real difficulty we all felt on this matter and I think your Lordships may wish to approve what is certainly an important Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 28 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Mancroft.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should like to congratulate and thank the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the. Woolsack for the effort he has made, to meet the point that was put forward, not only from this side of the House but, I think it fair to say, from a great many quarters who felt that there should be a right of access to the courts in case of notices. I believe this meets the very real meets the case. It will be scrutinised closely by the eminent lawyers in another place, and if it goes through unscathed and unamended I think the Government are to be congratulated. The one point I have to make on it is that I think it is
754
clear that, pending a decision of the High Court, the decision of the tribunal stands. That decision operates until it is reversed. I think that overcomes some of the difficulties we apprehended in giving a right of appeal to the courts. I welcome this Amendment, and I am sure it is right in principle.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 [Extension of Act to Isle of Man, Channel Islands, colonies and dependencies]:
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, these next three Amendments go together and they are all drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 8, leave out from ("to") to end of line and insert—
("(a) the Isle of Man;
(b) any of the Channel Islands;
(c) any colony;
(d) any country outside Her Majesty's dominions in which for the time being Her Majesty has jurisdiction;
(e) any country consisting partly of one or more colonies and partly of one or more such countries as are mentioned in the last preceding paragraph.")—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 14, leave out ("subsections") and insert ("subsection").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 17, leave out ("those subsections") and insert ("that subsection").— (Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 [Application of Act to countries to which it does not extend]:
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, these next two Amendments go together. They are purely drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 6, after ("to") insert ("literary, dramatic, musical or artistic").— (Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 8, after ("to") insert ("literary, dramatic, musical or artistic").(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 [Provisions as to international organisations]:
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, Amendment 24 is also drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 41, at end insert—
("(4) The provisions of Part I of this Act, with the exception of provisions thereof relating to the subsistence, duration or ownership of copyright, shall apply in relation to copyright subsisting by virtue of this section as they apply in relation to copyright subsisting by virtue of the said Part I.")—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 37 [Provisions as to Crown and Government departments]:
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this Amendment is both drafting and consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 33 at end insert—
("(7) In relation to copyright subsisting by virtue of this section—

(a) in the case of a literary dramatic musical or artistic work the provisions of Part I of this Act with the exception of provisions thereof relating to the subsistence duration or ownership of copyright, and

(b) in the case of a sound recording or cinematograph film the provisions of Part II of this Act with the exception of provisions thereof relating to the subsistence or ownership of copyright.

shall apply as those provisions apply in relation to copyright subsisting by virtue of Part I or as the case may be Part II of this Act.")—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 46 [Supplementary provisions as to interpretation]:
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, Amendment 26 is also drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 19, at end insert ("and any reference to a reproduction, adaptation or copy of a work shall be taken to include a reference to a reproduction, adaptation or copy of a substantial part of the work:")—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This is also a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 34, leave out ("sections twenty-one and") and insert ("section")—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule [Provisions as to Performing Right Tribunal]:
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 18 which we have just been discussing. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 38, at end insert—
("(3) Any such rules may include provision—

(a) for prescribing the period within which, after the tribunal has given its decision in any proceedings, a request may be made to the tribunal to refer a question of law to the court;

(b) for requiring notice of any intended application to the court under subsection (2) of section (Reference of questions of law to the court) of this Act to be given to the tribunal and to the other parties to the proceedings, and for limiting the time within which any such notice is to be given;

(c) for suspending, or authorising or requiring the tribunal to suspend, the operation of orders of the tribunal, in cases where, after giving its decision, the tribunal refers a question of law to the court;

(d) for modifying, in relation to orders of the tribunal whose operation is suspended, the operation of any provisions of Part IV of this Act as to the effect of orders made thereunder;

(e) for the publication of notices, or the taking of any other steps, for securing that persons affected by the suspension of an order of the tribunal will be informed of its suspension;

(f) for regulating or prescribing any other matters incidental to or consequential upon any request, application, order or decision under section (Reference of questions of law to the court) of this Act.

(4) Provision shall be made by rules of court for limiting the time for instituting proceedings under subsection (2) of section (Reference of questions of law to the court) of this Act, and for authorising or requiring the court, where it makes an order directing the tribunal to refer a question of law to the court, to provide in the order for suspending the operation of any order made by the tribunal in the proceedings in which the question of law arose.
(5) In this paragraph 'the court' has the same meaning as in section—(Reference of questions of law to the court) of this Act.")— (Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fifth Schedule [Transitional Provisions]:
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this is not purely a drafting Amendment but it is quite uncontroversial. It tidies up some procedural pecularities and is rather of a technical nature. I do not think I need weary your Lordships with an explanation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 8, after ("1911") insert ("or of the provisions of the Copyright Order Confirmation (Mechanical Instruments: Royalties) Act, 1928").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 are both consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 11, leave out ("or photograph") and insert ("photograph or cinematograph film ").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 14, leave out ("or photograph") and insert ("photograph or film"). —(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 32, leave out ("or transferring") and insert ("transferring or terminating").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 11, leave out ("to") and insert ("(2) and").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this also is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 30, leave out from beginning to first ("any") in line 42, and insert: ("the provisions of this paragraph shall have effect where—

(a) the author of a work to which this Part of this Schedule applies had, before the commencement of the Act of 1911,
758
made such an assignment or grant as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of the proviso to subsection (1) of section twenty-four of that Act (which relates to transactions whereby the author had assigned, or granted an interest in, the copyright or performing right in a work for the full term of that right under the law in force before the Act of 1911), and

(b) copyright subsists in the work by virtue of any provision of this Act.

