Lords Sitting of 23 June 1960

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD MERTHYR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester
The Lord Southborough—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.

BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments and passed, and returned to the Commons.
DERBY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 34 be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of taking the adjourned debate on the Motion of the Earl Waldegrave for the approval of the Fertilisers (United Kingdom) Draft Scheme, 1960 after the Motion for the Second Reading of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Bill.—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

CARAVAN SITES AND CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT BILL
3.3 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. I think it is fair to say that, in
580
another place, this Bill has been generally welcomed. There have been relatively minor differences of opinion over its detailed provisions, but not on Party lines; indeed, contributions from all sides of the House enabled improvements to be made during the proceedings there. I very much hope that your Lordships will approach this Bill in a similar way, for even though it may not represent a major piece of social legislation it is an important measure none the less.
Part I of the Bill, which sets up a licensing system for caravan sites, is important to all those people who live permanently in caravans; it is important to all those who spend their holidays in caravans; and it is important to a growing caravan industry. Part II of the Bill, which makes changes in the procedure for planning enforcement, covers the whole field of development of land.
There are, broadly, three types of caravan sites, and each of them has been studied in framing this Bill. First, there is the site where the caravans are used as homes all the year round. Secondly, there is the site where the caravans are used as a static place of residence for holidays only. Thirdly, there is the site occupied by the mobile, touring caravan, which you tow from your motor car. I should like to say a few words about each, and perhaps more than a few about the first—the caravan home—because the problems of caravan homes were the main though not the "onlie begetter" of this Bill. It was not surprising that after the war considerable use should be made of a reasonably comfortable, self-contained mobile home that could be bought easily and more cheaply than a conventional house. What was not clear was whether this way of living was likely to stay, or whether it was just a temporary symptom of readjustment.
The very mobility of the caravans made them difficult to control and resulted sometimes in the establishment of sites that were either badly positioned from a planning point of view or insufficiently equipped for the comfortable and healthy life of the inhabitants. The establishment of such defective sites naturally led the authorities to take such powers as were available to see them closed. Since, however, the only way of closing a caravan site was to move off

581
it the people who were living on it, attempts at closure were always likely to be difficult so long as there was no other accommodation for the people moved. As a result of the efforts of authorities to exercise their perfectly legitimate rights of control a great deal of trouble and friction occurred, and it became clear that some action was necessary. Consequently, in 1958 my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government invited Sir Arton Wilson to make an investigation, and the terms of his investigation were to be into the nature and size of the problems that arise from the use of caravans as homes.
Sir Arton Wilson reported in 1959. He did the job very quickly and very well. His report, Caravans as Homes, was published as Command Paper 872. Many tributes have been paid to this document as an informative and well-balanced survey of the problem. He was not asked to make specific recommendations, but it is in the light of his findings that the Government have formulated their proposals. I think, therefore, that your Lordships will wish me to refer briefly to some of these findings without, of course, attempting to cover all the ground. Sir Arton Wilson was concerned only with the residential caravans, one of the three types that I mentioned. I wish to quote paragraph 331 of the Report, in which he gave some suggestions and in which he pointed out that
"About 150,000 people in England and Wales, not gypsies or vagrants, and comprising about 60,000 households, are at present living in caravans—an average of two-and-a-half persons per van."
He found that there were about 13,000 plots of land where such caravans are stationed. Some 10,000 were occupied only by single vans or pairs, but 3,000 sites were what we might call multiple sites where there were anything from 3 to 300 caravans. That is in England and Wales.
Most of the sites, he said, left something to be desired. A small minority were really well run and another small minority were just the opposite. In paragraph 336 he stated:
"of the 60,000 residential caravans, about 38,000 are on sites for which there is a specific planning permission, usually with conditions attached; about 12,000 are on sites
582
which have 'existing use' rights and are therefore exempt from planning control; and about 10,000 are on sites which are apparently located or operated in contravention of the Town and Country Planning Act."
That is the Act of 1947. The paragraph continues:
"In those cases where there is planning permission it is usually for only a short period of years—frequently only one or two years. Most sites are also covered by a licence under the Public Health Act."
In paragraph 348, he says:
"A substantial proportion of caravan dwellers are still living in definitiely poor conditions, and many of them also remain at risk of losing their homes."
These are some of the facts that Sir. Arton Wilson's Report brought to light and which gave us the background which we have to consider.
The Government believe that the caravan home is here to stay for as long as we can see into the reasonable future. We are quite clear that existing legislation is inadequate to deal with the problems that arise. We believe that there are two things which are required to deal with these problems. First, there must be effective powers of control to ensure that caravan sites are in the right place and are properly equipped; second (this is a more general point, but one which I consider to be of the first importance), there must be a more positive approach to this whole problem.
In paragraph 361 of his Report, Sir Arton Wilson wrote these words:
"The local authorities in general disapprove of caravans as dwellings …"
There are many reasons for this negative attitude. Probably the most cogent is that local authorities have felt that up to the present they have had quite inadequate powers to control caravan sites (owing to weaknesses in the planning enforcement procedure, which in any case can be applied only after the sites have been established), and that therefore they would rather be without them. Secondly, some of these local authorities have felt that the presence of caravans as permanent residences in their area was a confession of failure on their part to provide enough permanent dwellings. Thirdly, some local authorities have looked upon this mode of living as socially less acceptable than living in a house—what Miss Mitford might have described as "definitely non-U."

583
The result of this attitude, which I have called the negative attitude, has been that the local authorities in general, as the Report says in paragraph 342, have often refused applications for planning permission for caravan sites, and where they have given permission they have always fixed a relatively short term to it. In practice, this has usually deterred the site operator from providing good site facilities, and this has created a vicious circle. In future, if this Bill gets upon the Statute Book, the position will be very different, and I hope, therefore, that the attitude will be different. There will be effective powers in the hands of the licensing authorities (who will be, of course, county boroughs and county district councils) and in the hands of the local planning authorities, who are, again, county boroughs and county councils, or councils to whom the counties have delegated their planning powers. They will have powers both to control new sites and to deal with existing sites. And not only will the local authorities have these new powers, but they will have, as we now all have, the benefit of Sir Arton Wilson's objective investigation, which I think can be said to dispel some of the vague doubts and fears about this small sector of our national life which were widely, and perhaps legitimately, held until the facts were assembled and considered.
For a study of this factual survey will show that these 150,000 people for whom a caravan is their home are—and here I quote paragraph 34 of his Report—
"… for the most part indistinguishable in their background and way of life from people who live in houses".
Sir Arton Wilson categorises these people into seven broad groups. They range from young married couplies who, while waiting for a house, prefer to live in a caravan, rather than "in rooms" or with their parents or in-laws, through workers whose job often requires them to move, through retired people who find it cheaper to keep a caravan and prefer it, to (and here I quote again):
"folk who just like caravan-living for its own sake".
These people are not socially substandard, and they must not be confused with vagrants. They are a comparatively
584
small sector of the population whose rights and liberties, like all others, must be safeguarded. But by their very nature these people pose rather difficult problems. If their rights and liberties are to be safeguarded, the problem is that they should not infringe on the rights and liberties of others. For instance, the sites on which they live must not become a menace to their own or to other people's health. Then there is the problem of amenity. It would be utterly wrong, for instance, to allow caravan sites to stultify the objects of the green belts and the national parks. It is with these problems that this present measure seeks to deal: to safeguard the liberties, the health and the safety of the caravanners, and to safeguard the amenities which belong to the nation as a whole.
Much of what I have said so far, which has been based upon Sir Arton Wilson's Report and has dealt with permanent residential caravans, can, of course, be applied, with modifications, to holiday site caravans. Here, too, there has been a great expansion in the use of the caravan; but here, of course, the caravan proves something rather different—it proves the attraction of a place, and not the difficulty of providing houses to keep pace with employment. But those very attractions can be destroyed if the siting and regulation of holiday caravans are not properly controlled. Therefore the whole system of Part I of the Bill will apply to the static holiday caravan. But the static caravan is not the only holiday caravan: there is the touring or mobile caravan, and this is a very important element in the picture. Here, the Government's concern has been to give as big a measure of exemption from the provisions of the Bill as is possible without damage to the Bill's effectiveness. So much, then, for the three types of caravan and the background to the Bill. I come now to the Bill itself.
Part I, we shall find, sets up a licensing system which will take the place of the "movable dwellings" control embodied in Section 269 of the Public Health Act, 1936, so far as caravans are concerned. I think I should say here that Section 269 will still be operative for tents. The new licensing system is carefully geared in with the system of planning control, and planning permission is a prerequisite of a caravan licence. Planning must see

585
that the caravan site is in the right place; the licence must see that it is properly equipped and maintained.
Clause 1 of the Bill puts the obligation to obtain a licence on the occupier of land, and it is the occupier and not the individual caravanner who is made liable to penalties under the Bill. "Occupier" is defined in Clause 1, subsection (3), so that normally the occupier of land will be the man who runs the caravan site. He is usually called, I believe, the site operator.
Clause 2, read in conjunction with the First Schedule, provides for exemptions from the need to get a licence in certain circumstances. The first exemption lets you put your caravan in your own back garden. Then there are exemptions—paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5—to meet the needs of the touring caravan. Those exemptions have met with a wide measure of approval from the organisations most concerned with holiday caravanning. Then there are the exemptions for sites occupied and supervised by organisations holding a certificate of exemption given by the Minister—for instance, the Caravan Club is likely to receive such a certificate—and also for sites certified as approved by such organisations. Similarly, such organisations can have a short, five-day exemption from licensing for the purpose of holding rallies and other meetings of their members.
Then there are exemptions, coming under paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the First Schedule, for people who need to live temporarily in caravans on a certain site because of their special work. These include seasonal agricultural workers, or forestry workers and workers on building sites and engineering sites. We have made the traditional exemption for the travelling showman. He is covered in paragraph 10; and it is expressly stated that the exemption extends to the travelling showman's winter quarters. Paragraph 11 exempts sites run by local authorities in their own areas. They are also exempted from the need to obtain a licence. However, they are enjoined by a later clause in the Bill, Clause 21 (2), to observe in their own sites the same model standards which they will apply to others.
I have already referred to the fact that the key to the licensing system is that a site will not be eligible for a licence
586
unless it has planning permission for caravan use. The provision for this is in Clause 3 of the Bill. The Minister will expect planning authorities, now that their powers of control are to be adequate, to give long-term or permanent permissions where the site is acceptable, so that the operator may have reasonable security. This meets the point, full and square, made by Sir Arton Wilson in paragraph 342 of his Report, to which I have already referred, that the short-term permission militated against the provision of proper site facilities. Short-term permission should normally be granted only when there is a definite reason—for instance, where the land will be needed for another purpose after a certain period. Before giving permission, the local planning authority must consult the licensing authority, unless they are the same body, as in the case of a county borough.
Clause 4 provides that a caravan site licence may have conditions attached to it to limit the number of caravans on a site; to regulate the layout generally; to require the provision of water supplies, sanitary facilities and other necessary equipment and arrangements; to control the types of caravans stationed on the land; for regulating the position of any ancillary buildings, and for taking steps to improve the appearance of the site. All these things are to be covered in the licence. Under this clause also the Minister will have power to prescribe model Codes of Standards for caravan sites. A draft of these standards covering permanent residential and holiday sites has already been circulated to local authorities and caravan bodies generally for their consideration and comment. And under Clause 4 (1), it is provided that a licence must be of unlimited duration, unless the planning permission is short-term. So that we cannot have the one frustrating the other.
Clause 6 provides for an appeal to the magistrates' court, and thence to quarter sessions, against licence conditions which are considered unduly burdensome, and Clause 7 empowers local authorities to alter conditions attached to site licences subject to a similar right of appeal. Clause 8 provides the penalties for breaches of condition of site licences, and Clauses, 9, 10 and 11 make detailed arrangements necessary for the proper operation of the main licensing system.

