Lords Sitting of 13 March 1969

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich

UNIVERSITY LECTURING STAFFS
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will try to improve the standard of lecturing and methods of instruction in universities by the provision of short-term training courses for all lecturing staff.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, it is for the university authorities to decide what qualifications and experience are appropriate in those they appoint to academic posts.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that reply, I feel that it is somewhat unsatisfactory—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I was just going to ask one. Does the noble Baroness think that the Government are right to stand aside when so much taxpayers' money is being spent on university education? Further, I should like to ask whether the noble Baroness is aware that a major cause of discontent among students at the moment concerns the poor quality of lectures?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, in reply to the first part of the noble Lord's question, I am sure he would agree that colleges of education and universities, as autonomous institutions, are responsible for their own staff appointments. That is an essential feature of our traditional academic freedom. In regard to the second part of the question, I am not sure that some of the criticism which has been advanced is coming from people who are
592
in a satisfactory position to know what constitutes a good teacher.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, does the noble Baroness realise that universities tend to be traditional and that in many cases, even though the Chancellor and others may wish to make changes, they need some encouragement and help from outside sources?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I take the point advanced by the noble Viscount, but I must repeat that there is academic freedom and within the universities themselves there exist channels to deal with these matters.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Hale Committee was set up by the University Grants Committee and, so far as I know, all universities have paid attention to their recommendations?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: Yes, my Lords, that is so. I shall return to the matter when we reach the noble Viscount's second Question.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will discourage the appointment of persons as lecturing staff in universities before they have gained some experience outside a university.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, there is a need for initial training for university staff, but the means by which this is done is for the universities themselves to decide. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science welcomes the training schemes which they are initiating.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I congratulate the Government on resisting the invitation which has been extended? May I ask whether it is reasonable, since we are limited to four Questions in any one day, that two questions should be put down for which the Government patently have no responsibility whatever?

593
I cannot believe that this would be allowed in another place.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, in the same way that I cannot answer for universities, I do not think that I can answer as to the Standing Orders on the arrangement of Business.

NIGERIA: UNITED NATIONS AND PEACE EFFORTS
3.12 p.m.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will support an initiative by other countries for a conference to be held, under the ægis of the United Nations, and without the participation of the combatants, in order to bring about a cease-fire in Nigeria.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government welcome any peace-making effort that offers a prospect of success. It would, however, be contrary to international practice to seek to settle an internal problem of this nature without the participation of the parties directly concerned, and I do not think the United Nations would be prepared to convene a conference on this basis. Further, we think it unlikely that a cease-tire could be achieved without the agreement of both sides.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, and I also extend to him our good wishes on the eve of his Caribbean visit. Would not my noble friend agree that the Nigerian issue is now no longer an internal dispute or only an African dispute, and that it has now become a world-wide issue? Would not Her Majesty's Government now promote, through diplomatic channels, some initiative on the part of uncommitted Powers to intervene on the side of peace?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if my noble friend will read the speech which I made the other day in reply to the noble Lord. Lord Brockway, he will see that I said the one thing that is not
594
absent is a number of willing mediators and friends on both sides. The great difficulty is in bringing the two sides together to achieve this agreement. I do not think that seeking to bring this matter to the United Nations, and therefore bringing yet another body into the field, will bring peace any closer.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, have not Her Majesty's Government established a most welcome precedent, in taking the initiative to promote a four-Power conference on the Middle East dispute without the participation of the combatants?
LORD SHEPHERD: Yes, my Lords, but the Middle East dispute is already before the United Nations. It involves various countries, and is in response to the Security Council resolution, while this case, as I have said, is an internal matter.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, will the Minister agree that the possibilities of peace are being seriously jeopardised by the action of non-African nations in providing the arms with which the war is being propagated? Is it not possible that some initiative such as the noble Lord, Lord Segal, has suggested might assist?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, here again we are discussing a subject which we have debated on numerous occasions. I pointed out that we for our part should be willing to take part in an embargo on arms to both sides, provided there was agreement by both sides; and that would be a consequence of a cease-fire. I also pointed out the difficulty of an arms embargo when arms come from very many different quarters, in most cases impossible to trace. While an embargo has many advantages, I do not believe that it could in fact be brought about.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, in view of the questions by my noble friend Lord Segal and the remark of the right reverend Prelate, I wonder whether the Minister is aware that during the three months that I was at the Human Rights Committee last year the question of Nigeria and the war was not mentioned once?
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while not wanting to repeat what was said in the debate, and recognising the difficulty of the United Nations, because the