(2) If, before the commencement of that provision of this Act, any event occurred, or notice was given, which in accordance with paragraph (a) of the said proviso had any operation affecting the ownership of the right conferred by the Act of 1911 in relation to the work, or creating transferring or terminating an interest, right or licence in respect of that right, that event or notice shall have the corresponding operation in relation to the copyright in the work under this Act.
(3) Any right which, at a time after the commencement of that provision of this Act. would, by virtue of paragraph (a) of the said proviso, have been, exercisable in relation to the work, or to the right conferred by the Act of 1911, if this Act had not been passed, shall be exercisable in relation to the work or to the copyright therein under this Act, as the case may be.
(4) If, in accordance with paragraph (a) of the said proviso, the right conferred by the Act of 1911 would have reverted to the author or his personal representatives on the date referred to in that paragraph, and the said date falls after the commencement of the provision of this Act whereby copyright subsists in the work, then on that date—

(a) the copyright in the work under this Act shall revert to the author or his personal representatives, as the case may he, and

(b)".)—(Lord Mancroft.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments (privilege) made.
3.47 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I now rise to move, after that whirlwind and breakneck passage through the Amendments on Third Reading, that the Bill do now pass. Perhaps I may be allowed one or two brief words by way of valediction, because the time has come to say goodbye to this Bill. I myself do it with slight sadness. Having lived with it for nearly a year I have become quite fond of it. I do not think anybody could accuse us of having skimped our duty. We have taken nine days and considered nearly 350 Amendments, but it is an important Bill, a highly technical Bill, and in some respects controversial. The 1911 Act which it supersedes had a long and useful life, and we hope that this Bill will have an equally long and useful life. I

759
think we were right to discuss it in such detail—we make no complaints from this side about that. We invited comments from all sides of the House, and we received them. I hope your Lordships will agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in the kindly words he has just expressed, that we have given all possible and reasonable attention to the many reasoned Amendments put down.
I should like to express my gratitude to all noble Lords for the care and attention they have devoted to the Bill, and particularly the noble Lords opposite, because they have had a difficult time. It is never easy for them on a technical Bill like this, without the expert advice available to the Government. They had an additional disadvantage because the noble Lords, Lord Jowitt and Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who were in charge of the early stages, took themselves off to warmer climes and left the Bill in the extremely able hands of Lord Silkin and his friends. The Opposition have thus had the additional disadvantage of changing horses in midstream, or, perhaps one should say, changing cooks in mid-broth.
This is not in any way a Party matter. The Bill as originally drawn up was a good one: I claimed it when I introduced it, and I claim it now. I also claim that it is now a better Bill. I should also like to make this point, lest it be suggested that the large number of Amendments that we have incorporated as a result of requests from all sides of the House should be thought to suggest any lack of forethought or preparation on the part of the Government. On the contrary, what has happened is that professional bodies who thought they had a slight interest in the Bill and who were consulted discovered that they had a much greater interest than they thought; and bodies who thought that they were not interested at all suddenly found that they were—and I do not doubt that before the Bill is completed elsewhere even more interests may suddenly reveal themselves.
We have made considerable and substantial changes in the Bill as introduced. The original provisions of Clause 4 as to the ownership of copyrights did not commend themselves to the House. That clause has been substantially redrafted to give more protection to the author than we originally contemplated. We have
760
had some disagreement on gramophone records. Changes have been made in regard to the criteria on which records can enjoy copyright protection and the scope of the performing right in records. The noble Lord, Lord Archibald, who I am sorry to hear is ill again, persuaded us by his oratory to extend the film copyright to fifty years. The long and at one time rather controversial debate that we had on the performing right in television programmes succeeded in persuading sports promoters to reconsider their attitude to the now famous Scarborough landlady, and the right is now restricted to cases in which payment is made for admission. We have given certain important exemptions to those using copyright material for educational purposes. Several important Amendments to the provisions relating to the Performing Right Tribunal have been made, including a new clause, which your Lordships have just passed, providing an appeal to the High Court on a point of law.
We have not always been in full agreement but I think that little still divides us on any point of importance. There are certain matters, admittedly, which will have to be considered in another place because we have not yet had rime to complete our investigations of new points that have come to light. One is the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Faring-don, about consent in writing of the performers—that is Clause 42. Another point is one raised by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, about licences and assignments—that is Clause 34. We have not been able to come to a final conclusion in this House on those particular points. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, is not in his place because I should have liked to try to clear up some of the doubts which still exist in his mind concerning the libraries clause. He feels -that we have been obstinate, unkind and unfair to librarians. I should have liked to try and convince the noble Lord that this is not so. I tried on Committee stage; I tried on Report stage and, although one cannot help but admire the tenacity with which Lord Chorley has continued to clutch the wrong end of the stick, I should have liked to set his mind at rest on this point.
We are not being obstinate. The noble Lord will bear in mind three important points. First, this clause gives

761
the librarians the powers that their association told the Copyright Committee they needed. Secondly, any widening of these provisions is inevitably at the expense of the copyright owner—and that is a good example of the "erosion" which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, frequently referred to during the earlier stages of the Bill. Thirdly, the clause in no way hampers librarians in the exercise of any rights they may now have as a result of arrangements with publishers, such as the Royal Society Fair Copying Declaration, or of the consent of the copyright owner having been otherwise obtained, either by the librarian or by the person for whom the copy is required. The clause simply gives librarians rights which they do not have at all under existing law. The safeguards it provides for the copyright owner operate only when these new rights are being exercised. It is of some melancholy interest that, while we were debating this clause, the proctors at Oxford offered some sad strictures upon the amount of pilfering which goes on in the Bodleian Library. I hope that this clause will help to reduce that unfortunate state of affairs.
I come now to the conclusion of far too much talk from me on this Bill. I should like to thank your Lordships for the careful, patient and helpful consideration that you have given to it. Perhaps I might be allowed to react at this point an unsolicited testimonial by a very distinguished foreign copyright expert, who said a few days ago, in a letter which he wrote from America to those who are advising the Lord Chancellor and myself on this matter:
"I followed through the Hansards with great interest discussions in the I-louse of Lords on your Copyright Bill. Fascinating discussions! Your Lords seem to know as much about the technicalities as specialist copyright lawyers. I have never read such high level Parliamentary discussions about copyright."
That foreign copyright expert must clearly have overlooked that in the Committee stage I accidentally attributed Mr. George Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue to Mr. Cole Porter. I hope that those of your Lordships who are better entitled to a share of that testimonial will now be pleased to send this Bill on its way.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.— (Lord Mancroft.)
3.57 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I should like to add my tribute to Her
762
Majesty's Government. This is one of the happy occasions when both sides of the House have co-operated as, in my view, they might much more often. Governments are a little inclined—and I apply this to Governments of all colours, shapes and descriptions—to wed themselves irrevocably to a Bill in the condition in which they bring it to your Lordships' House. I am grateful to the 'noble Lord for what he said about my Amendment to what is now Clause 42, dealing with consent in writing. I am rather disappointed that he has not yet been able to find the necessary form of words, but I take encouragement from what he has said to-day and what he has said on previous occasions. I am full of hope that, before this Bill leaves another place, some suitable re-drafting of this particular part of this clause will have been discovered.
I would ask the noble Lord whether he has given any further thought to another Amendment which I had to the same clause and which was intended to bring variety artistes within the operation of this Copyright Bill. As it happens, since the last stage of this Bill in your Lordships' House I have had occasion to discuss the matter with persons who are deeply interested in this particular aspect, and they tell me that modern techniques are likely to have a deleterious effect upon these variety artistes. Whilst not wishing to disturb the harmonious atmosphere of your Lordships' House to-day, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, whether he has given any additional thought to this particular and, I understand, rather difficult problem, which is surely only one of find-ling a formula, and whether we can hope that it may be dealt with in another place.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, it would be perhaps right that I should say a few final words about this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, says that he is parting with it with a certain amount of sadness. I part with it with mixed feelings of relief and nostalgia, and I am not sure which predominates—probably, since we are approaching Easter, it is relief. However, we shall see this Bill again—of that I am quite sure. In view of what we have done, it will come back in not so modified a form as it might have done, but certainly it will come back considerably modified, so we shall have an opportunity of having a final look at it.