587
Clauses 12 to 18 deal with existing sites. This is where our main problem has lain up till now. These clauses have been drawn up bearing in mind that many existing sites are unauthorised and probably ill-chosen, but that due regard must be had to the proper accommodation of the caravanners living on them, should it be necessary to require any of them to be closed.
Clause 13 exempts the operators of existing sites from committing an offence under Clause 1 so long as they apply for a caravan site licence within two months of the Bill coming into effect. If they have express planning permission to use the land as a caravan site they will be entitled to a licence as of right, but all those existing sites which are not covered by planning permission will be reviewed by the local planning authority.
There are three lines of action open to the planning authority on receipt of the licence application: they may grant planning permission; they may serve an enforcement notice, or they may make a discontinuance order. If none of these things is done within six months the applicant will be deemed to have planning permission and a licence will follow automatically. In this way the planning status of all these sites will be regularised. But—and this is important—sites with established use rights will not be closed down except by the powers which involve compensation.
Clauses 17 and 18 refer to the reduction of numbers of caravans on an existing site. Two types of case are now clearly distinguished: one where an excessive number of caravans on a site is reduced to a reasonable number; the other where the numbers are to be run down to zero and the site cleared and closed. The latter case is now tied to a planning decision. I think that this is appropriate, because the implication is that the site is inherently unsuitable or ill-placed; and, incidentally, it means that compensation will be paid if sites with established use rights are closed down. In both cases, the reduction of numbers must take place by what has been called "natural wastage", unless alternative accommodation is available. By "natural wastage", I mean that as a caravan or a family moves out, there will be no replacement.
588
Clause 21 of the Bill empowers local authorities to acquire land to establish and run caravan sites within their own areas. This includes power to buy up an existing caravan site, but only in the interests of the users of caravans. An example might be an ill-run site, where it appears to be impossible to secure improvement by any other means. The rest of Part I contains miscellaneous provisions, including a clause excluding the London County area from the provisions of Part I of the Bill, for specific legislation regulating caravans in the London area was passed as recently as 1959. Clause 29 provides that Part I of the Act shall apply to Scotland, with certain modifications.
So much for Part I of the Bill. Part II is wider, in that it deals with the enforcement of planning control over all types of development. But it is narrower in that it deals only with England and Wales, not Scotland. The practical difficulties which, I am informed, have become only too evident in England and Wales have not shown themselves in Scotland—whether it is the climate or some other factor I do not pretend to say—but the Secretary of State is not anxious to disturb a system which has not, in practice, thrown up the difficulties we have certainly had in England and Wales, and in such a case perhaps common sense is a rather better guide than abstract logic.
Although Part II does not confine itself to caravan uses of land, it is true that these uses have up to now highlighted the defects of the enforcement provisions of the present system in England and Wales, but I want to emphasise to your Lordships that it covers the whole range of enforcement provisions under the 1947 Act.
My Lords, I am not a lawyer, and many of the clauses in this part of the Bill are necessarily drafted in a way that make difficult reading for a layman. There are in your Lordships' House many of the most eminent lawyers in the country. I am very conscious that they will probably find these clauses easier to follow than my explanations of them. I ask their indulgence. The noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack cannot be with us here to-day, but he has said that we shall have his assistance during the later stages of the Bill, and

589
it is then that I hope we may agree to discuss any really esoteric points that your noble and legal Lordships may wish to raise. In the light of what I have just said, I will not attempt to go through this Part of the Bill clause by clause, but will give a general exposition of its purpose.
The main change proposed in this part of the Bill concerns the remedies open to a person who is served with an enforcement notice under Section 23 of the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947. At present a person who is served with such an enforcement notice has, as I understand it, two distinct remedies under that Act. First, he can challenge the merits of the enforcement notice by applying to the planning authority for permission for the development, and by appealing to the Minister against refusal. Secondly he can appeal to the magistrates' court on certain grounds, and if he loses his appeal before the magistrates there is a further right of appeal to quarter sessions.
There are therefore, in effect, two parallel remedies, and the man concerned can pursue either or both. In practice, this dual remedy is a source of serious confusion and delay. Where there are appeals both to the Minister and to the magistrates the latter frequently defer the case before them until the Minister's decision is issued consequently the two appeals become consecutive rather than concurrent, and the total time taken in all this business is vastly increased. Where the Minister refuses permission on an appeal and subsequently the magistrates decide that the enforcement notice is bad in any case, the time spent by the Minister in deciding the merits is wasted. Sir Arton Wilson gives an example in paragraphs 208 to 212 of his Report showing how enforcement proceedings can be rendered almost nugatory by the present system. Although he was concerned with enforcement notices as applied to caravan sites, the principle applies generally to all enforcement procedure under the 1947 Act.
The main proposal in Part II of the Bill, therefore, is to replace this dual remedy by a straight appeal to the Minister against the enforcement notice. We must be quite clear what this means. It means that the Minister will consider the merits, the technicalities, the law and
590
the facts. The Minister frequently has occasion to determine questions of law under his existing appellate functions; and the whole apparatus of inquiry and inspection is available to ascertain facts. In every case the planning merits of the development in question will have to be considered. The Minister is therefore made the appellate authority, but with this important safeguard: that there will be a right of appeal to the High Court on a point of law. These are the substance of the changes made by Clauses 30 and 31.
There is one other important change in Part II, and that is in Clause 33. Section 24 of the 1947 Act, in dealing with the effect of enforcement notices, differentiates between notices requiring the discontinuance of uses of land, and notices requiring the removal or alteration of buildings or works. A person who continues a use of land in contravention of an enforcement notice is liable on summary conviction to a fine, but there is no similar provision for noncompliance with an enforcement notice that relates to buildings or works. Where such a notice is not complied with, the only course of action open to the local planning authority is to enter and do the works themselves and recover the cost from the owner; and this has proved a weakness in practice. Clause 33 accordingly makes it an offence, punishable by a fine, to fail to comply with an enforcement notice relating to building or works. The clause follows section 24 (1) of the 1947 Act in placing the liability on the owner of the land.
The other clauses in Part II make comparatively minor amendments to and clarifications of the law relating to enforcement notices. Part III of the Bill contains merely the general provisions and repeals.
To sum up, my Lords, Part I of this Bill will enable local authorities to make a new start with the problems relating to caravans. The existing licensing system under the Public Health Act, which has proved unequal to the problems now arising, will be replaced by a system of licensing which we hope will be effective. The Government believe that it will result in better sites for caravanners, better security for authorised site-operators and better preservation of the seemliness of towns

591
and villages and the beauty of the countryside. Part II will, we believe, make the system of planning enforcement effective, workable and fair, instead of—as it is all too often seen to be now—ineffective, tortuous and slow. I commend the Bill to your Lordships and invite you to give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
3.36 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble Earl has introduced this Bill in a noncontroversial manner and in a way which I am sure will commend itself to every Member of your Lordships' House. He was clear; I think he was accurate, and he was fair. He told us that in another place this Bill had been discussed in a spirit of almost complete friendliness; that such differences as inevitably arose cut right across Party, and certainly there was no Party line taken by my honourable friends in the other place. I can assure him that there will be no Party line on this Bill in this House. The Bill has had such close examination in another place that I doubt whether it will require a great deal of further examination here, although some Amendments will inevitably be put down and may be necessary.
The noble Earl gave us a picture of the caravan position in this country, and he rather emphasised the question of the residential caravan, of which he said there were, according to the Arton Wilson Report, some 60,000 in 1957. I think he will find that there are more to-day, and that the number is growing. But the interesting thing is that this number is far outweighed by the number of people who use caravans for recreational purposes. This, too, is a growing number. I have been informed—I should not like to vouch for the figure—that there are something like 750,000 people in this country to-day who are using caravans. If that figure is even approximately correct, it shows clearly that the caravan habit is growing and growing. I am certainly given to understand by the caravan industry (and in view of what I am going to say about caravans I should like to make it clear that I have no interest whatsoever, directly or indirectly, in the caravan industry) that it is a most prosperous and expanding
592
industry, and that they are providing considerable export of caravans from this country, which I am sure, in the circumstances of to-day, will commend itself to the House.
The noble Earl talked about the number of people who are living in residential caravans because they are compelled to do so by lack of homes. I am told that it is difficult to get accurate figures about this. One estimate is that some 50 per cent. of the people who are living in residential caravans do so because they cannot find homes. Another figure I have been given is that 80 per cent. live in residential caravans because they cannot find homes, and only 20 per cent. because they prefer it. But whether it be 20 per cent. who prefer the residential caravan or 50 per cent., this is, after all, still a free country; and if people prefer to live in residential caravans, so long as they do no harm to anybody else, they are entitled to do so.
As I have said, by far the greater number of caravans in this country consist of recreational caravans. I will not attempt to estimate the number, because it is growing very rapidly. So is the character and quality of these caravans. May I give the House a sort of specification of the best type of caravan to-day? It is a caravan about 40 feet long and about 10 feet wide; that is to say, it has a superficial area of about 400 square feet. That is rather small for a home, but larger than a good many of the small flats that are being sold to-day at very high premiums, high ground rents and service charges. The best type consists of a double bedroom, a single bedroom, a bathroom with shower, a wash basin, a flush toilet, a refrigerator, a washing machine—these are all fixtures—a fitted wardrobe and dressing-table, central heating and air conditioning and a lounge with a certain amount of loose furniture. It really sounds like an advertisement for a high-class flat in the West End of London which would be provided at a rent of, perhaps, £1,000 a year or so.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, could my noble friend tell us what the cost of this is?
LORD SILKIN: I am coming to that. The cost of such a caravan would be £1,800, but with fewer amenities it comes

593
down to £700. Nobody can suggest that caravans of that type which people buy for recreational purposes are in any way objectionable.
When he introduced this Bill on Second Reading the Minister recognised, as did the noble Earl, that the modern caravan has come to stay. More and more people find caravans a lovely way of having holidays, even though caravans clustered together in the wrong places may be anything but lovely. Large numbers of persons are living in caravans all the year round. This being a free country, as I have said, they should be free to do so. The point I wish to make here is that if it is recognised that caravanning has come to stay, and that there is nothing objectionable about caravanning as such, whether it be permanent or recreational, then it is the business of town planning to ensure that the necessary sites are available. We cannot truly say that we are properly planning this country unless we provide, to the best of our ability, what the people require; and this is to-day one of their requirements.
The noble Earl said that caravans were unpopular with the local authorities. It is perfectly true that they have been. In my view local authorities have tended to refuse planning applications quite unreasonably. I appreciate that if a caravan is badly sited, or does not contain the necessary amenities, then it is the duty of the local planning authority to refuse planning permission. I have known a number of cases where those conditions do not obtain; where the caravan is of good quality; where no serious objection can be taken to the siting, and where the amenities are available, yet planning permission has been refused by the local authorities. And, generally speaking, the refusal has been upheld by the Minister himself. I say that if there has been any prejudice on the part of the local authorities it has been encouraged by the Ministry, and the local authorities have appreciated that they can take the course they have and be upheld in higher quarters.
I hope that, as a result of this measure, which will secure greater control, deal with the unauthorised caravan site and provide adequate powers of enforcement, we shall now find that the caravanners, like all other developers (I have always
594
made a plea that a person wishing to develop should have a fair deal, and that bias, if any, should be on his side and not on the side of the local authority) will get a square deal, provided that they are prepared to carry on their activities in a proper way. I am bound to say that, looking at the grounds of refusals I have seen, they have been very varied. The noble Earl said that he would not have a caravan in the green belt. I hope that that is not an absolute statement. Of course we do not want the green belts clustered with caravans, but I hope it will not go out that in no circumstances whatever can caravans, or even some types of buildings, be erected on green belts.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but I am most anxious that no such opinion should go out as emanating from me. I chose my words carefully, and I said that the caravan site must not stultify (I think I used that word) the objects of the green belts or the national parks.
LORD SILKIN: Of course I will accept that. I would say the same thing about the national parks. I have a paternal interest in national parks. I was responsible for the measure which created them, and I have kept a friendly eye on them. But I am bound to say that if they have been desecrated at all it is not by caravans—it has been by power stations. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, is here. He has been responsible for doing damage to the national parks by opencast mining operations and so on; and not only in the national parks but in areas of outstanding natural beauty. It is the Government and authority which have done more damage to those areas than anybody else. I do not say that that is a justification for other people likewise doing damage, but I am glad to have the noble Earl's assurance that permission for a caravan is not going to be refused simply because the proposed site is in either a green belt or a national park, or in an area of outstanding natural beauty. It must be shown that it is doing damage in those areas before permission is refused. But that has not been the position up to now. Up to now it has been sufficient to say, "This is in an area of outstanding natural beauty and, therefore, it will not