595
Federal Government is a Member State, I would ask: could not two issues be raised in the United Nations? The first is an arms embargo by other Member States, and the second is a peacekeeping force if a truce is established. Also, may I ask whether it is true, as reported in the Press to-day, that the Prime Minister is likely to go to Lagos and, if so, whether he could raise issues of this kind with the Government there?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have no idea—I must be frank with the House —what the intentions of my right honourable friend are from day to day. In regard to the first supplementary question, as I am sure my noble friend is aware, the Secretary-General himself has made comment upon the use of the United Nations in this matter. But I myself do not believe that a cease-fire will be achieved until the two sides can agree to one fundamental issue, which is the unity of Nigeria. Until that is brought about, or until some formula is agreed, I do not see this war being brought to an end, no matter how many mediators there may be, or whatever their size and strength.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, is it really so very difficult for the United Nations to intervene in what has been described as an internal matter? Is not this precisely what they have done before in such cases as the Congo, Cyprus and the Yemen?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, to the best of my knowledge—and I speak here subject to correction—in all those cases the United Nations were invited in. They have not imposed their will in an internal matter.

LAUNDERETTES AND HEALTH RISKS
3.17 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of allegations that some launderettes are unhealthy because of poisonous fumes and bad ventilation, the Minister of Health has received reports on this matter from
596
local Medical Officers of Health, and what action has been taken to ensure that proper conditions exist in these beneficial services.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONFIAM): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has received no such reports from medical officers of health, but Her Majesty's Government are aware that, although no danger arises from clothes washing and drying machines, there is a possible risk to health if dry-cleaning machines in launderettes are not properly installed and maintained. A code of practice containing appropriate advice for launderette owners is in the course of preparation and will be widely circulated to the trade and to the public health authorities. If the emission of fumes from a launderette amounts to a statutory nuisance, local authorities already have powers to take appropriate action under the provisions of the Public Health Act 1936.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very helpful reply, but will he take it from me, as one who for domestic reasons has attended some of these launderettes, that at times, they are indeed most unhealthy?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? The expression, "Will he take it from me" is not really a question in the way the House interprets it. Will the noble Lord ask a question?
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I hoped the House would interpret it in the way I wanted. May I ask my noble friend whether, in those circumstances, I can be assured that directions, or recommendations, are being circulated to the various local authorities responsible for health in their localities?
LORD STONHAM: Yes, my Lords, but not so much to the local authorities. I have already made it clear, in my original Answer, that the local authorities have powers to deal with a nuisance if such a nuisance should arise. But at the request of the Home Office the National Association of Launderette Owners has asked all its members to display warning notices about the need for airing articles which have been dry-cleaned in automatic machines. The manufacturers of

597
these machines have been asked to consider attaching a durable and permanent warning label to the machines at the manufacturing stage. Dry-cleaning machines should be properly installed and maintained, and the premises should be suitably ventilated. The proposed code of practice will deal with these matters. I would add that the substance used is a narcotic, and we know of no cases whatsoever of any serious effects to individuals.
LORD REDESDALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some local authorities—for instance, one close to here, Kensington and Chelsea—have issued warning notices which are displayed and which have therefore been a help to launderette owners as well as being of use to the public? Also, is the Minister aware that any launderette operation which is creating a nuisance by emitting so many fumes must be running at a considerable loss, and that the owner is therefore in danger of going out of business?
LORD STONHAM: Yes, my Lords, I am aware of these things; and if there is a nuisance the local authority have powers to deal with it. But so far as we are aware—although I do not want to dismiss this lightly—the dangers are not considerable, and are almost negligible if people will only take the trouble to air the clothes.
LORD IRONSIDE: My Lords, does the noble Lord include "washeterias", and other such derivatives of the generic term "launderette", in his Answer?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, that is one which has not come within my purview. I have quite trouble enough without that.