763
As the noble Lord has said, this Bill has not been a Party measure. Therefore, we have seen the House of Lords at its best as a revising Chamber. We have had a great deal of scope because this Bill originated in this House; it did not come to us with the scrutiny that another place might have given to it. Although the numbers who have taken part in the discussions have been few, I feel that the gentleman in America who corresponded with the noble Lord was perfectly right, and that the discussions have been on a very high level. I hope the noble Lord will tell the gentleman in America that we very much appreciate the compliment that he has paid this House. We do not often get unsolicited testimonials and, when we do, we treasure them very much. Perhaps the noble Lord would put this letter in the Library so that we may look at it from time to time.
There are one or two controversial matters that have not been disposed of to the entire satisfaction of some of us, but the noble Lord need feel no misgivings in having conceded so many Amendments. The last thing I should wish to do would be to taunt Her Majesty's Government for having accepted a large number of Amendments. I hope that in other measures they will follow the good example which has been set for them on this occasion. In this connection, I am glad to see present the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, because the last time I had occasion to pay a compliment to any member of Her Majesty's Government on the way they had dealt with a Bill 1 paid it to the noble Earl, because I appreciated the way in which he had dealt with a difficult measure—namely, the Television Bill, a measure which we still dislike as much as ever.
There are one or two clauses to which I should like to refer. We are still not satisfied with the one aspect of Clause 4 which dealt with the question of syndication of articles—the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will know what I am referring to. I hope that in another place it will be further considered. I think that we are right on that point, but I should not like to be dogmatic, and I see that there is a possibility of there being two sides to the question. However, I think it needs to be further explored in another
764
place. Then there is the question of libraries. I think the Government have gone a long way to meet my noble friend Lord Chorley. I would not say that he is ungracious or that he has misconceived the position. He naturally wants to do the best he can for a worthy organisation, and if he over-emphasises the rights of students at the expense of others, well, that is probably an error on the right side. I should welcome a further examination of that matter.
There is one point which has not been stressed in this House but which will probably have to be examined in another place—namely, the question of relay services. On this point, my noble friend Lord Archibald was interested in a series of Amendments. I took over a great many of his Amendments, but I did not feel equal to taking over the question of the relay services. I must say that at the time I was rather attracted by the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, but I overlooked the fact that a service can be relayed from abroad and as well as from a station in this country. I think that the Bill may well cover cases where there is a relay, say from the B.B.C. or from the Independent Television Authority; but there is no provision here for relays from abroad, and if the relay is a first performance then it ought to be covered by copyright. I mention that merely because it is one of the unresolved points which I think will probably have to be discussed in another place.
However, I have nothing more to say on this Bill, and I am glad that this is so. I once more wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, for the conciliatory and friendly way in which they have dealt with suggestions, not only from our side but from all parts of the House, on this difficult question. I say to the noble Lord once more: do not be discouraged in good deeds; we shall certainly not upbraid you or taunt you for having accepted so many Amendments.
4.5 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and the noble Lord. Lord Silkin, will forgive an intrusion, I should like, from the side-lines, to say how much we have admired the tussle that has

765
gone on between Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Official Opposition. Owing to circumstances, we have not been able to take quite the same part in this Bill as many of your Lordships, but it has been a magnum opus—perhaps a sonata passionata. We should like to add our tribute to noble Lords on both sides of the House whom we have seen fighting so admirably, in taking and winning and in giving back points.
4.6 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am sure that if my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor were here, he would have liked to thank the House for the kindly references that have been made to his efforts in leading me on this Bill. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Faring-don, that we are still considering the question of variety artistes; and I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that we are still wrestling with the difficult problem of the relay services. Undoubtedly, more will be heard of these in another place. In the meantime, the unamended rabbits wait, and I hope your Lordships will agree that this Bill be now passed.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