595
be permitted." I hope that the Bill will change that, and that each case will be taken on its merits. If it has no merits then it must be refused. If it has merits and does no harm, then it should be permitted.
There is one other thing I should like to say about the caravans. Very often the ground for refusing permission is that they can be seen from the road. It is perfectly easy, in due course, to carry out screening operations. Trees, shrubs and so on can be planted which will effectively hide these caravans, but they take time to grow. I hope that a certain amount of imagination will be used by authority and that, provided the trees and shrubs are planted and are of a nature that they will grow within a reasonable time and will effectively screen the site, that objection will not again be raised as a reason for refusal of permission. I believe that there is a new outlook. The noble Earl stated—and if it is not actually in the Bill, I think it is implied—that consents will be given either for a very long period or permanently, so that site developers may carry out necessary work to enable the site to be carried on in the most satisfactory way.
I hope that that will be the practice, because I have known cases where permission has been given for one year or two years. Obviously that cannot be at all satisfactory. I have here some correspondence from people who assumed that I was going to speak on this question this afternoon and have written to me complaining bitterly of their own experiences. One man writes that he received what is called the "golden bowler", and perhaps rather unwisely invested the proceeds of the golden bowler in caravan sites. He had permission for a short time and then was told to go—there was no further permission. I hope that we shall not get any more of that kind of thing, that we shall either refuse or grant permission, and that when the permission is granted the owner will know where he is.
The noble Earl explained Part I of the Bill, and I do not want to go through it in any detail, because there will be an opportunity of discussing the kind of thing I have in mind—certain extensions of the Schedule—in Committee. The
596
noble Earl gave us a list of categories which will be exempt from the operation of the Bill. I think there is a case for some extension; indeed I believe that the Minister himself has given certain undertakings to consider these types of extension. I want to say a word or two about the future of the pre-1948 operator; that is, the person with existing use rights. When we went through the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act we deliberately—and this was accepted by all Parties; there was no dispute whatever about it—thought it right to give exemption to persons who had acquired rights to use their land, possibly without planning permission, and were using the land for that purpose on July 1, 1948. Such people have been authorised to carry on with the use of their land without interference, by virtue of their existing use rights. I take the view that that is a contract which has been entered into between the community and those who have these existing use rights, that they will not be interfered with.
Such people have acted on those existing use rights. For instance, the City of London is full of large blocks of offices which would not be permitted to-day if they had to apply for planning permission, but the owners built those offices strictly on their existing use rights. I am not complaining, and nobody would dream of taking those rights away. Nevertheless, under this Bill, as I read it, people who have no planning permission but merely existing use rights are required to apply for permission within two months, and unless permission is actually granted within six months they are deemed to be carrying on without permission. I do not ask the noble Lord to deal with this point this afternoon, but it is a very important question. Many people have bought their sites with the existing use rights, and, relying on the fact that they had those rights, they have spent large sums of money on them. I am sure it is not the intention of Parliament to penalise such people, who have acted in good faith and have done what is legitimate in the conditions in which they acted. In fact we in this country pride ourselves, and I think with justice, that if we want to change the law or change conditions we do not penalise people who have been acting perfectly lawfully under the existing law. If we want to change, we must compensate people for doing so.

597
The noble Earl referred to two types of procedure, the enforcement procedure and the discontinuance procedure. I would suggest to him that where it is found that the site is being used for purposes which are regarded as undesirable but with existing use rights, the appropriate procedure is to serve a discontinuance notice and not an enforcement notice. Aid the difference is that under the discontinuance notice under the 1947 Act you are required to pay compensation, whereas under the enforcement notice you are not. Therefore a perfectly sound remedy, especially in the case of caravan sites, if the local authority regards a site with existing use as being unsatis factory, is to serve a notice of discontinuance and compensate. I think that that is the right thing to do, rather than force out of business a man who has been carrying on business perfectly legitimately. I do not want to say anything more about this part of the matter at this stage. We shall have further discussions.
I just want briefly to deal with Part II of the Bill. I do not want to quarrel with Part II as such, but I think it is rather inappropriate—and here I speak as a lawyer—that something which is of general application, not particularly relating to caravans, something which deals with an evil which I think we all recognise—the evil of the enforcement notice Procedure, which enables an owner of land unjustifiably to delay the acquisition of his land—should be dealt with in a Bill called the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Bill. This is an amendment of an important part of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. If you want to amend that Act, why not come straight out and say so, and not come under the false guise of a Caravan Bill? It is misleading to the practitioner, it is misleading to the general public, and I think it is a wrong practice.
It is one which, incidentally, this Government has carried out in a number of other measures, especially related to town planning. They recently passed the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959, which had nothing to do with town planning at all; it was an Act which dealt with compensation for the compulsory acquisition of land. It was a pure compensation Act. Why it is called a Town and Country Planning Act I do not know. Here, when they ought to have called it a Town and Country Planning
598
(Amendment) Act they have called it a Caravan Act. I do not know whether there is anything we can do about it now, but I want to enter this protest. It is something which I think we ought to watch very closely indeed. I will not move now that the whole of Part II be excluded from the Bill, but I give the noble Earl fair warning that if this happens again one might do that.
However, I do not want to end on this note, because I think, on the whole, that this is a good Bill, and I hope that this House will give it as agreeable a discussion as took place in the other place; that we shall pass it into law, and that the result will be that a section of the community who have rights and who are, I believe, enjoying the open air and the beauty of the countryside, as we all like to do, will benefit from the provisions of the Bill and will not be harried and chased around from pillar to post as has been the position up to now. I welcome the Bill and hope that it will be given a Second Reading.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, would kindly tell me, as a matter of interest, whether caravan owners pay under Schedule A, or pay any rates or water rates?
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I do not know why the noble Lord should ask me this question, but so far as I know, they do not pay Schedule A, for reasons which he will be well aware of, nor do they pay rates. But they do make a contribution. They are required to make a contribution in lieu of rates, and my information is that it is quite a reasonable contribution.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord. I asked him because I know that he always knows everything.
4.3 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I rise to welcome this Bill; and I know, too, that the County Councils Association, who I suppose represent the great majority of the planning authorities having to do with caravans, welcome it as well, and I think that, except for a few Committee points, they are quite satisfied with it in its present form. As has been pointed out, for years the planning authorities have worked under defective legislation which

599
has led on occasion to their having to deal with skilful evaders of restrictions and has led to the making of agreements which have not been entirely satisfactory but which were the best that the planning authorities could manage in the circumstances.
I cannot foresee what the eventual result will be of officially recognising the caravan as a place of residence. In my own county we have, I think, about five or six thousand recreational caravans but only a few hundred residential caravans. It may be that with the high cost of housing the drift to the South-East of England, which is still going on, will be represented by increased pressure for permanent caravan sites. If that should happen, then a great deal will depend upon the policy of the Minister upon appeal.
We have been told that there has been a lot of prejudice against caravans on the part of local authorities. I think that that is true, particularly in the case of a permanent caravan. There have been good reasons for it. If one looks at the sort of things that passed for caravans between the wars I do not think that anybody could be surprised that there was objection to them. There is an aura of romance about the word "caravan", but there is precious little romance about some of the things which have been called caravans and which are still standing. It has also been rather absurd to have a rather elaborate code of by-laws which apply to ordinary conventional houses, and which have been intended, I suppose, to protect the tenants against jerry building, against fire and for the protection of their health, but to have a much less stringent form of control for what really are prefabricated houses. I feel sure that this Bill will do much to put that right, and that a satisfactory code of by-laws will be evolved which will render the sort of abuse that I have been talking about most unlikely in the future.
I can, however, imagine a new form of prejudice arising if there is to be a considerable extension of permanent caravan sites. In late years a large number of elaborate town planning schemes have been produced, many of which severely limit the amount of land on which building is allowed, particularly in the neighbourhood of towns. There has been a real attempt to preserve
600
green belts and urban fences. I am not arguing whether these are right or wrong; I am simply saying that this has been done and it has been approved by the Ministry. Also in the last few years there has been a large increase in the rate burden, and I think that local authorities will not be particularly keen on seeing their small reserves of building land occupied by a form of property that puts less into the rate pool than any other form of property, while the inmates of these caravans put exactly the same burden on rate expenditure. Unlike the recreational caravanner, it is the permanent caravanner Who usually wants to be near the town.
We have been accused of snobbery in the local government world. No doubt there is some truth in that. But I do not think that snobbery is the only reason why there is, and may possibly continue to be, a prejudice against caravans. I think there is an element of hard financial consideration about it, and it may be that this question of the rating of caravans is one which will have to receive more attention in future. I do not want to labour the point. It is really impossible to look far into the future, but I think the point is worth mentioning.
I should like to make one further point; it is not a local authority point, but an owner's point. It is a point concerning the compulsory power of acquisition contemplated in Clause 21 of the Bill. I know that at least one of the owners' organisations with which I am associated is becoming increasingly apprehensive at the ever-growing list of things for which compulsory powers are sought and granted. I am an owner of land myself; therefore, perhaps I ought to declare an interest. But I am also a local authority man, and I personally should be ready to concede that there might occasionally be cases for acquiring compulsorily land for caravans, although I hope they would be rare. I should even concede that there might be exceptional cases where the local authority would be justified in using compulsory powers to acquire an existing caravan site, if it was in a derelict condition or if they were dealing with a persistent evader of control. Then I think they would be justified. But I cannot concede that there is any case whatsoever for acquiring a properly owned caravan site which had

601
been conducted in all respects in accordance with the regulations. That, I submit, is what Clause 21 (5) renders possibly.
It is true that somebody has to decide that it is in the interests of the users that such an acquisition should take place, but the interests of the users is really a matter of opinion. Before the war the Labour Party put forward a proposition that all rented properties below a certain rateable value ought to be taken over by the municipalities, in the interests, supposedly, of the tenants. That shows bow wide those words "interests of the users" may be. If someone decides that it would be a very good thing to take a caravan site, equip it with new roads and foundations and thoroughly overhaul the Whole place, and then charge the tenants double the rent, would that be in their interests, or not? Who is to decide?
I think this wording is extremely loose. It is a Committee point and I do not wish to pursue it in detail, but I have brought it up only because it seems to me that there is a question of principle arising here and one that I am surprised to find emanating from a Conservative Administration. I thought that we on this side of the House believed in the compulsory purchase of land only Where there was a really overriding public interest that we should do so, for schools, roads and other such things, or, as in the case of slum clearance, where private enterprise had clearly failed. If we are going to admit that well-functioning private enterprise should be taken over on such vague wording, then we are admitting a new principle Which surprises me. If that is not the intention, I hope that other words will be put into the Bill to show the exact intention. That is a Committee point, and I have said that apart from one or two other matters Which I need not mention here, the Bill is a good one. With that one qualification I should like to commend it warmly to your Lordships' House.
4.13 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I welcome the Bill and have only a few points on which I wish to express a certain uneasiness. As the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, has said, it is based upon that very valuable document, the Wilson
602
Report, which dealt only with residential sites. I am not quite sure that the drafters of the Bill show sufficient appreciation of the problems of the holiday caravan site, which are very keenly felt in the county in which I reside. In particular, my county council have expressed regret that opportunity was not taken in this Bill to deal more thoroughly with the commercial tented camping site. I am naturally reluctant to introduce officialism into anything so delightful and healthy as tented camping. Nevertheless, there exist tented sites, run commercially, which are far from satisfactory; and their existence has given rise to some of our worst caravan sites—and we have some shockingly bad ones. I understand that under Part II of the Bill local authorities will have some powers in connection with the tented site. Not having had legal experience I am not quite sure what they are, but I rather wish that the tented site could have been dealt with also in Part I.
I am a little sorry to see, in any Bill, functions taken away from the magistrates, although I must admit that the explanation on that matter given by the noble Earl must be regarded as eminently satisfactory. At the same time, we should watch narrowly any attempt to steal away the powers of magistrates. Last year we deprived them of the power to certify lunatics. This year we are taking away certain powers in connection with appeals on caravan sites; and next year I understand that we shall very possibly be dealing with public-houses, when we hope that that unhappy experience will not be repeated.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has dealt with the question of compensation for site owners, and I share his hope, which is also the hope of Her Majesty's Government, that sites which it is desired to close and sites which should be closed—and there are many—will be dealt with under Clauses 26 and 27 of the original Act, rather than under Clause 23, the enforcement order, which does not provide for payment of compensation. I acknowledge that it is the very definite intention of Her Majesty's Government that a caravan site owner shall receive compensation. It may be necessary to examine in Committee whether, in fact,