HORSERACE BETTING LEVY BILL
3.22 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the Horserace Betting Levy Bill be read a second time. I believe that in commending this Bill to your Lordships I should declare an interest—in fact, two interests, neither of them financial. The first interest is that when the Betting Levy Bill was being con-
598
sidered in the House on Second Reading in 1961 I supported not only its purposes but also the way in which it was proposed to carry them out. The second interest is in the sport itself, than which, in my view, intrinsically there is none finer. It used to be called the sport of kings, and certainly if it is that no longer it is still a sport fit for a king. Although it has never fallen to my lot, I can imagine no greater thrill than owning and racing a thoroughbred horse. It is a sport in which for centuries we led the world, and in which English bloodstock still holds its own with the world's best.
But in the last two or three decades we have fallen behind. We have fallen behind in the level of race prizes, and certainly we have fallen behind with amenities for racegoers, compared with the United States, France and some other countries. In 1961, when we had the first Bill before us, it seemed to me right, and it seems right now, that the bookmakers, who have the chief financial interest in the prosperity of racing, should pay annually a tiny fraction of their takings towards the maintenance and improvement of the sport. It also seemed to me right that although we were imposing a statutory obligation to pay the levy, we should at the same time accord the bookmakers a major element of self-government in the matter. It is always easy to be wise after the event, but I find myself in the position of advising the House that although the purposes of the 1961 Act have stood the test of time and have proved an outstanding success, in my view the machinery then devised, particularly in respect to the participation and co-operation of bookmakers, has broken down. Hence the need for the short Bill which is now before your Lordships.
The levy has so far raised about £17 million. Of this, over £51- million has been spent on improvements and modernisation of racecourses, and another £4 million on prize money. Transport of racehorses has taken just over El/ million and now defrays the greater part of the cost of transport to owners. Veterinary science has benefited to the tune of £500,000. Racing has been made cleaner and fairer by the measures taken to prevent doping of horses, including security guards, which account for another £500,000.