RABBITS BILL [H.L.]
4.7 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The object of this Bill is to put a stop to the practice of artificially and deliberately spreading live wild rabbits. The last rime I spoke on this matter, when introducing a similar Bill which I subsequently withdrew, I quoted to your Lordships a series of newspaper advertisements showing that them was a trade going on in buying and selling live wild rabbits for the purpose of restocking land which, in many cases, at considerable expense, had been cleared of rabbits. In that connection, and with your Lordships' permission, I should now like to quote from a newspaper report which has appeared since I introduced the first Bill. I will quote just two sentences from the Evening Standard of January 24 last, in order to show your Lordships what I am aiming at and trying to stop. The article says this:
766
"Wild rabbits are being offered at £1 each to farmers in North Bedfordshire, to restock land cleared by myxomatosis. The rabbits are taken around in a van by a hawker. The hawker is not breaking the law."
Then there is a second sentence:
"The Bedfordshire Agricultural Committee is trying to enforce the Ministry of Agriculture policy to destroy rabbits."
I again say that those two sentences disclose a ludicrous and absurd situation which ought not to be allowed to continue. Here we have the Ministry of Agriculture, at considerable expense to the taxpayers—your Lordships and myself—doing their best, and in my rightly, to reduce ale rabbit population to the lowest possible level. At the same time, quite lawfully at present, other people are doing their best to raise the rabbit population, to re-stock land which has been freed from it by disease or other means. I think that in the public interest that ought not to be allowed, and so I present this Bill.
My Lords, the earlier Bill that I introduced was found to be somewhat defective in its wording, and I should like to inform the House that in drafting this Bill I have received some assistance, for which I am most grateful. With one exception the objects of the Bill are the same as before. This Bill contains a good many more words than the other one, and I am afraid, consequentially, is less easy for your Lordships to understand. At the same time, I am informed that the lawyers are now quite satisfied with this Bill. Whether there is any connection between those two facts I, of course, will not venture to say.
In Clause 1 subsection (1) prohibits four actions: the selling, buying, conveying and turning loose of wild rabbits. In some respects the old Bill dealt with all rabbits; this clause deals only with live wild rabbits. Your Lordships will notice that it has been found necessary, for obvious reasons, to introduce words to prohibit barter or exchange or transactions which are a mixture of selling and barter or buying and barter. Subsection (2) is the penalty clause. It has been represented to me that the old penalty—a maximum of £20—was inadequate to deal with modern conditions, and the penalty for re-stocking, as opposed merely to releasing rabbits, is therefore raised to £50. Opinions may differ on whether there should be a variation in the two penalties,

767
but no doubt if they do the matter may be raised at a later stage.
Subsection (3) contains an exception for rabbits used for scientific purposes. In this connection, in order to satisfy those of your Lordships who, like myself, have in mind the humanitarian aspect of this matter, I have taken the trouble to find out that wild rabbits are not used for vivisection. That observation may satisfy anyone who has doubt as to the wisdom of the exemption. Subsection (4) is the definition clause saying exactly what we mean by a "wild rabbit," and a great deal of trouble has been taken in the drafting of this subsection. I am authorised to say—and I am happy to do so—that this provision satisfies the British Rabbit Council, a body which represents a large number of domestic rabbit-breeders in this country. I gratefully acknowledge the assistance of, or at least the absence of any hostility from, those who are interested in domestic rabbits.
To come to Clause 2: subsection (1) gives power of seizure. I think your Lordships will agree that it would be absurd to create this offence without giving a constable power to seize rabbits which are the subject of the offence and, if necessary, to kill them. Subsection (2) gives power to the court to order the forfeiture of rabbits involved in an offence of this kind, and I might usefully mention that this provision ties up with the provisions of two sections of the Magistrates Courts Act, 1952, which provide machinery for treating money which is the result of forfeiture as if it were a fine. Subsection (3) is put in to satisfy Scottish legal procedure and gives the court power to dispose of such rabbits. Your Lordships may wonder why that applies only to Scotland. The answer is that power already exists in England. Courts in the two countries will thus be brought into line.
Clause 3 is new and quite simple. It prevents the importation of wild live rabbits. It is true that it names a species, but I would point out that no other species of live wild rabbit can at present be imported. Your Lordships may possibly be surprised to hear that in 1954 you made an Order known as the "Non-Indigenous Rabbits (Prohibition of Importation and Keeping) Order" which, in effect prohibited the import of every
768
kind of rabbit except the ordinary European rabbit, which is now prohibited under this Bill. The effect, if this Bill is passed, will be an advantage, for it will no longer be necessary to distinguish between one species and another if a rabbit arrives at a port in this country. I would point out that there is provision here for licensing imports. The reason for that is that it may be desirable to allow imports of tame rabbits. The trade in tame rabbits is now very small and I am advised that this could easily be dealt with by licence to the satisfaction of those who wish to import such rabbits. I would point out that only the provisions of Clause 3 are to extend to Northern Ireland.
That, briefly, is the Bill, and in conclusion I will say a word about opposition to it. I observe from the Order Paper that the noble Lord, Lord Sherwood, has put down a Motion to reject this Bill. The noble Lord made a speech on the last occasion when I withdrew my other Bill. I have read his speech three times and, with great respect, I am unable to connect it with the Bill. I am wondering whether the noble Lord was not really thinking that the penalties imposed by this Bill were to be applied to offences created by the Pests Act. If I am wrong about that, may I point out to the noble Lord that there is nothing in this Bill which creates any offence of having rabbits on one's land, no matter how many there may be. Nor is there anything in this Bill which penalises anyone who allows rabbits to come on to his land under their own motive power. I am really puzzled by the noble Lord's remarks on that occasion. He said that the Bill was quite impossible from a liberal point of view. Why? I can only assume that it is because (as I am so often told) the Bill takes away the freedom of the individual. I admit straight away that I am seeking to take away the freedom of the individual, and the freedom I seek to take away is the freedom of a man to cause injury, loss, expense and annoyance to his neighbour. I make my offence worse by saying that I do not apologise for that.
May I give just one example of this cost and expense which the noble Lord seeks to allow and which I seek to disallow? I have tried to work out the cost of erecting rabbit wire round one single acre of woodland. I made the