603
the Bill gives the Government powers to carry that intention into effect.
In particular, as I have mentioned to the noble Earl, there is some doubt whether a man acting on deemed permission has a right to compensation, and some uncertainty as to whether, in all cases, deemed-permission land being operated without any kind of licence ought to be subject to compensation, other than for works which a man has done on the land. There are difficulties in applying the Town and Country Planning Act to mobile dwellings. Perhaps a land occupier (it may be a farmer) for a sufficient fee allows a caravanner or two to occupy part of his land during the summer. It is very difficult for officials of the local authority to find out what is being done; and by the time the surveyor has got round to particular caravans, it may well be that, being mobile, they will have been removed. If this is done for four years in succession there may be a claim from the occupier for compensation for loss of this subsidiary business which he has carried on by deemed permission, and I am in some doubt as to whether he should receive compensation for that. On the other hand, if a man has had a substantial business on deemed permission, justice would perhaps indicate that he should receive compensation. These are points which may have to be considered on the Committee stage.
There is one other observation that I would make regarding local authorities. I am rather sorry to see that Clause 21 (7) states that a local authority shall not have power to provide caravans. I do not know whether it would be practicable, in the circumstances to seek to omit that subsection, but I believe that that would be useful. One of the tragedies of caravan-site life, of which I have seen something, concerns the small man who has invested all his savings in a caravan and may be desirous now, perhaps because he is getting old, or perhaps because his family is increasing (incidentally, I do not much believe in caravan life for a large family of children), of moving into a conventional or council house but feels tied to his caravan life by the difficulty of disposing of the caravan that has engulfed his savings. I should have thought that in such circumstances it would be useful for the local
604
authority to have power to buy his caravan and to use it on the site they have provided.
Finally, my Lords, I would deal with the question of the holiday touring caravanner, and I ask your Lordships to give him your sympathy. Provision is made in the First Schedule for this individual and an attempt has been made to combine justice for the individual holiday caravanner with the requirements of public health and the need to prevent unauthorised sites from becoming too numerous. It is, of course, a matter of degree: how far can we go in the interests of the individual caravan owner without compromising the standards of public health and amenity preservation? My own feeling is that we could go a little further in concession to the caravan camper without seriously compromising the other interests.
I read in paragraph 2 of the First Schedule that, under certain conditions, he may camp, no doubt with the owner's permission, on an unlicensed site; but I read that his stay there is limited to two nights. Surely that is a little restrictive on the man. Are we branding him with the brand of Cain and making him a wanderer upon the face of the earth? Are we to see him as another Orestes, pursued by the Furies in the guise of members of N.A.L.G.O.? I hope that your Lordships will consider allowing him three nights. I would point out to your Lordships that if a caravan is not stationary it is mobile, and that means that it is on the highway. As a motorist I do not very much welcome the presence of caravans on the highways: I much prefer them settled in a camp site of some kind. A caravan on the highway takes up a lot of room and a lot of time; it goes very slowly, and it is dangerous and difficult to pass it. Nor, incidentally, do I want the caravanner or the motorist, or anybody else, camping on the verge of the road. We have quite enough of that in Devon, and we now feel that we are having rather too much of it. Come to glorious Devon, my Lords, and see our hedgerows aflame with dogrose and honeysuckle. But do not go too near. They do not smell of honeysuckle; quite a different fragrant memory is left behind of the roadside caravanner, and I cannot refrain from expressing the hope that powers may be taken to deal with it.

605
I will ask your Lordships, then, to attend this House on Committee stage with some compassion in your heart for the individual caravan holidaymaker, and especially for the men—and there are some still left—who do not particularly want to spend their holiday in a large caravan site. Admittedly these are democratic days and we ought to love our fellow men, but there are still a certain number of individuals who like a little privacy and the exclusive company of their family on holiday, and I trust that I shall be able to move your Lordships to some degree of sympathy with them.
4.27 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF AILSA: My Lords, I rise with some degree of diffidence because of the fact that my noble friend Lord Waldegrave was dealing in his speech with two types of caravan, those used for residential purposes and those used for recreational purposes. Also, this Bill deals with two countries: with the problem in England and the problem in Scotland. My experience of caravans is confined wholly to Scotland and to those that have been used for recreational purposes. I myself have supplied the sites—I have no interest in them—for ten separate caravan undertakings. These have all been operated under the conditions laid down by the local planning authority, and, with the exception of one, there has been no difficulty at all. All the various points which are brought out in this Bill have been applied and have worked perfectly. In the case of one, it was existing prior to 1939 and the reason why the planning authority had not had proper control of it is that there has been a succession of deaths and changes of hands. However, that has been put right now.
My main reason for rising to speak is the lack of control of what I call the "spiv" caravan site and of the person with a house and a garden who also has a caravan. He may be a tenant or he may be an owner. He starts off with a caravan for his own use. Then he has a friend whose relations may come to use this caravan as a place of residence or they may have their holidays there. That is very nice and a very laudable position. But then it becomes a business. There may be just one caravan or two or three or sometimes four set up in the garden, and it is a profitable business. They are
606
let out for a fortnight or a month and people come and occupy them. I personally have had great trouble and I have found it exceedingly difficult to get any co-operation from the local authority in dealing with his matter. They have the power to help, and, as I say, I have had some experience of it.
In 1955 our attention was drawn to one seaside village. They were not pleased with the way the caravans were being conducted, which was in the way I have just described. They asked what we were going to do about it, so we started taking action. Before getting down to hard tacks, I decided to contact the local authority and see what they really wanted us to do about it. We had a meeting, which was amicable and frank. We questioned each other and discussed the point and came to the decision that attempts would be made to regulate those who were at that time caravanners, but that the local authority would co-operate in trying to dissuade any new caravanners from starting. That seemed a fair enough arrangement to come to.
But in the week during which this meeting took place a gentleman started a new site, the caravans on that site being used for business. In fact, he started on the Monday, he had a letter from the lawyer drawing attention to his own conditions on the Wednesday, and on Thursday the meeting was held. It was agreed at that meeting that that was just the sort of thing the local authorities wanted to stop, and they took action. Unfortunately, however, when the matter came up before the proper planning committee, the whole thing was reversed, and those of us who had met and discussed this question, plus other permanent officials of the county council, were accused of collusion and of trying to fix it so that people could not come in. And so this man was given planning permission. The few charges which had been made at the inquiry stating why he was being prohibited were withdrawn, and he got planning permission. It is said—and I know this from personal experience—that if you go to the courts when planning permission has already been granted, you go "one down". If a person has planning permission, you are on the wrong foot to start with, because it seems to the public eye that you are a wicked landlord,

607
waving the big stick, and that this is the poor down-trodden man who must be protected; and sometimes the case is very difficult.
When reading through this Bill I could not find anything in it to try to get better control over such situations. The large sites can be dealt with; but not so the small and what I call the "spiv" sites. Paragraph 1 of the First Schedule states:
"A site licence shall not be required for the use of land as a caravan site if the use is incidental to the enjoyment as such of a dwellinghouse within the curtilage of which the land is situated".
My Lords, all sorts of things can go on within that curtilage. I have tried to illustrate how the business can grow, and how one cannot control it. At this moment I know of the case of a gentleman who had land and who built a house. He has a caravan which I know he is living in. His house, which was built for one person, is now occupied by two families who have come for their summer holidays. Is the Schedule meant to cover that situation? I should be surprised if it were.
I feel that during the Committee stage the case of the small people should be looked at and gone into in a better spirit, and that in the case of tenanted property, of tenanted lands and farmlands, the landlord should be given consideration. It is also possible under the present legislation, under the Agricultural Acts, for a farmer a tenant, to turn his land into a caravan site. I agree that under the 1959 Planning Regulations the landlord would have to be notified, but they do not say that the landlord's objection that that land was let as farmland would be upheld. I understand that in the Highlands a similar situation can and may well arise. Can this Bill meet these difficulties in the future?
4.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, when I came to your Lordships' House this afternoon, I had no intention of intervening in this debate, although I have an interest in the subject, being a farmer landlord in the green belt with a large, static, unlicensed caravan site next to my property. This site is against a wood, which the caravanners use for all sorts of nasty and unauthorised purposes and as they are apt to toss their refuse on to my fields, they cause me a
608
good deal of worry with regard to my stock and my crops. However, I have no quarrel with the holiday caravanner, and I hope that this Bill will help to control those people on proper sites. Personally, I hope very much that the sites will to a large extent be owned by the local authorities.
I am sure your Lordships will agree that, whether or not caravanning is a desirable pastime, as a holiday pastime it has come to stay. But a caravan site is never pretty; it is always bound to be ugly, whether you look at it from ground level or whether you look at it, as several noble Lords have had ample opportunity of doing, from the air when flying to the Continent. It is an ugly thing. The Wilson Report says:
"A good caravan on a good site can sometimes be a very pleasant dwelling."
It never can be a pretty dwelling, my Lords; and that is something I think we have to bear in mind. I therefore hope that local authorities, when they choose these sites, will choose them in places where they do not spoil a lovely beauty spot as the caravan site I referred to earlier in my speech does, and from which I have to turn my head away whenever I go along the road.
I am a little worried, as I am sure are other noble Lords, about the future of the static caravan, the caravan as a permanent home. In his speech in another place the Minister rather encouraged it as a home for the future. I think that is wrong. I am very glad to read in the Wilson Report that the great majority of people who live in these permanent caravans wish to move to a proper house, and I think it is an admission of weakness on the part of the Minister of Housing if he encourages caravans, because it shows that he has not done his job properly in providing houses for all the people, particularly the younger people on the fringes of industrial areas. So I hope that the Minister will bear constantly in mind that it would be a mistake to have the caravan in a growing degree as part of the permanent home.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is not in his place because I was rather disappointed to hear his speech. I have been associated with him for many years on various housing committees in trying to encourage good, clean, sanitary, healthy homes in this country

609
—and that a caravan never can be. Sir Arton Wilson says (in paragraph 79):
"Certainly most of those that I have visited look internally as satisfying, as homes, as the sort of accommodation that the occupants would in many cases have had otherwise. There may not often be much in the way of books and bookshelves, but the primary comforts of the popular modern home are to be seen very commonly—television, budgerigars, and plenty of veneered or plastic surfaces. Occasionally there is even a refrigerator."
My Lords, that is a pretty low standard. Then he goes on to point out the chief criticisms, which are pail closets, condensation, fire risks and limited space. I see the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, opposite. He has been associated with much of the housing in this country for many years. Those are not proper standards for homes in the future, and I hope that, if there is going to be an increase in the number of static caravans, there will be another Bill which will lay down minimum standards for them. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, talked about a beautiful caravan, with double bedrooms and this and that, at a cost of £1,800, and of the others costing down to £700. I should be prepared to bet that at £700 the minimum standards are pretty poor. I hope that this will be borne in mind by the Minister, and I hope that Amendments will be put down on Committee stage to discourage people from using caravans largely as permanent homes.
4.42 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, we have had speeches by those in touch with the caravan builders, by noble Lords on behalf of the local authorities and by noble Lords on behalf of people whose land is affected by caravanning. I should like to take a few moments of your Lordships' time to welcome this Bill on behalf of those who work in the amenities movement. Obviously, the Bill has important amenity aspects, which have already been referred to this afternoon.
In this small island we are continually finding ourselves outpaced by developments of this kind. In the years before the war a few hundred caravans were turned out every year. I believe that the number now is in the nature of 40,000 a year and their total value something like £15 million. These figures indicate that this problem is in danger of getting out of hand, and, as always
610
happens, the Government, either centrally or locally, have to exercise some form of control. It is unfortunate that this is always so, but it has been obvious for a number of years that a good deal of control is necessary. We cannot leave it to the organisations referred to in the Schedule, who represent the interests of many caravanners, and often do so in an excellent way. My noble friend Lord Silkin referred to the Caravan Club. That Club has done admirable work, and I think that its members set an example. Unfortunately, it is an example which is far from being universally followed, and it is because of that that this Bill has to be brought before your Lordships.
The rapid growth of caravan sites in areas of natural beauty has been a menace to some of the outstanding areas of scenic beauty in this country during the last 20 to 30 years. In recent years it has been providing one of the worst "headaches" of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and other preservation societies. There is hardly a meeting of one of these bodies at which a new outbreak of caravanning is not referred to and at which problems of control, particularly in the coastal areas to which the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, referred, are not discussed. There are areas on the South Coast in full view of the sea at which the beauty of the cliff land has been completely massacred, and so far as I can see no real attempt is being made to control the mess which is obvious to anyone who visits many coastal areas round this lovely island. It is as bad in the Highlands of Scotland. And I cannot agree with my noble friend Lord Silkin, that this is not a problem in the national park areas. It certainly is a problem in the Lake District. I could show my noble friend a number of places there, in very beautiful country, where the caravans are an eyesore.
The theory is, that caravan sites are looked after by the planning arrangements, and up to a point that is true. I think that without the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act the problem would be very much worse than it is. But there are so many sites in which vested interests exist—vested interests which, in my view, have been referred to with too much sympathy this afternoon. It is difficult to get rid of