599
An injury benefit scheme for jockeys was set up in 1964, and so far has received over £250,000. As my participation in the sport is possibly confined, like that of many of your Lordships, to watching it on television on Saturday afternoons, I must confess that my heart is in my mouth for the jockeys until I hear the announcer say, "The horse and the jockey are both on their feet ". I think this amount of £250,000 is one that we should be very pleased is being spent for this purpose. Another Ell- million has been spent on improving technical services at racecourses. I am quite sure that your Lordships will agree that these are wise and proper uses of the levy. The benefits of increased prize money are felt throughout the industry. These and other expenditures help to keep racing alive, and bookmakers benefit as much as the public. In fact, I would say, trying to be as impartial as I can, that the bookmakers benefit more than the public. The other uses to which the money has been put not only contribute to the comfort of racegoers but help to maintain the integrity and vitality of racing.
The purpose of the 1961 Act was to create a procedure for raising a levy from bookmakers to be used for the benefit of horseracing, horse-breeding and veterinary science. The scheme was to be domestic to the industry, with Government intervention kept to a minimum. Noble Lords will probably know that as a result of a dispute between the Levy Board and the Bookmakers' Committee a breakdown in the arrangements for the collection of the levy is now threatened. The provisions of this Bill do not seek to change the basic structure of the 1961 Act, but seek to amend those parts of it which have proved unsatisfactory, so that in future the arrangements for assessment and collection will work smoothly. Your Lordships will recall that under the Betting and Gaming Act 1960 bookmakers had been given a new standing by the establishment of licensed betting offices. Street bookmaking on the run, with its attendant hazards and large expenses, was ended. Its place was taken by more than 15,000 statutory, respectable and less expensive betting offices. There was general agreement among bookmakers, as a sort of quid pro quo, to the principle of a levy which the Peppiatt Committee in 1960 advised should be intoduced.
600
The object of the 1961 Act, therefore, was to provide a scheme which would enable the industry to help itself.
The scheme for raising the levy works at present in this way—that is, prior to the Bill we are now considering. Proposals for the amount of the levy are prepared by the Bookmakers' Committee, which is a representative body of bookmakers. These proposals are submitted to the Horserace Betting Levy Board. This consists of a chairman and two other members of the Board appointed by the Secretary of State. The remaining members are representatives of the horseracing interests—the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee (I know they are now merged, but this will be taken care of during the passage of this together with the chairmen of the Bookmakers' Committee and of the Totalisator Board. If the Levy Board agree with the proposals of the Bookmakers' Committee as originally submitted or as revised as a result of observations by the Board, the scheme is promulgated by the Levy Board. If, however, agreement cannot be reached, the chairman and two other independent members may impose their own scheme. In so doing they are required to strike a balance between the needs of the horse-racing industry aid the ability of the bookmakers and the Totalisator Board to pay—the Tote being also, of course, required to contribute to the levy.
The 1961 Act requires that a scheme shall provide for bookmakers to be divided into various categories. On the promulgation of a scheme it is for the individual bookmaker himself to declare into which category he falls. We could hardly be fairer to the bookmaker than that. If a bookmaker does not make such a declaration it is for the Bookmakers' Committee to decide into which category he falls: additionally they have power to revise a bookmaker's declaration if either they or the Levy Board have any reason to doubt it. A bookmaker has the right of appeal to an independent appeals tribunal against his assessment, but if he is to succeed in his appeal he must produce his books to prove his case. The only sanctions against non-payment of the levy are for the Levy Board to proceed against the bookmaker for a civil debt or to object to the licensing justices against the renewal of the

601
bookmaker's permit. The power of the justices is discretionary.
The scheme has worked reasonably well over the past six years. It has, however, I regret to say, been the exception for a scheme to be agreed—indeed, apart from the first scheme agreement has been reached on only one other occasion. But it is only since the imposition of the seventh levy scheme—and more particularly the eighth, which followed shortly after—that the weakness of the present arrangements has become apparent. The seventh scheme—and I ask noble Lords to note this carefully—for the first time substituted turnover for profit as the main basis for assessment. This was done under the existing legislation, with the bookmakers themselves suggesting a scheme based on turnover. The one imposed by the chairman and two independent members, however, amended the Bookmakers' Committee's proposals by shifting the burden from the smaller bookmakers to the larger concerns—something which, in other affairs, we have often done in this House. Under the imposed scheme, the seventh scheme, it was hoped to raise £2·3 million—rather less than in the sixth levy period. At the same time the Levy Board also found that the Bookmakers' Committee's proposals for the eighth levy were unacceptable and announced that a levy for that period producing £3·8 million would have to be imposed. The dispute on the seventh scheme was mainly over the way in which a bookmaker who had both on and off course business was to be assessed. The Bookmakers' Committee, with reservations about the on-course bookmakers, have, I am told, now dealt with the bulk of the outstanding assessments for the seventh levy, but unfortunately a large proportion of the bookmakers' contribution is not paid up.
So much for the unhappy state of the seventh levy: but a far more critical situation has developed over the scheme for the eighth levy. Here the bookmakers challenged the legality of the imposed scheme on the grounds that it did not take into account the bookmakers' capacity to pay. They have not put this challenge to the test in the courts; but the Bookmakers' Committee have instead given effect to the challenge by taking unjust advantage of their powers under the existing law. They have said that if a
602
bookmaker failed to submit a declaration of his category and such cases were referred to the Committee to decide, they would either refuse to deal with them or would place all bookmakers in the exempt category. There is no way of reopening such an assessment. Their action thus virtually amounts to opting out of the scheme and thus sabotaging it.
My Lords, I know that you will agree that the Government cannot tolerate the will of Parliament being flouted in this way. As I explained earlier, failing agreement with the bookmakers the ultimate power to decide the amount of the levy was vested in 1961 in the chairman and the independent members of the Levy Board. But these independent members are nevertheless part of the Levy Board and as such are vitally concerned with the expenditure of the money raised by the levy. However impartial they may be, their position makes it difficult for them to rebut the criticism that they are insufficiently independent to exercise unbiased judgment. Accordingly, this Bill provides for the responsibility for determining a scheme in the event of disagreement between the Levy Board and the Bookmakers' Committee to be transferred to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary—whose decision can be questioned in Parliament. That is what Clause 1 of the Bill does.
In exercising this function the Home Secretary will be completely independent and his discretion will be unfettered. The clause allows, although it does not require, the Home Secretary to seek the advice of independent people. It was argued in another place that an essential safeguard for the bookmakers was being removed in that the Bill does not require the Home Secretary, in making his determination, to consider the bookmakers' capacity to pay. My Lords, I cannot accept that contention. The Home Secretary cannot exercise this function without balancing the capacity of the bookmakers to pay against the needs of the horseracing industry. But what does "capacity to pay" mean? The present impasse has been brought about because the bookmakers have relied on these words to challenge the Levy Board's arbitration. But the challenge has not taken a form which can be determined because the criterion of capacity to pay cannot be given an objective content. It