769
figure, somewhat roughly, £23. I have since been informed that the Forestry Commission put it as high as £31 12s. 6d. Whichever figure is right, the cost is considerable, and I would ask the noble Lord whether, if he secures the defeat of this Bill, he will pay compensation to woodland owners for this expense, for it is a serious matter. If we can keep rabbits down, we do not have to pay this money. Since myxomatosis arrived a great many people have been spared this expense. I am now informed that before the outbreak of myxomatosis the cost of rabbit-wiring in State forests was £500,000 a year, and in private forests £1,500,000 a year. Since the arrival of myxomatosis, though I have not the actual figures, I am quite certain that the cost must be negligible; so there we have some £2 million a year saved through the absence of rabbits. I think I need quote no more figures to justify the passing of this Bill and, I hope, the defeat of the Amendment which is going to be moved.
I should like to say a word about the conflict I mentioned on the last occasion between sporting and farming interests in this particular matter. It is no good trying to hide the fact that there is a conflict. The noble Lord, Lord Sherwood, on the last occasion when this matter was discussed in your Lordships' House, told us about his shooting interests in the Isle of Wight. I must respectfully remind him that those who preserve rabbits in order to shoot them are doing so at the expense of other people, and, in particular, at the expense of farmers and woodland owners. I would just mention, also, the humanitarian aspect of this subject which at first sight might not appear to matter very much to your Lordships. I do plead with the House not to allow the position to become what it was in former days. In former days we had enormous numbers of rabbits increasing yearly, and they were trapped in a most cruel way. Abominable cruelty was used in trapping literally millions of rabbits every year, in what I call a process of rabbit farming. Now, happily, we have not that. The question is: Are we to return to that state of affairs? That question is very much bound up with the passing or the rejection of this Bill. There is a danger that the rabbits, if they are allowed to do so, may come back, and that we may then
770
have rabbit-trapping and myxomatosis. Thus we should have the worst of both possible worlds. Does the noble Lord really want that to happen?
In conclusion may I claim, modestly, that this Bill has the support not only, I think, of many Members of your Lordships' House but also of the vast majority of land-owners who have passed a resolution in favour of it; certainly it has the official support of the forestry interests and of the Nature Conservancy, and also, I would claim, that of a large majority of—if not all—the farmers. I hope that I may add that it has the support of all who have the interests of agriculture and humanity at heart. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Merthyr.)
4.23 p.m.
LORD SHERWOOD LORD SHERWOOD rose to move, That the Bill he read a second time this day six months. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be read in six months' time. We have, in effect, had three debates on this Bill. The noble Lord who has just moved the Second Reading has made the same case as he made before, and in a great many instances he has made the same points as I made in my first speech on this subject. When he accused me of wanting to encourage rabbits, I should like to ask him to note what I said then about myxomatosis. I said that I believed that once we had finished with the rabbits as a result of their extermination by this disease, we should make sure that they did not return. And that is a view I have always held. I qualified what I said on that occasion by adding: Is it possible? Can that be done?
Now the noble Lord says that I take the view—which I certainly do—that this is not the way to introduce this Bill, nor is it a measure upon which Liberals can agree. It is not merely a question of the freedom of the individual. This Bill gives power to impose penalties on the individual in respect of matters for which he cannot necessarily be responsible. And the Government have not had the courage to bring in the Bill themselves. They leave it—this is the sort of thing they seem to do now—to some Back-Bencher to bring in their Bill. In the last debate this matter came

771
up, and I definitely asked the question. It was then stated on behalf of the Government that the Bill was going to be withdrawn and that the Government were going to introduce a Bill. I interrupted the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn. I said: "My Lords, is the Government introducing a new Bill?" The noble Earl replied [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 195 (No. 62), Col. 1151]: "That is right, my Lords."
EARL ST. ALDWYN: If the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt him, I should like to ask him to look at Hansard for the day following the one to which he refers. He will then find that I corrected that statement.
LORD SHERWOOD: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot accept that as being sufficient. I understood that the policy was to have a completely new Bill in size and in form, and that it was to be a Government Bill. The Bill which we first saw was quite a short measure, and we are told that this new Bill is exactly the same. The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, says it is exactly the same, and that he is told so by Law Officers. I presume that a fine of £50 compared with a fine of £20 is exactly the same to a Law Officer of the Crown. In the first Bill a penalty of £20 was prescribed. Now we have one of £50. It is idle to say that this is the same Bill. This Bill should have been introduced by the Government, as they first said they were going to do.
I am against this Bill merely because I think it is a curious thing, when we have the powers which we have, suddenly to produce a panic Bill relating to myxomatosis. I will admit that I was clearly in favour of a Bill of this sort when it was first mooted. The point is that when it first came up in November myxomatosis had done its work and there were no rabbits. I told your Lordships of information which had been given to me showing that there were no rabbits on my land in December. Later I quoted statements which showed that they were coming back and increasing in numbers. Now I have just heard from my keeper that in the last four weeks he has killed over 200 rabbits. So it is clear that the rabbits are coming back. That figure of 200 represents only what my keeper has killed. I am afraid that only about
772
twenty rabbits will have been accounted for by the farmers, for the simple reason that, as a result of the operation of the Agricultural Wages Act, wages are so high—nearly £7 a week—that there is no point in having a rabbiter on an estate. You cannot sell rabbits because no one will buy them. This means that they will extend even more in the coming Spring. And who is going to be punished by this Bill?
Lord Merthyr has referred to the Evening Standard. I do not know why the Evening Standard wants to publish these things. It seems that there was something in that paper about people in Bedfordshire who will buy rabbits. I do not think that any of the rabbits which are now growing up in the Isle of Wight have been purchased in consequence of advertisements in the Evening Standard. Indeed I am quite certain of it. They have grown up and multiplied again because they have gone to the places where they formerly were—on the downs and the cliffs. At such places it is almost impossible to get rid of them unless through some disease like myxomatosis. And myxomatosis is something that certainly comes only once in a rabbit's lifetime. The rabbits we see now are clearly immune from myxomatosis and we shall not get that disease in that area again.
As I have indicated, I do not like the penalties which are provided in the Bill. There is a penalty of £20 for the turning loose of a wild rabbit. Who is going to be the culprit—not perhaps so much in places like the Midlands (where, I know, they also have a great many tame rabbits) but in areas such as the Isle of Wight? In the Isle of Wight nearly every country child gets a small wild rabbit. Every time the pen is cleaned out the rabbit is allowed to run about. And who is going to pay this enormous penalty if it gets away?—not the rabbit, not the child, but the parent, I presume, who will be fined this immense sum or perhaps sent to prison if he cannot pay. You are creating new laws, when there are already plenty to deal with this problem. Rabbits can be dealt with as a pest under the Agriculture Act. I do not like this Bill and I do not think it is going to be a wise one in any shape or form.
The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, turned on me, in the characteristic way of everyone who thinks I want the rabbit for