611
them. I entirely agree that compensation should be paid to people who are deprived of rights which have accrued to them. The difficulty is still that few authorities are prepared to put up the money to provide compensation until money is forthcoming. In a number of the national parks, in coastal areas—and in Scotland, too, from what the noble Marquess, Lord Ailsa, has said—planning authorities have not been able to control this problem effectively because of all sorts of vested interests and because they have not the finance to provide the necessary compensation. I take it that this Bill does not go very far in that direction, although it is not easy to follow its provisions. I would ask whether the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, could say a word or two about that.
The noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, was apprehensive, and I only hope that there is some chance of many of these sites being removed in due course by the authorities, whether planning or licensing authorities, under this Bill; but I cannot see that the Bill goes very far in this direction. I appreciate that local authorities will now have an opportunity of providing caravan sites, as the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, mentioned. Few of them have power under their local Acts to do this, and there are parts of the country in which caravan sites are very much needed, provided, as my noble friend Lord Silkin has said, that they are well sited, and that proper steps are taken to screen the caravans. This has been done in a number of cases. I could take the noble Earl to one place in the Lake District where it has been admirably done. But undoubtedly the local authorities could set an example by providing model sites and seeing that they are properly equipped and looked after.
So far as this Bill goes, I am sure that the amenities societies will welcome it, and I hope that it will have a speedy passage through Parliament. As has been indicated by more than one noble Lord, there are a number of aspects on which it is not altogether perfect. I should like to refer to one or two of them. In a sense they are Committee points, but sometimes it is well to give advance warning of Committee points, although the Government have certainly had these points brought before them
612
during the Committee stage in another place. I am sure that the relationship between the planning authority and the licensing authority in respect of the conditions which are attached to planning permits and licensing has not been effectively worked out in the Bill and is left in an obscure and unsatisfactory situation. Amendments were moved in another place but were rejected by the Government in what seemed to me, looking at the Report of what occurred in the Committee there, a rather wooden and unsympathetic way. I hope that here more sympathy will be forthcoming from the Government on that point.
I think also that some doubt is felt as to the propriety of the 28-day concession which is allowed under Clause 2 (2) (f) to caravans not exceeding three in number. The noble Earl will appreciate what the point is. It seems to some of us, at any rate, to be a little too wide, and possibly to furnish a danger which might be cut down a little. I am rather against the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, in allowing too much freedom in respect of these caravans. It may be all right for one, but as soon as the number gets up to three it starts to become a little eyesore; and we ought to be careful before we allow it to grow and get worse. But these are points with which we can deal on the Committee stage, when, as I say, I hope that the Government will be rather more sympathetic than they were in another place. Part II is obviously a valuable part of this Bill, and although it is perhaps illogical, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, to put it into a Bill like this, I think that everybody interested in planning will be only too glad to have it; and if we can get it a year or so earlier by having it in this Bill, then I welcome it.
4.52 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on this Bill, and I shall be brief. First, I want to support what the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, said about compulsory purchase. I can well see that in certain areas there may be no caravan sites, and owing to the fact that the landlords concerned have a hate against caravans they may be unwilling to supply the local authorities with any sites. But I do feel that the

613
local authority ought to be made to prove that they cannot acquire any land voluntarily before they are enabled to use compulsory powers, and that the onus of proof should be on them, and not on the landlords to show reasons why they should not acquire the land compulsorily. With existing sites I cannot see that they need any compulsory powers. I should have thought that they had ample powers at the moment to close down any sites which they considered unsatisfactory or to vary the terms of the licence under which they licensed the site, so that anything that they considered remiss would have to be altered.
The other point I should like to mention is this. A lot of people in crofting counties are not at all happy about the way the crofters can apply for a licence, and get one, to use their croft, or part of it, as a caravan site under this Bill. They then, presumably, spend a lot of money on developing the site, and may suddenly decide to give up that particular croft and go. As I am sure all noble Lords know, under the crofting law the subsequent crofter has to take over the existing buildings and other erections on the land at a valuation, or if the owner cannot let the land to another crofter he has to take them over. I know one or two people who are most unhappy at the thought that they may be forced compulsorily to take over quite expensive caravan sites, which they certainly will not want, because they are unable to re-let the land to another crofter. This point was raised in another place, but the Government said that this was not the Bill to deal with it and that it would need a revision of the Crofters Act, 1947. I was wondering if we could be given any idea as to whether the revision of that Act is in sight in the near future or whether for many years people will have this threat hanging over them.
4 55 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): My Lords, perhaps I may reply briefly to the Scottish points raised. I was glad to hear the noble Marquess, Lord Ailsa, confirm in the main that there were no serious difficulties with the local authorities. We discussed with the local authority assocations before we decided, as it were, to stay out of a Scottish reading of Part II of the Bill. The local authorities have to administer this Bill, and they advised
614
that no change was immediately required in the enforcement procedure. But I would tell your Lordships that we are continuing discussions and if necessary we are prepared to consider future legislation; and we are glad to learn from the experience of the English and Welsh in Part II of this Bill.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, raised the question about crofters, and he answered it for himself later. He is quite right in saying that this question cannot be pursued in isolation in this Bill. He talked about caravans, but for his point there is, of course, no difference between a caravan and a chalet. The crofters have—and we are glad to see it—tended to provide facilities for tourists and to improve their crofts. It is not an easy matter, if a crofter puts in a caravan and improves toilets and water facilities which he himself uses, to decide whether that is an improvement for which compensation is payable. I would tell the noble Duke that, as was said in another place, this is a matter for legislation on crofting tenure, and my right honourable friend has had representations from the Crofters Commission on this question of compensation for matters not arising directly from crofting tenure. I can assure the noble Duke that this subject is under active consideration and the Crofters Commission are most anxious to get the position clearer.
The noble Marquess raised a question of planning permission control and feu charter. This is essentially a matter between the superior and the feuar. It is not for the planning authoritiy to consider the terms of a particular feu or lease before granting planning permission, But, there again, as in the answer to the noble Duke, this is a matter wider than the Caravans Bill. The noble Marquess then mentioned the "spiv" caravan sites. As he said, what a man does in his own garden with his own caravan is his own affair, provided it is used as part of his own dwelling-house. He cannot let the caravan for more than 28 days without a licence. Where one draws the line as to what is right or wrong must in the end depend on the courts. But I am seized of the points the noble Marquess made and we must examine the Schedule carefully in Committee to ensure that we minimise any possibility of abuses. I am grateful to noble Lords for their

615
speeches on Scotland, and I will carefully study the other constructive points which have been made and to which I have not replied.
4.59 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am delighted that from all sides of the House such a general welcome has been given to this Bill. We have had a welcome to it from the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who is a great authority on planning; from the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, who is a great authority on local authorities; from the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, who is a Devon man, like Drake, and knows about the holiday situation; and from the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who is so closely associated with the amenity societies, and with whom I used to work in the National Trust. I therefore think that we must be, in racing parlance, on a good thing here, though no doubt we shall have details to go into in Committee.
I do not want to refer in detail to the points that have been made to-day, but the noble Lord, Lord Silkin mentioned the question of the Green Belts. He told me that he could not remain; and this is no discourtesy, because at this moment I understand he is appearing on television. I only hope that it does not lead to some Hollywood contract, so that he will go away from this House altogether.
I think we must be very careful about Green Belts, and the fact is, of course, that we are doing nothing in this Bill in any way to alter the policy with regard to Green Belts. All we are saying is that the caravan site must have planning permission, just like anything else. Clause 3 makes it clear that a licence for a caravan site can be issued only if the site has planning permission, and planning authorities will be expected to consider applications for caravan sites as for other kinds of development in the Green Belts.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, also mentioned the short-term licences. I can reassure him about that. I made the point in my opening remarks that if the site is suitable, it should be suitable for long-term development and that the licence must follow the planning consent and must be long-term, too. The noble Lord was also concerned about existing
616
use rights. This is a very complicated subject, which we shall have to pursue in Committee. The noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, also mentioned existing use rights. He more often used the phrase "deemed permission" which he will find mentioned in Clause 26 (4). I am not quite sure if they are the same things. This is a legal matter, but on the existing use rights, or four-year rule as we call it, it may be said that we are not going to have a site cleared without paying compensation. I think those are the broad facts of the case—that we shall not enforce without paying compensation.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, did not like the far-reaching provisions of Part II being hung on to the tail of Part I. I think he was answered by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, from his own side of the House, and if Lord Silkin had been here I am sure he would have agreed. Perhaps one might say, "A rose by any other name is just as sweet." I am not sure whether that is an appropriate quotation. We want these new powers, and need we worry too much about how we get them? We have got them, and I am sure we are all grateful for that.
The noble Viscount, Lord Gage, spoke about rates. As I am sure he is aware, a caravan is a chattel and therefore, it is not rateable. But a caravan site is rateable, and this may have to be looked into. But I should have thought that probably the present position is the one which we shall stick to. I think I can reassure the noble Viscount about his fears under Clause 21—I believe they are unfounded. I agree that it is a Committee point as to whether Clause 21 (5) carries out what we mean to carry out. We will discuss that in Committee. But we do mean that there must be an overriding public interest before this compulsory purchase is embarked upon. I do not think we shall enforce compulsory purchase powers at all lightly. It is really a last resort procedure and it will be carried out only if it is considered necessary and the local authorities are in no other way able to discharge their responsibilities under the Bill.
I must take issue with one noble Lord (I cannot for the moment remember who) who rather hoped that most of

617
these sites would come to be owned by the local authorities. That is not the intention of this Bill. This purchase of sites by local authorities is a long-stop procedure if nothing else will do. The noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, asked about tents. Of course, tents are still controlled under the Public Health Act, and they are deliberately not brought into this Act. The noble Earl waxed almost sentimental about the unemployment of magistrates, but perhaps when we finish with the Betting and Gaming Bill they will have plenty to do there or in other directions. I think it is right that we should cease this dual procedure which has caused so much trouble in the past on this Bill.
The noble Earl wondered why the local authorities were specifically excluded in the Bill from purchasing and owning the caravans themselves. That is a point he may perhaps wish to raise at a later stage. But I rather think it is a doubtful proposition that we should want the local authorities to go into the business of providing caravans rather than houses for dwellings. It may be that living in a caravan will be a permanent feature which, if we regulate it properly, can do no damage. We recognise the liberty of the subject to live in a caravan if he likes, provided we can make sure that it is properly equipped. But I think it might be going too far at this stage—I will not say more—to authorise local authorities to go into the caravan business themselves. At any rate, it is definitely excluded by the Bill as it stands now.
The noble Earl, Lord Dudley, in a valuable contribution, voiced the fears of some people that these caravan sites can be a real nuisance. But I think he can be assured of one thing. We are not encouraging this type of living. That is not my right honourable friend's intention. We are saying that it exists and must be dealt with, and it must neither he unduly encouraged nor harassed and repressed. We are trying to take this middle course. There are 150,000 families living in caravans and they need protection. It would not be a proper construction of this Bill to think that we were deliberately encouraging it.
I do not think there are any other points to which I need reply at this stage. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, gave
618
notice of some Committee points, and I am obliged to him for that. He will not want me to deal with them now. With all his amenity interests, which are so well known, he was right to say that on occasion these sites can seriously mar the beauty spots. He was generous enough to say that he knew many cases in the national parks where, properly screened and properly sited, these sites were of no real disadvantage and of no real detriment. I thank your Lordships for the welcome that has been given to this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and Committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FERTILISERS (UNITED KINGDOM) SCHEME, 1960
5.9 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion moved yesterday by Earl Waldegrave: That the Fertilisers (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1960, be approved.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, when I rose yesterday just before the debate was adjourned, it was not to emphasise that fertilisers are not quite such a sweet-smelling subject as the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, was just referring to, but because thought that, however briefly I spoke, and however urgent and important the later business was, it was not right that a matter of some £28½ million of the taxpayers' money should go through virtually "on the nod". This afternoon I have the opportunity to develop one or two arguments, but I shall be very brief.
I should first of all like to make it very clear that we on these Benches are enthusiastic supporters of the principle of fertiliser subsidies, or indeed of any production grants which help the farmers to increase soil fertility or efficiency. And we welcome very warmly the statement made by the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, yesterday that last year the consumption of fertilisers increased by 13 per cent., although I think he will agree that the preceding year was not a very good one from that point of view, so that the increase may not be as great as might otherwise appear. But although we welcome this news very warmly we are extremely puzzled that the noble Earl should go into transports

619
of joy at such an increase; because the inevitable result—or at least we hope the inevitable result—of increased use of fertilisers will be increased production of food, and it is extraordinary that he should take pleasure in that prospect, as we do, because it is Government policy, as plainly revealed in the Price Review, to discourage any increase of production in almost any branch of agriculture. This is not an argument against the fertiliser subsidy, which I have made very clear we fully support, but is one more example of the utter stupidity and complete unworkability of the Government's support price policy.
The noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, joyously announced yesterday the increased use of fertilisers, and pointed out that apparently the increase is still continuing, because this spring there was a considerable increase over the same period last year. In a few months' time he will be at that Box bemoaning the consequent increased output of food, the consequent lower prices and the consequent higher cost to the taxpayer of making good the difference between the market and the support prices. The final consequence of all that will be another bad Price Review to discourage the farmer from producing more food, whereas the subject we are discussing to-day is a very proper and welcome subsidy to help him to produce more food. The Government are giving with one hand to increase food production and will very soon be deploring and taking steps to discourage that very same increase of production. When we, a few months ago, debated the last Price Review, I said that the Government's support price policy carried the seeds of its own destruction, and if this is not made clear to the noble Earl by the paradox I have just mentioned it never will be.
On the main point of the present Scheme—that is, the £1½ million reduction in the subsidy—we can only express our regret, because it means that the farmers will get little or no benefit from the reduction in fertiliser prices which we have been demanding for years and which have now come about. On this matter of prices the Government have been grossly negligent and utterly indifferent to the taxpayer's interest. The noble Earl said yesterday that manufacturers
620
were anxious to reduce the price to the farmer. I must say that they manage to conceal their anxiety very well indeed. One has only to quote the Monopolies Commission's Report on Fison's—this particular paragraph, for example:
"We think the Company mistaken in believing that it is entitled to use its strength, due largely to the degree of monopoly it enjoys in a protected subsidised market, in order to earn profits at the high rate of recent years for the express purpose of financing its further overall expansion. We regard the fixing of prices at a level which produces such profits as a thing done by Fison's as a result of this monopoly position which operates and may be expected to operate against the public interest."
Indeed, the poor taxpayer has provided Fison's with such profits from fertilisers that at one time recently they tried to buy themselves into the contraceptive business.
But, my Lords, with regard to the Monopolies Commission's Report, commercial business ethics being what they are, one can hardly blame this firm. It is the Government who are to blame. Here was a commodity protected by as much as a 20 per cent. tariff and with the Treasury paying as much as 45 per cent. of the market price of the product; yet the Government did not bother to find out what it cost or what was the margin of profit. When it comes to examining what prices the farmer ought to get they take all the trouble in the world to find out what things cost. And not only that; they assume every year a 2 per cent. increase in efficiency, worth something like £25 million. If it were any other form of Government contract, of course, there would be costings if anything was done on a similar basis; and yet in this particular case, with the large sums of money involved and a protected position, they did not bother to find out what the product cost or what was the margin of profit. I think it is an utter scandal for which I cannot at present think of a parallel. One can only hope that the Comptroller and Auditor General will not unearth any more such skeletons in the Minister's cupboard.
We welcome the reduced price of fertilisers, partly perhaps due to the Monopolies Commission, and still more to increased competition, and we look, and hope, for still further reductions in prices. We strongly support the increased use of

621
subsidised fertilisers, but above all we hope that the Government will revise their agricultural policy, so that both farmers and consumers will get some benefit from the increase in food production arising from the use of subsidised fertilisers.
5.18 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I say that I have read the proceedings of yesterday, I have read the proceedings in another place on this Scheme very late on Monday night, and I have been extremely interested in it. The Government, I thought, in their reply in another place did not pay sufficient attention to the statement made on behalf of my Party that some sort of inquiry was necessary. I should have hoped that, now that there has been time to consider the case that was made there for an inquiry, they might have indicated to-day that they would be willing to have one.
Not that I in any way support some of the arguments used during the debate down there; for example, I resented very much the attitude of, I think, the Member for one of the North Devon constituencies. It was a very unfair attack. It puts all the blame upon the subsidy Scheme as though it were a special gift from the gods for farmers and farmers alone; it pays no attention at all to the services which are rendered in general to the country as a result of the Government's scheme, by the employment given, not only upon the farms because of their increased efficiency but also in the actual increase in production of fertilisers, and the general prosperity in that connection that otherwise probably would not exist. It is perfectly true that when we take all these things together, the great firms who are engaging in the production of fertilisers have been able to create financial stability and, even perhaps at times, financial prosperity in order to extend every branch of their business.
On the other hand, there is no doubt at all that if the Government had been doing their full duty, as my friend Mr. Willey in another place said, they would probably have put in much more time on research and development in regard to the production of fertilisers—which were the best ones for every one of the different districts, and the like. On the other hand, we have to acknowledge that
622
Imperial Chemical Industries and Fisons, and maybe one or two others, have spent time and money on research, for which they get good reward but from which the country also derives beneficial results.
What I also specially want to say to the Parliamentary Secretary is this. I am sure he will acknowledge that, however right he considers to be the decisions of the Government in the last annual revision of guaranteed prices, there has been widespread dissatisfaction among the farming community. Exactly how that is going to be dealt with does not, of course, appear, for the leader of the National Farmers' Union has been having conversations, first with the Prime Minister, and afterwards, I take it, with the Minister of Agriculture, and I dare say the noble Earl the Parliamentary Secretary has been involved in some of these discussions. But for the moment we know absolutely nothing as to what is transpiring from these things. Therefore perhaps the noble Earl will forgive me for saying that when we get the kind of presentation we had yesterday of this Order and all that it means—being given the facts, as it were in a lump—we find that it means a reduction of £1½;million in the total rates of subsidy on fertilisers. Maybe there have been Government representations during or after the proceedings of the Monopolies Commission affecting the goodwill of the firms concerned. We do not know the inside story, but there have been quite substantial, although in my view not substantial enough, reductions in price.
I do not think the Government ought to feel that they can have it both ways. If the procedure of the Government is to deal once a year with guaranteed prices, and in the course of that procedure to reduce the overall amount of the guarantee by many millions of pounds, then, with the farmers' costs rising and with the farmers looking to get a little further advantage in their struggles against rising costs, the Government should, in addition or in the interim period, examine the guaranteed price situation. I feel sure that the Government ought to think once or twice again about that matter.
I am so concerned to support at all times and at all costs the policy of endeavouring to improve fertility in all

623
classes of growth, including grassland, that the noble Earl knows perfectly well that I should not dream of opposing this Order. But I think that before he comes to consider any further renewal of this scheme—and I am certain that there will be a renewal of some kind—he should take into consideration the other facts. If, on the one hand, you are going to have an Annual Review of guaranteed prices, and out of the overall national budget of farmers you want to take many millions of pounds, surely if, in the interim, they have been subjected to rising costs, they ought in the Annual Review to get the advantage from that situation. It seems to me that at present they are not going to get such an advantage.
The other point that arises is whether the Government have really started to make up their minds upon whether the agricultural industry in this country is to be encouraged to expand. I read with particular interest the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary in another place. He hurriedly claimed that it had been proved before in debate that this was not the Government's wish. Yet I think it is fairly clear, looking at the report of the Review of the guaranteed prices in the early part of the year, that certain commodities, at any rate are picked out as being commodities the production of which ought not to be expanded beyond its present level, even if it is to be maintained at such a level. When we consider the particular variations of the agricultural products favoured in the different parts of the country, that must come down very hard indeed upon some of these districts. How on earth is the agricultural industry to be able to progress at the same rate as other industries in the country if farmers are to be told that in regard to these things they must not expand, and at the same time there is a small breach here, a little crack there, an opening for further foreign agricultural products to be imported into this country to attack their own position here?
I mention that today simply for this reason—I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will understand—that I thought he put very fairly the need for using fertilisers and the need for extending their use, for example to grassland. We have
624
had a great deal of encouragement in the last three of four years in regard to the production of beef, but the Government do not seem to be so anxious to encourage the production of milk. Of course, to a certain extent, you can use grassland, if the use of fertilisers is expanded in their application to grassland, for the production of beef. But my point of view is that a far better reason for getting increased fertility in grassland is to enable the dairy farmer to be able to reduce his costs by a continually improving use of the products of grass, whether by silage or by the new economic methods of using silage afterwards, or by improving the quantity and standard of his hay. Then—much more important—there is the question of improving the management of grassland for the daily feeding of the dairy herds, and for constantly improving the protein in the grassland by encouraging the growth of clover. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to say a few words that will be of help to me in my thought and consideration of these matters.
I would add that the more I meet with the conditions of farmers locally, the more I am convinced that a good many things are available to some farmers who do not take full advantage of the Ministry's Agricultural Advisory Service, and that possibly in some areas wider and better use could be made of the Advisory Service on to the taking of samples, analysis of soils and the special needs of particular classes of soil on a given farm for some particular type of fertiliser. I am quite sure that those who have already used agricultural fertiliser adequately have found it effective. But if farmers are going on expanding their production in this way, what kind of hope does the noble Earl the Parliamentary Secretary give them with regard to markets for their produce—markets which will enable them to meet not only the costs which have already risen so much but also what are undoubtedly the oncoming demands for a better standard for agricultural labour?
5.31 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I do not think your Lordships will wish me to make a long speech in reply to this debate. First I will refer, if I may, to one or two points made by the noble Lord, Lord Wise, who followed

625
the Motion rather more closely than did the other noble Lords who have spoken. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Wise, that there is no difference between the figures of £96½ million and £91 million, because the figure of £91 million which I gave in my opening remarks is of course expenditure for fertilisers only. The figure of £96½ million, which the noble Lord took from the Annual Review White Paper, includes expenditure on lime. That is a small point which I thought your Lordships would wish me to correct straight away.
The noble Lord, Lord Wise, referred to a reduction of over 15s. a ton in subsidy on one particular kind of fertiliser and said that what the farmer gains by the action of the fertiliser firms is now offset by the action of Her Majesty's Government. The noble Lord chose a rather bad example because on that particular fertiliser—triple superphosphate—the reduction which the manufacturers (Fison's) have made is actually £2 7s. 6d. per ton so on that example farmers will be paying £1 11s. 10d. per ton less next season despite the reduction in the subsidy. I believe that in some cases, however, the farmers will be paying slightly more owing to the reduction of the subsidy.
I should like to put to the noble Lord a point which is relevant to what was said by the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition and by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham—that there should always be borne in mind the two reasons why we have reduced the subsidy. First, under the 1952 Act we have a statutory limitation and cannot pay a subsidy greater than 50 per cent. of the delivered cost of the fertiliser; and in some cases we were getting close to that. Secondly, the subsidy is paid as a specific amount, as published in the Order, and not as a percentage. If, therefore, the prices of the products are falling and the subsidy is left untouched, we are actually paying a greater subsidy on a percentage basis; and that was neither desired nor intended. The amount of £1½ million is not, therefore, any form of vicious reduction. I hope that the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition will forgive me if I do not follow him fully. He ranged rather widely over the field—
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Why not?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, the noble Viscount asks "Why not?" In this Chamber we are lucky in that we have no Speaker. We are actually discussing a Fertiliser Order. I would rather not range over the wide field of agriculture in replying to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, of whether the agricultural policy of this Government is generally a good or a bad one; for I feel that that would be going rather too far afield. I would say that I do not for a single moment accept his implication that we did not bother to find out these figures. The difficulties were fully set out in the records of the Public Accounts Committee. I would only add that, as noble Lords will know, the Report of the Monopolies Commission is now being studied by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade and discussed with the fertiliser industry; and it would be quite improper for me at this stage to comment upon it except in so far as the contents of the Report relating to this subject have been made known. If noble Lords wish to raise such far-reaching matters I think time should be set aside for a special debate to enable them to do so.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, will the noble Earl allow me to interrupt him on that point? He seems to think I was inaccurate in saying that his Department did not know anything about the costs and had been unable to find any record of what had been said by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. He said this:
"The Ministry informed me that in the absence of price control they had insufficient information about production and distribution costs to judge whether fertiliser prices were fair and reasonable."
That is a categorical statement—that they had no information about costs.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, when the noble Earl reads Hansard tomorrow he will see that the words to which I took exception were: "did not bother". I am fully aware of what was said before the Public Accounts Committee—that the costs were not known—but there is a great difference between saying that the figures were not known and saying that someone did not bother to find

627
out. With that I leave the subject, and I hope that your Lordships will now approve the Order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (FOWEY) BILL
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (YARMOUTH (ISLE OF WIGHT)) BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