773
sport, and asked: what about growing trees? I have a good deal of growing timber and I have had to put up exactly the same wiring because, as perhaps the noble Lord may know, hares are just as destructive as rabbits—perhaps even more so to plantings. Where I have planted 800 oaks and 300 cedars as a windbreak, I have had to spend, exactly as he says, something like £30 an acre on wiring. Yet, there is not a rabbit on the place—but there are hares. If you are going to kill off everything, I can see the saving; but in quoting those figures of millions of pounds do not think that that is what you are going to save. Planting is always difficult and always will be, and in my opinion it will always be necessary to wire against pests.
I do not think it is wise for us to pass this Bill merely because we think people will put rabbits back where they have been stamped out. These clearance areas do not really exist. I live in one of the easiest areas to be cleared, because it is an island; and it was cleared. Yet rabbits are now back again. They will come back. And not only shall we have the rabbits, but we shall have Lord Merthyr's Bill to torture every child who lets loose a tame rabbit. I think it would be wrong for us to pass this sort of legislation merely because the farmers had a sudden windfall through the fact that rabbits were virtually wiped out. In my opinion, that is not the way to deal with the problem. Therefore, I think we should defer a Second Reading of this Bill for six months.
Amendment moved—
That the Bill be read 2a this day six months.—(Lord Sherwood.)
4.34 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I must admit that I was a little surprised when I read on the Order Paper the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Sherwood, for the rejection of this Bill. I was surprised because this Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, has pointed out, is exactly the same in principle and purpose as the Bill he introduced only a few weeks ago under the title, "Rabbits (Prohibition of Spreading) Bill." That Bill received an unopposed Second Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Sherwood, did not ask your Lordships to divide against it. It was approved in principle by your Lordships and only withdrawn
774
on Committee stage, not because it was undesirable, but because your Lordships took the view, which was submitted by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, that the drafting of the Bill could be improved. Therefore, it is surprising to me that the noble Lord, Lord Sherwood, without adducing anything that had happened in the meantime to justify your Lordships in changing your opinions, is now asking the House to reverse a decision taken so short a time ago.
The noble Lord went on to say that he wanted to keep rabbits down. That is something we all want to do; and we all applaud that sentiment. I must point out, however, that the effect of the rejection of the Bill, which is what the noble Lord desires, would mean that people would continue to be free to release wild rabbits on land where rabbits had been cleared; and this would have exactly the opposite effect to the one which the noble Lord himself desired. He was particularly concerned about the heavy penalties in the present Bill but, of course, the fines that the Bill proposes are maximum, and not necessarily those which would be imposed by the courts. At the same time, whether we share his view or not, I think he would probably agree that this is really a Committee point and not a point that justifies rejection of the Bill.
I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, on the considerable improvement in the drafting of his Bill. He had the assistance of advisers, probably some of them provided by the Ministry of Agriculture, and nobody knows better than I do the ability of the advice which that Department provides. I should like to congratulate him not merely on the greatly improved drafting, which will make the Bill easier to administer, but also on the speed with which he has prepared his new Bill. The time factor is exceedingly important, because the rabbits do not pause in their breeding while we are considering how to legislate against them. I do not wish to say anything about the merits of the Bill, because I said far too much on the previous occasion, except to repeat that I support the Bill most warmly: I am sure that it would be extremely helpful to farmers in keeping down the rabbit population. It really is a contribution to good farming.

775
There are only two changes in the present Bill, as compared with the previous one, to which I would draw your Lordships' attention. One is the question of maximum fines. I think that there is something to be said for a maximum fine of £50, instead of £20, for restocking, because it gives the court a wider discretion and enables it to adjust the fine to the means of the offender. At the same time, the figure proposed is not sacrosanct, and this is a matter that can be fully discussed on Committee stage. I must say that I was a little puzzled about the maximum fine for restocking as compared with the maximum for the release of wild rabbits, which remains at £20. I hope that later on the noble Lord will explain more fully the reasons for this difference. The other change, which the noble Lord pointed out to us—and perhaps it is the most important—is the ban which the Bill proposes on the importation of the European species of wild rabbit. I am sure that this will fill a gap in existing legislation, because, as the noble Lord pointed out, all British species are already banned. I do not think anybody can take exception to that.
There is one point which I should like to put to the Government. In this House we are fortunate in having a good deal of Private Members' time, and if your Lordships approve this Bill, as you did the previous one, it will go through without any undue delay. The other place, however, is not so fortunate in this respect, and, although I am sure that we all welcome the statement made by the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, on the last occasion, that the Government intend to support the Bill, I do not think that even the support of the Government is sufficient if they are not also prepared to give it Government time when it reaches another place. I should like the noble Earl to say whether the Government will be prepared to give it time or, at any rate, to say that if your Lordships approve this Bill, the matter will be seriously considered by the Government before it goes to another place. I have nothing more to add, except to say that I sincerely hope your Lordships will give the same cordial support to this Bill as you gave to the previous Bill only a few weeks ago.
4.40 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL ST. ALDWYN): My Lords, I am happy to welcome the reappearance in your Lordships' House of this Bill to prevent the spreading of wild rabbits. The Bill which my noble friend Lord Merthyr introduced in December was given very encouraging support, and I hope that the new Bill will meet with your Lordships' approval. The House had already expressed its agreement with the general object of the Bill when a Second Reading was given to my noble friend's earlier Bill. The object remains the same; all that has been changed is the method of achieving it. I certainly agree that this Bill is a considerable improvement on the earlier one. It is a workmanlike measure which should effectively achieve what it sets out to do. I think I ought to emphasise that the Bill represents no fundamental advance on our present policy for the extermination of rabbits. That policy, to which the Pests Act, 1954, gives effect, has already been endorsed by Parliament. Up and down the country farmers and foresters are engaged in an all-out effort to try and free their land of wild rabbits, and the Government stand firmly behind them. This desire to free the farming and forestry industries from the uneconomic burden of wild rabbits is neither new, nor Government inspired, but it is strongly Government supported. I regard this Bill as a useful contribution to the general aim of getting rid of rabbits.
As I have said, the Government support this Bill, but the House will realise that the legislative programme is now very full, and 'consequently, although we hope that it will be possible to find time for this Bill in another place, I am unable to give a firm undertaking to that effect at the present stage. The noble Lord, Lord Sherwood, attacked me and said that I had said that we would be introducing a Bill. I did interrupt the noble Lord to tell him that I had made a statement the day following the withdrawal of Lord Merthyr's Bill, but in spite of that interruption he still seemed to think that we had said that we would introduce a Bill.
LORD SHERWOOD: Certainly. The noble Earl did say so, quite definitely.