CRUELTY TO WILD DEER
5.37 p.m.
EARL WINTERTON EARL WINTERTON rose to ask Her Majesty's Government if they are aware of the indiscriminate shooting of wild deer in England and Wales, and if they propose to take any action. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I recognise that this is a somewhat inconveniently late hour to raise this Question, and after the very wide-ranging discussion which we recently had, which appeared to be more wide-ranging than is usual, even in the great latitude allowed in your Lordships' House, I had serious doubts whether I should put this Question off. It is also inconvenient for me, because I had the honour to be asked to appear on television but was unable to comply. However, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is a very admirable substitute.
I raise this Question only because I consider it one of great importance. I do not want to trouble your Lordships for long and I will try to put my remarks in as short a compass as possible. May I begin by saying that, quite rightly, in your Lordships' House there is a general feeling that it is better that any question—and perhaps especially a question of this kind—should be raised by someone who is an expert. I do not pretend to be an expert on the subject of deer, or of shooting, because as a matter of fact the state of my eyesight precludes that. I raise this matter only because I feel that attention should be called to avoidable cruelty which takes place in some parts of England where there is a quantity of wild deer.
I can speak only of the district in which I live, which is in Sussex, on the borders of Hampshire and Surrey.
628
Although it is so near London, because of the fact that there are a number of large estates, and the country is wild with a lot of woodland, we have a number of deer there. It might interest your Lordships to know that the majority of these are roe deer who for some unexplained reason migrated into this area of Hampshire, Sussex and Surrey about 60 years ago. I understand that experts on the subject have examined the facts and are unable to suggest any reason for their migration.
Apparently they came from the West Country, where I understand there have long been roe deer. They were originally turned down by the Guest family, in the well-known Blackmore Vale hunting country many years ago. In addition, we have quite a lot of fallow deer, either those which sot out from parks in the two wars, when some of the parks were turned into agricultural land, or which are the descendants of one or two herds that have long been in the neighbourhood and are supposed to have descended from herds originally released during the Civil War. Further, we have a small quantity of wandering red deer, which are supposed by some to have come to us from the New Forest or Exmoor, and by others—though this seems to me to be improbable—to be the descendants of red deer that have always been in this neighbourhood, though usually unknown to the local residents.
I should say, my Lords, that though I have no expert knowledge of this subject, I have been in touch with a number of authorities: with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, with the Universities' Federation of Animal Welfare, with the British Field Sports Society, and with a number of individuals; and in the main the points which I am going to make are points which these various bodies, though they may look at the matter from a different point of view, agree should be made. I hope I am not giving away any confidences when I say that I have had the great advantage of a private talk with my noble friend who is going to reply, who is naturally interested as a great landlord himself. We did not altogether see eye to eye on all the points I am going to make; and I assured him privately, and I now assure him publicly, that I shall not be the least offended if he says that some of my proposals are not practicable.
What is the position? I understand that this is one of the few countries in Western Europe in which there are deer but in which there are no close season and no regulations—or no laws, I should say—in operation to deal with the manner in which the deer should be killed. I understand that there are strict laws in Western Germany, in Denmark and in other parts of Europe. In this country there is no close season, and there is no la w regarding the manner in which deer shall be killed. The first point I want to make is this—and I think that every one of your Lordships would sympathise with the point I am going to make. It seems to me utterly wrong that any deer, of any species, should be killed when it has at its side a calf or fawn which depends upon that female deer for its sustenance. That seems to me to be inhumane, and, therefore, what one wants to aim at (and I admit it is very difficult) in any legislation which might be brought in is to have a close season.
The difficulty I think—or so I am informed by the experts—is that we should need to have a different close season for different species of deer. Some of the authorities whom I have consulted believe it would be sufficient if there were a close season for all deer in April, May, June and July. But I think that in any legislation, if it were brought forward (and may I say, in parenthesis, that it is pretty obvious the Government would not have time to bring forward a Bill, but it is likely that a Private Member's Bill might be produced in another place within the next year or two, supported, possibly, by the R.S.P.C.A.), powers should be given to the Minister to prescribe the close season for different species of deer or, alternatively, to have a close season in the summer. That is my first point.
My second point is this. I do not want to criticise my neighbours where I live, with whom I am on the best of terms, or any of my tenants; but a habit has grown up in our neighbourhood (and I am informed by a very voluminous correspondence I have seen from other parts of England where there are deer that the same thing happens there) for any person with a gun, lawfully using that gun on his own land, or as a servant of the occupier or owner of the land, to shoot at deer whether or not his gun or rifle is of the proper calibre
630
to kill the deer; and, when it is wounded, to take no steps to pursue it and see that it is killed. I shall not bore your Lordships by giving individual instances, but I have within my knowledge instances in the neighbourhood in which I live of deer of all species, including one magnificent red deer, dying the most painful death from shot wounds, having been fired at with a wholly unsuitable weapon. We are, I think, a humane country, and a country where the sporting instinct is strong, and I am sure that all your Lordships will agree with me that no decent person would dream of shooting, say, a pheasant or any game bird and, if it were wounded, taking no steps to secure its being killed. One would not do it in the case of vermin like pigeons and rabbits. Yet there is this indiscriminate shooting of deer with unsuitable weapons and, if they are wounded and not killed, leaving them to their fate.
Here I come to a very difficult point on which I have taken such advice as is open to me from one or other of the bodies I have mentioned. It is thought that it might be possible in any legislation on the subject to lay down that the Minister shall prescribe the type of weapon to be used for shooting deer, the ammunition with which it should be loaded and the range at which it should be used. I myself am a little doubtful about the last point, but I do not think the first two points would be so very difficult. It would be for the Minister to prescribe.
My last point is this. How are we to persuade people how cruel it is, when a deer is wounded, to allow it to escape without taking every possible step to secure its demise? Here, again, I have taken advice, expert advice, and that advice was to the effect that it should be possible in any Act of Parliament which might be passed by another place and your Lordships' House to use some such words as these:
"It shall be the duty of any person shooting at and wounding a deer to take all reasonable steps by following it to secure its decease. If the wounded deer enters upon the land of another owner or occupier, it shall be the duty of the person who shot at the deer to notify that owner or occupier."
Some of your Lordships, no doubt, and probably the Minister, will say that these are not legal terms; but I give them only as the sense of what is desired.
There are just two or three subsidiary points that I want to put. There is a great deal of deer-poaching. I was given the example only a day or two ago of a case on the Quantocks, where the owner of a portion of that moor—with the aid, of course, of the police—apprehended a poacher who had shot a deer. The man, who had disposed of the deer, was fined. He was given what I think was the maximum fine which could be given in the circumstances; which, so I was informed, was about half what the poacher had obtained for the carcase. I think your Lordships will recollect that this question arose when we were discussing the Scottish Bill. I would therefore say to the Minister that in any legislation the question of increasing the penalties for deer poaching should be considered. Another point which has been put to me—I do not particularly urge it, but I think it is worth consideration—is that there should be, if there is not already (and I must apologise to your Lordships for not being able to say whether there is or is not already), a special licence for any person who wishes to sell venison. Both those things would, I think, be desirable.
Some of your Lordships may not agree with some of the things I have said, but I feel sure that there is one thing with which you will agree; that is, that in any legislation the brutal method of destroying deer by snares should be prohibited. Snares are extremely dangerous. The result of using them is that deer are often left in the snares to starve; but, apart from that, they are dangerous both to men and dogs. The only other points that I want to make are these. The Forestry Commission have an admirable system of reducing the deer in their woods. May I here say something that I ought to have emphasised before: that I am not suggesting for a moment that it is not necessary to destroy in the most humane way possible any excess number of deer. In fact, as your Lordships know, they can do a great deal of damage when they are in too great numbers. The Forestry Commission (and I have been in touch with them over this matter) organise shoots under proper supervision of deer in their forests. They have long since abolished a system which they had in their early days in some forests, of
632
snaring the deer, or of allowing their individual employees to go out and shoot them. They destroy these deer by these deer shoots, and I think that that process might be more generally followed. I understand that the pest officers of most counties would also be willing to organise deer shoots.
I am very grateful to those of your Lordships who, at this late hour, have listened to what I have shad to say. As I have already said, it is not a subject on which I am an expert; I have brought it forward only because I have come across instances of this cruelty. I do not want to get on to a much more controversial subject, but there is this very curious thing, and I cannot help making this remark about, shall we say, British philosophy. One hears a great deal of controversy on the subject of hunting deer (and I need not tell your Lordships on whose side I am in that matter, because I have been a hunting man all my life), but hardly a word has been said in the public Press or otherwise about the cruelty involved in the manner in which deer are killed in England—in which country, as I have already said, there is no law, as there is in so many countries, regarding the matter. I hope that, by making these observations, and by calling attention to the subject, I may in a small way do something to bring to the attention of the public the cruelty involved and to stop it.
5.56 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Earl in this campaign to prevent the cruelty to which deer in England and Wales are subject. The great increase of deer in England and Wales over the last 15 or 20 years has been chiefly due, I think, to the policy of the Forestry Commission, and, of course, of private landowners, with the help of the Forestry Commission. I have often wondered why the Forestry Commission have not learned from the Continent and have not organised the shooting of the deer in their forests from the point of view of properly regulated sport; because if they did this, they would kill two birds with one stone: they would have the deer humanely controlled, and it would also provide them with an extra revenue.

633
The only proper way to control deer in a woodland area is to shoot them at dawn, when they go out in the open to graze. One has to be up extremely early, at four or five o'clock, but one can then stalk them and shoot them with a small-bore, high-velocity rifle. That is completely humane if you can shoot: if you cannot shoot properly, then presumably you do not try. But the great objection to controlling deer in this manner in England has always been that we are told that it is dangerous in a woodland area such as Surrey, which is heavily populated, to fire a high-velocity rifle, the bullet of which can carry a mile and can be extremely unpleasant at that distance if you happen to stop it. But, provided the user of the rifle is trained in this form of sport, it is quite safe; because obviously you do not shoot an animal on a skyline, you always try to shoot into the ground—down, rather—and you are always extremely careful of the background to the animal. The other point is that at 5 a.m. the average person, if he has any sense, is in his bed, and you do not get people roaming about the country at that hour.
On the Continent the French, the Germans and the Austrians have built platforms in their forests, and in the early mornings one climbs up on to these platforms, and then, when the deer come out to graze, one shoots them—and that is perfectly safe, because one is shooting down and cannot possibly hit anyone. I should like to see the Forestry Commission start to train a band of chasseurs or trained rangers who are experienced in the control of deer by humane methods. If any private landowner or farmer was suffering a great deal of damage by deer, the Forestry Commissioners could hire out their rangers to shoot deer for him.
I am all for having a close season for deer: the trouble is to enforce it. I should like to see a close season for all female deer, does and hinds, from March 1 to October 1, because that would give fawns lime to be weaned. To have hinds with calves shot and the calves die of starvation, as they are bound to, is a fiendishly cruel thing and it is happening all over the place. As regards deer drives with shotguns, I think that they should also be banned. A deer has to be extremely close in a drive, within fifteen yards, in order to get the head, otherwise
634
you are bound to wound it. I hope that at some future date Her Majesty's Government will try to introduce legislation to prevent this appalling cruelty.
6.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I think that we are all agreed with the motives which moved the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, to put this Question. There is no doubt that the indiscriminate shooting of deer is very cruel. I should like to know if there are any figures of the number of deer killed, to see whether it is as great as people think. The noble Earl has put forward suggestions, some of which are very good. The difficulty about the Government's bringing in legislation is that any legislation must be easily enforced, and that is the difficulty in this matter.
I think that the suggestions made by the noble Earl, and by my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard, on how to control deer would lead people to take more care if they were advertised. One trouble is that we always hear about the bad side of things, but how it should be done is not so well advertised. I believe that this matter should be taken up so that we can get more publicity about how to destroy deer, particularly roe deer. Deer must be kept down. I know that it is felt in some quarters, owing to the films of Mr. Walt Disney, that the deer is a sweet and gentle creature. So it is. But there is another side which is not so much in our minds—that is, how much damage deer do to our farms. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, and the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition would be the first to agree that something must be done to prevent this damage.
I do not altogether agree with my noble friend about the use of the shotgun. I feel that until this matter is put on a much better basis, in some of the more densely populated areas—although, as my noble friend says, people do not bother to get up at 5 o'clock in the morning—to shoot deer people are going to fire off rifles, if we stop the use of shotguns, and then life will be dangerous not only for the deer but for human beings as well. I am informed that if a chasseur or ranger is trained in the use of the shotgun and uses the special shot in the gun, he can kill deer painlessly. If men were suitably trained by means of

635
training courses run by the C.L.A., the Farmers' Union and the Forestry Commission, and people really take trouble, I feel that the situation would become much better. I am very doubtful whether it would be possible for Her Majesty's Government to bring in suitable legislation.
6.12 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I think that my noble friend Lord Winterton was rather pressing the point when he said that this was a very late hour. He got up at 5.35 p.m. and I do not think that even in your Lordships' House this could be called a late hour. All those who have the interests of animals at heart will be most grateful to my noble friend for forgoing his television programme and bringing this question of cruelty to deer before your Lordships' House. My right honourable friend and I welcome the Question. My noble friend is a little too modest, because I think that your Lordships all know that he is an expert not only on deer but on all forms of wild life and country affairs, and we always listen with great care to what he says about the countryside.
All matters relating to the preservation and control and shooting of deer are technical ones. My noble friend and the other noble Lords who have spoken are experts on these matters, but there are other experts who have ideas which do not coincide with those we have heard this afternoon. That is one of the difficulties which the Government are up against. However, I am sure that all noble Lords deplore cruelty to wild animals. In spite of careful inquiries, I have not been able to find much evidence to indicate the magnitude of this problem. One of the great services the noble Earl will have done is to publicise this problem. I hope that we can persuade people of good will to bring to the notice of individuals, of Members of your Lordships' House and of those in societies, and in particular the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the seriousness of this problem and any cases which they may come across in the various parts of the country in which they live. I should be grateful if my noble friend would show me some of the evidence about which he spoke, and I will certainly look into those cases.
636
But we need a great deal more evidence than has been brought forward so far.
My noble friend gave a most interesting account of the history of some of the habits of the three types of deer. There is the red deer, living mainly in the wild parts of Devon and, of course, in the wild deer forests and wide open spaces in the hills in Scotland. Then we have the fallow deer, which are not an indigenous form of deer, so far as is believed. It is thought that they were brought over from the Continent by the Romans and largely lived in a semi-wild state enclosed in parks; and as my noble friend said, some were released in the course of the civil wars and others in the course of the last few wars, and they have multiplied and existed in a wild state ever since. The red deer is probably the finest and certainly the largest wild mammal that is left in this country, and I think all your Lordships would deplore the fact if this fine species of mammal were to be destroyed and there should be no trace left of it. I cannot believe that your Lordships would approve that these three types of deer should disappear from our country.
My noble friend Lord Goschen said that the Walt Disney films had created a picture in the public mind of the deer as a sweet and gentle creature; and that may be so. But there is no doubt that too many deer become pests; and in any case they do damage. The most serious damage is to the leading shoots of young trees—damage which any forester would describe to your Lordships. Again, the red deer, in particular, damage the cultivated crops. There must be a balance. The amount of damage that deer do is arguable, and it is arguable also which particular deer do the particular damage. The Forestry Commission have carried out a considerable amount of research into this problem. In many cases the appearance of the damage is much worse than the actual damage in monetary values, or even in physical values, to the crops. But what is quite certain is that the less natural food there is for deer, the more damage they do to both young trees and to cultivated crops. Therefore, too many deer become pests, as I am sure all your Lordships will agree.
My noble friends Lord Winterton and Lord Massereene and Ferrard spoke of

637
a close season. Do we want a close season to increase the number of deer? I do not think that is what your Lordships would wish. Or do we want a close season purely to prevent the cruelty that unquestionably happens if a hind or a doe should be shot and its calf is at foot and is not found? All your Lordships who have spoken have mentioned that terrible happening. There is no doubt that that can happen during the course of shooting deer today. The Committee which sat in 1951 found that they could not recommend the adoption of a close season because of the difficulty of implementing it. Again, they felt that there would be a considerable increase in the number of deer if a close season was adopted. Indeed, there is considerable variation of the months and times for the various types of deer, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard. There is much difficulty with regard to a close season.
EARL WINTERTON: I hesitate to interrupt my noble friend, especially after the most friendly things he said about me, but would he give consideration to this point? Would he, through the usual diplomatic channels, inquire as to how these close seasons are operated in other countries? I think it was the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, who said—and I can confirm it—that in most countries there is a close season. If that information could be collected it would be most useful.
EARL BATHURST: In a moment or two I shall come to the question of the European point, mentioned both by the noble Earl and by the noble Viscount. I am pleased to tell your Lordships that the Forestry Commission have voluntarily imposed a close season on all their forestry woodlands, and in no case is one of the members of their staff allowed to shoot a hind or a doe during the period when she is likely to have a fawn at foot. I am quite certain that all landowners who have the interest of animals at heart do observe and will observe this close season for hinds and does. Should any such landowner have any friends, I can only hope that if he does not observe that close season those friends of his know how to treat him. That is a personal opinion, but I am certain that
638
it is the opinion of anybody who loves the country and has the interests of wild animals at heart.
I come to the question of Europe and the preservation (methods there, and, indeed, in Scotland. On the Continent and in Scotland the problem is very different. On the Continent they preserve deer for food and for the special types of leather for which most of the deer countries on the Continent are famous; in Scotland they preserve deer mainly for sport. Where deer must be preserved, then there must be a close season. Throughout the world in the realm of sport that is an accepted fact. Indeed, where wild animals are required to be preserved for commercial purposes, there again it should be accepted that a close season must be a fact. There are only a few countries I can think of where a close season for the animals that are hunted is not acknowledged, and as a result of it those wild animals become fewer and fewer and at sonic time in the future will no doubt become extinct. In England we are not preserving deer for commercial or for sporting purposes. In fact, as I have said, too many deer are a pest and, therefore, the question of whether there should be a close season—indeed, the question of whether a close season could be enforced—in this country is entirely different from that of Scotland or from that of Europe, which we have had mentioned.
My noble friend Lord Winterton mentioned snaring. That again is a point upon which all your Lordships will be agreed. Snaring is cruel and should be stamped out—there is no doubt about that. I am most glad to be able to tell your Lordships, as indeed did my noble friend Lord Chesham the last time the noble Earl raised this point, that the Forestry Commission have forbidden snaring by their employees on all their property. Supposing a close season should be brought in, there is a chance that snaring would gradually come back again. At present, so far as is known—and perhaps my noble friend could help me over figures—we believe that snaring has almost died out and that it is carried on in only very few circumstances. However, if there were great restrictions upon deer shooting this snaring could come back again.

639
My noble friend Lord Winterton, the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, spoke about the types of gun and the type of ammunition. There is much argument again on this very technical subject. The Forestry Commission and many people claim that a ·303 rifle is the only firearm to use to shoot deer. On the other hand, I have noble friends with much experience, and they tell me that a ·22 aimed at the head of the deer is perfectly satisfactory and humane. Again, the Forestry Commission and the experts who have been looking into this problem say that a shotgun with a shot no smaller than a No. 4, or with special buckshot, is a humane weapon at close range. On the other hand, there is no doubt of the dreadful results which my noble friend mentioned which happen to deer which are "potted at" by a so-called poacher with a ·22 rifle which he does not know how to handle. We must all deplore that type of shooting.
My noble friend Lord Goschen asked: How is one to bring in legislation to effect the desirable change that we should all like to see? Unless behind every shot a policeman is standing, I doubt whether it would be feasible to bring in such legislation as my noble friend would like. There is also an idea that a person wishing to shoot a deer should be licensed. There again, what would the licence enable such a person to do? Would your Lordships not allow him to shoot at deer, but allow him to shoot at a pheasant, a hare or a fox if such a thing should be licensable? I think it would be a most difficult state of affairs to bring about some such licensing scheme. I am quite certain that many of your Lordships know plenty of people with a shotgun who should have the licence withdrawn from them if such a thing should happen, and if such a thing were possible.
The noble Earl mentioned the following up of wounded animals. This is a duty—there is no doubt about that. Throughout the sporting world it is the duty of anybody who fires at any animal, whether it be a bird or an animal on the ground, that he must follow it and des-patch it as quickly and as humanely as possible, should he miss the first time. That is the unwritten code—indeed, the
640
written code—of sportsmen through the ages. My noble friend has spoken of the terrible things that can happen when the realm of sport breaks down, as indeed it has done in the places about which the noble Earl was speaking. People are no longer shooting deer as a sport. Indeed, such a thing would be impossible in the land from which the noble Viscount and the noble Duke, who is no longer in his place, have returned. It would be unthinkable in Scotland that a stag if he is wounded should not be followed until he is found.
The Forestry Commission have introduced a pamphlet which gives all the details about shooting deer, about their habits and about every aspect about which my noble friend has been speaking. It happens to be particularly concerned with roe deer, but some of the principles, at any rate, can be used for the two other types of deer. In particular, they mentioned the platform about which the noble Viscount and the noble Earl have spoken. Of course, it is a Continental practice, and shooting deer from a platform is considered quite a sport in Germany. I have tried it out myself, and I can only say that it is the most miserable performance to oneself, although no doubt it is a very humane and quick method of destroying deer. But the misery from the mosquitoes and flies, and every biting insect, in the early hours of the morning, sitting on a small rickety platform, has to be experienced, as I am sure it has been by the noble Viscount, to be believed.
Nevertheless, the Forestry Commission believe that this method of selective control of deer, preferably by shooting with a rifle downwards from a platform, is much more efficacious and, at the same time, more humane than the method of holding deer drives which the noble Earl mentioned. Here again, there is a conflict of expert opinion. I have heard of deer drives, and I do not think they are very pleasant or very savoury spectacles at which to be present. I do not think the noble Earl would really wish that there should be an increase in the number of deer drives.
EARL WINTERTON: I did say only deer drives organised by the Forestry Commission. I understand that they do organise them in certain places.
EARL BATHURST: They have now finished with organising drives unless it is necessary to kill an enormous number of deer, which nowadays, I believe, according to the advice from their game warden, is not necessary. They believe, and it is the view of the game warden, that, above all, the balance of a herd of deer must be preserved by shooting and not by chivvying the deer from one place to another. That is one thing that upsets the deer and makes them do more damage than the damage normally caused. Again, it is a most technical problem, and one which one could argue about for a long time.
We are quite agreed, as I am sure all your Lordships would be agreed, that the indiscriminate shooting at deer, whether by an expert or by anybody else, is to be deplored, and I am certain that we are agreed that the rifle is the best firearm to be used, but that it must be used by an expert. If such an expert is not available, the shotgun—I have mentioned the No. 4 shot or slug—in the hands of someone who is not quite so expert, is probably the most humane method. But we are all agreed that the animal must be followed up and killed.
Owing to the Report of the Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals which sat in 1951, nearly all the advice which your Lordships have been giving with regard to firearms and sportsmanship is mentioned on the back of the gun licence. I have a specimen copy, which I shall put, together with the pamphlet upon the roe deer, in your Lordships' Library. I hope that anybody taking out a gun licence will spend time on reading the back of that licence. One valuable service which my noble friend has accomplished to-day is to allow me to say this, because I do not believe that there are many people who are aware that such a code of conduct is in fact printed on the back of the gun licence.
My noble friend, Lord Goschen, said how difficult it would be to provide legislation, however desirable that might be, to accomplish the aims and effects which the noble Earl would like to see. Indeed, that was the conclusion of the 1951 Committee. They said that all the bodies who are interested in this very technical subject must first find substantial agreement. I wish them well and hope that all these bodies, whether they be farmers, landowners, the animal preservation
642
societies or individuals, will be able to get together one day and find lines upon which to agree. That is the first point. Secondly, the solution of the problem which they decide upon must be practicable and enforceable, and that was what my noble friend Lord Goschen said. We have a considerable way to go yet. I hope that as a result partly of what my noble friend has said to-day, public opinion will be moulded, and that knowledge of venery will spread to all people who must control the number of deer in order to stop those deer from becoming a pest, which they would otherwise do. I am most grateful to my noble friend for asking this question.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, may I—I can do it only with the permission of your Lordships' House—thank my noble friend for his Answer and for the most helpful contribution he has made towards a more humane attitude in this matter.
6.33 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I venture to "chip in" before the noble Earl sits down. I suppose that there are few people in this House who have shot as much with a rifle as I have. I used to go every year to stalk in Scotland, and also, which very few people did, I used to stalk hinds in the winter. As your Lordships know, a Scottish deer forest has no trees; it is a moor. That enables the stalker to come to some pretty definite opinion with regard to the number of deer in a particular area. I used to go to one particular forest of a friend of mine, and he used to say, "Charles, you go off and shoot the barren hinds". I was not sure about it, but the stalkers all knew. One would crawl up where there were certain hinds; one would see certain hinds who had calves at foot and others with none, and then one picked them out and went after them and shot them. In that way owners are able to keep the numbers down to a reasonable level.
The noble Lord mentioned a deer drive. If you get too many deer on a forest you have a deer drive and you ask a certain number of men who can shoot with a rifle to attend it. It is not very difficult to arrange to move deer across a certain area. They will sometimes come at the gallop, sometimes at quite a reasonable pace. The managing and keeping track of the condition of the

643
herds on Scottish deer forests is not very difficult. Somebody referred to a hind being shot with a calf at foot. So far as I know that is never done up in Scotland. You shoot the barren hind, but you do not shoot the hinds with calves at foot. That enables you to keep the deer forest in proper order and the deer in proper order, too, because barren hinds go all over the place and they are much better out of the way. I put forward these suggestions, to see whether some of these ideas might be utilised in this very important and delicate question.

SHEERNESS HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, that it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
BLACKFRIARS BRIDGEHEAD IMPROVEMENTS BILL
  BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL
    HASTINGS PIER BILL
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

METHODIST CHURCH FUNDS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before seven o'clock.