777
I had no communication that he was going to alter Hansard in later editions. I said:
"Is the Government introducing a new Bill?"
and the noble Earl said:
"That is right, my Lords."
Those are his actual words. I never heard from the noble Earl that it had been changed.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: if the noble Lord will study Hansard for the day following, he will see that, under the heading of "Rabbits (Prohibition of Spreading) Bill." I made the following statement [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 195, col. 1204]:
"My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to rectify something which I said yesterday. During the discussion on the Rabbits (Prohibition of Spreading) Bill, my noble friend Lord Merthyr said that he would be introducing another Bill which would have Government support. At the end of the discussion, the noble Lord, Lord Sherwood, asked me a question. I thought he said, 'Are the Government supporting the new Bill? ', whereas when I looked at the OFFICIAL REPORT I find that what, in fact, he said was, My Lords, is the Government introducing a new Bill?' I gave the answer, 'That is right, my Lords.' Obviously that answer would apply only to what I thought the noble Lord had said, but not, in fact, to what he said."
LORD SHERWOOD: I certainly apologise to the noble Earl for not having seen his correction. As a matter of fact, I went away, and I did not see the Hansard of that day; nor did I hear from the noble Earl of the firm statement that he had made in correction. But quite clearly I see that he subsequently said he found that he could not carry out his word.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: My Lords, surely it is up to a person who takes part in the debate to make himself conversant with what happens afterwards, and it is surely only courtesy to read Hansard the next day.
LORD SHERWOOD: That is what I did, and if the noble Earl looks, I think he will find those words. I cannot go on reading Hansard for weeks.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I feel I ant entitled to assume that noble Lords read their Hansard.
The noble Lord raised another point, with which I am sure my noble friend will be dealing in more detail later but on which I should like to say a word or
778
two; that is, the old business of the poor little child who loses a rabbit. As I read this Bill, it says under Clause 1 (1) (c):
"he turns loose a wild rabbit".
How anybody can interpret that phrase as meaning allowing a rabbit to escape is quite beyond me. "Turning loose" must be a deliberate act. No doubt my noble friend Lord Merthyr will have more to say on that point, but to me they are two completely different things. I do not think I need detain your Lordships further, except to say, in conclusion, that I congratulate my noble friend on the excellence of his Bill, and I feel we all owe him a debt of gratitude for the trouble he has taken over it. I would urge your Lordships to reject the Amendment to the Motion.
4.47 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, a great deal has been said about rabbits in your Lordships' House. This is a moderate and limited Bill, and I shall therefore content myself by being extremely brief; in fact, I have only one point to make. As I am in favour of the Bill, and as the noble Lord, Lord Sherwood, has spoken against it, it may be that I ant expected to combat some of his arguments. However, if the noble Lord will forgive rue for saying so, I was quite unable to discover a single relevant point in his speech, and so perhaps I may be released from that obligation. So far as I can see, the noble Lord wants to do away with rabbits, but he is against a Bill that stops people from spreading them. His main point against the Bill seems to be that the Government have not introduced it.
I was in some doubt whether I should sneak at all until I heard the speech of Ore noble Earl. Lord St. Aldwyn. I am sure many of your Lordships will be disappointed to hear that he is not in a position to give an assurance that the Government will find time for this useful measure. As the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said, it is no good having Government support for the Bill, and it is no good your Lordships passing it, unless we know that time will be found for it in another place. I do not think any of us questions for a moment the harm that rabbits have done and can do in this country; nor would we question that there are considerable signs throughout the

779
length and breadth of the country that rabbits are returning. I think the likelihood is that they are going to beat us. Do not let us indulge in the crazy folly of making the battle against rabbits impossible for ourselves by allowing them to be bred and spread about the country. The Bill deals solely with this subject, and it is a small Bill. It must be quite uncontroversial, and I would ask the noble Earl once again to approach his colleagues and bring his great persuasive powers to bear upon them to allow time for this small but useful measure.
4.50 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I am grateful, as all your Lordships are, for the opening speech by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, which explained in such clear terms exactly what the Bill intends, which I confess I had not fully understood until hearing the noble Lord's speech. But despite all that has been said, I find myself—although apparently the only one who has spoken so far to-day to take up this position—in support of the suggestion submitted by the noble Lord, Lord Sherwood. In my view, your Lordships should be very chary about agreeing to the Bill by virtue of the fact that it imposes considerable penalties. I feel, with Lord Sherwood, whilst completely agreeing with what the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, wants to do, that it can be done without the necessity for this Bill.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, it appears to me that the arguments for this Bill are overwhelming. If there is a policy for preventing the future pullulation of rabbits, which could so easily occur, what is the sense of deliberately leaving a gap in the fence? My object in addressing your Lordships for a moment or two this afternoon is to raise a point which will no doubt be dealt with in the Committee stage of the Bill, but which also has a larger aspect. I refer to the question of exempting from penalties action taken for scientific purposes. There is a scientific purpose which is not connected with vivisection or experimentation of any kind, but relates to the management of national or other nature reserves. The control and management of the rabbit within such areas would, in accordance with action taken in somewhat analogous cases, perhaps be better left to the authorities responsible for
780
those reserves rather than to the Agricultural Minister. Her Majesty's Government, I know, are well alive to this point and have considered it sympathetically in a practical way in other cases, and I am sure that it will receive all the consideration it deserves, both from the Ministers concerned and from the noble Marquess, the Lord President of the Council. I ought to mention that, as a member of the Nature Conservancy, I am responsible to him, and I have confidence that a simple solution will be found.
That brings me to a rather wider point. I feel that it would be unnecessary, in the interests of agriculture or forestry, or of any other economic interests, to aim at the complete extermination of every rabbit in every part of the British Isles. There may be islands—not remote ones, not like the Isle of Wight, but islands off the coast—where the land is of no agricultural value, or of negligible agricultural value, and where it might be necessary and expedient to allow the rabbit population to continue. This disappearance of the rabbit is probably the biggest ecological change that the country has seen in the lifetime of anyone here. It is having enormous effects. We do not quite know what all those effects will be. They certainly deserve study, and it may well be advisable to have controlled experiments in suitable areas where the absence and the continuation of the rabbit may be closely compared. The point I mention is not a theoretical one; it has actually arisen. If the matter is left wholly in the hands of county pest officers, they might well, in their enthusiasm, want to extend their activities to places which have no materiality at all to the interests of agriculture or forestry but might be damaging to the interests of science. I mention that as something perhaps outside the scope of this particular Bill but as a point which I venture to think it is not improper to mention when your Lordships are reviewing the whole of public policy in this matter. I support my noble friend Lord Merthyr in the Bill.
THE EARL OF HADD1NGTON: My Lords, I also wish to support the noble Lord's Bill, because I think it is a very sound Bill in principle. There are only two points I wish to make. The first has been brought out by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. To me it has not been

781
made sufficiently clear why it is a more heinous offence actually to trade in a rabbit, to buy or sell it, than deliberately to turn one out on the land. In the first case the maximum penalty is £50 and in the latter case, which seems to me far more likely to produce multiplication, it is only £20. It seems to me it ought to be the other way round. The other point is this. It is apparently quite lawful under the Bill deliberately to turn loose on the land a rabbit which has been bred and brought up in capitivity —all these clauses refer only to wild rabbits. I do not think a wild rabbit is so fastidious in its affections that it would devote its attention only to another wild rabbit. I know that wild, rabbits breed with tame rabbits. When tame rabbits escape, the wild rabbit breeds with them and the rabbits multiply just the same—rabbits are rather promiscuous. This point may be a possible defect in the Bill, but I think the Bill is sound in principle and therefore I intend to vote in favour of giving it a Second Reading to-day.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, winds up, I want to support the plea made by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, to the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, to use whatever influence he can with the Government to persuade them to find time for this Bill in another place. Otherwise, what is the good of us coming here? The Government say that they are behind agriculture. If they are, let them implement what they say. I am a countryman, and I knew what good has already been done by the provision of these rabbit clearance areas. I know what a tremendous effect they hive on grass and trees. I am trying to plant 400 acres a year. We have got to do what we can with the rabbit. Unless the other place pass this Bill as quickly as possible, the time will be lost. I hope the noble Earl will use all the persuasion he can.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I want to ask one question. I should like to know whether a conjuror taking a rabbit from one place to another for the purpose of producing it out of a hat is liable under Clause 1 (b) to severe penalty.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, with the permission of the House I will reply very briefly to some of the points raised
782
in this debate. I should like to thank all those noble Lords who have taken part, on whichever side they have spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Sherwood, raised three points on which I should like to comment. He said that he objected to the penalty for an act for which a man cannot be held responsible. But why cannot the man be held responsible? If a man takes a rabbit and puts it in a container, and then puts it in a lorry and takes it from one place to another and there releases it—and that is the sort of action I am aiming at—why cannot: he be held responsible? I do not understand that.
With regard to the deliberate turning loose of the rabbit, the noble Lord, Lord Sherwood, asked: "Who is going to be the culprit? What about the young child?", and so forth. There is a point there, I concede, but I do not think it is so important a point as the noble Lord thinks. Those who have to make a decision as to whether to prosecute a child do so, I think, in the light of common sense and in the light of humanity; and those magistrates who have to make a decision on whether or not to convict a child would, I think, on the whole, act likewise. As to the parent, whilst it is true that there is an obscure provision in the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, which allows in certain cases a parent to be penalised for the action of a child, I know it is rarely used and I cannot think that in this particular case it is likely to be much used. With that exception, the answer to the noble Lord is that the parent is in no jeopardy.
I must give the noble Lord his point about hares. It is perfectly true that if there are hares the cost of the wire will not be saved by the disappearance of rabbits, because hares are not affected by myxomatosis. I can give him that point only to a limited extent, because in the area in which I live there are no hares whatsoever—a hare has never been seen. Therefore I save my money by the absence of rabbits, although the noble Lord, Lord Sherwood, does not. The noble Lord, Lord Sempill, said that all I want to do can be done without this Bill, but he did not add how it can be done. I do not know whether he is in a position to inform us how it can be done. I can only say that what I seek to make a criminal offence is not now a

783
criminal offence. I do not know whether he can enlighten us on Committee stage, if there is a Committee stage, how it can be done.
The noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, raised an interesting point about the possibility of keeping rabbits on outlying islands and other similar places for experimental purposes. In my view, the licensing provision covers that, because the Bill says:
"Subsection (1) … shall not render unlawful the doing of anything for scientific purposes under … a licence."
In my view—I may possibly be wrong —that will cover the experiments on outlying islands which the noble Lord has in mind. At any rate, if I am wrong, we should certainly look into that matter. The noble Earl, Lord Haddington, raised points about the difference between the two offences. I can well understand that some people will think that the figures are relatively inappropriate. That is a point of view, and the noble Earl is undoubtedly entitled to it. I can only say that, if there is a Committee stage, I shall be glad to look into the matter. On the whole, I favour the figures in the Bill, but I realise at once that some people will agree with the noble Earl and say that they might be equal, or even the other way round, though I should hesitate to say that. Finally, I must admit complete defeat on the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EXPENSES) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
ARCHDEACON JOHNSON'S ALMSHOUSE CHARITY (OAKHAM AND UPPINGHAM) SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL BAPTIST CHAPEL AND OTHER CHARITIES (TOTNES AND TUCKENHAY) SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL LEIGH ALMSHOUSE, STONELEIGH AND OTHER CHARITIES SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bills reported without amendment.
SEXUAL OFFENCES BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee on recommitment of the Bill (according to Order): the Amendments made by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills agreed to.
HOUSING SUBSIDIES BILL
Bill read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

VALIDATION OF ELECTIONS (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL
5.10 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to validate the elections of four Members of the Northern Ireland House of Commons and of one Member of the Senate, and to indemnify them against common informer actions. The Bill also seeks to protect from such actions the late Mr. Henry Fleming. Like the other five persons with whom the Bill is concerned, Mr. Fleming held an office of profit under the Crown, and this disqualified him from membership of the Northern Ireland Senate.
The facts of these disqualifications have been ascertained by the respective Houses of Stormont, but legislation here at Westminster is necessary because the Northern Ireland Parliament has no power to legislate on the subject. The law for the time being in force relating to disqualification from membership of the other place applies also, by virtue of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, to both Houses of

785
the Northern Ireland Parliament. By validating the actions of Sir William McCleery and Sir Norman Strong, the Bill automatically validates their actions as Minister of Northern Ireland and as Speaker of the Northern Ireland House of Commons respectively. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a, —(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.

WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE ESTATE BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.

EDINBURGH CORPORATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past five o'clock.