603
is essential that a measure of finality be given to the determination of the levy. The bookmakers' safeguard will in future be the Home Secretary's independence. We cannot leave the impression that that decision can be open to further challenge on a ground which is so imprecise that it makes any resolution impossible.
This power of determination will apply in the first instance to the eighth levy scheme already promulgated by the independent members of the Levy Board, and I can assure noble Lords that the Bookmakers' Committee will be given every opportunity to state their objections before the Home Secretary makes his decision. The Government are determined in the light of recent experience that the decision on the eighth levy scheme and on future schemes shall be implemented without obstruction. To this end, Clause 2 transfers the power of revising or imposing assessments from the Bookmakers' Committee to the independent members of the Levy Board. The bookmaker's individual right of appeal to an appeals tribunal against his assessment remains unaffected.
Clause 3 of the Bill seeks to strengthen the sanctions for non-payment of the levy by making it mandatory on the justices to refuse renewal of a bookmaker's permit if he has, since the Act, been in default of payment of his levy on any two occasions in a period of five years, provided also—and this is very important—that the Levy Board appear before them to make the objection. The object of this last provision is to ensure that cases of inadvertence or cases of hardship are not penalised but that the hard core of obdurate offenders is effectively dealt with. This is, I accept, a powerful sanction, since without a permit a bookmaker is powerless to carry on his business. However, if he purges his offence by making full restitution he can, with the approval of the Levy Board, apply for a new permit at the next opportunity.
My Lords, so far I have been dealing with the provisions of the Bill which affect the bookmakers: I will, if I may, now explain how they affect the Totalisator Board. The arrangements for determining the contribution to be made by the Totalisator Board are much the same as those for the bookmakers. If agreement cannot be reached between the Tote
604
Board and the Levy Board then it is for the three independent members to decide what the Board's contribution shall be. In coming to their decision they are required to have regard to the same criteria as are applied in determining the levy for bookmakers. I am glad to say that agreement has always been reached in the past between the two Boards but that is not to say it will always be so. Clause 4 accordingly provides that if a dispute should arise between the two Boards it shall he decided by the Home Secretary.
My Lords, the intentions of the 1961 Act have not been wholly fulfilled and the unco-operative attitude of the bookmakers has obliged us to produce this Bill to put matters right. It had to come forward as an emergency measure against a regrettable background of dispute and I hope that I have avoided exacerbating feelings which have been aroused. I wish to emphasise that while the Bill leaves the present law essentially as it is, it seeks to re-allocate responsibility for its administration in such a way as to remove the sources of friction. What is in dispute is not the principle but the amount of the levy. The eighth levy scheme has set the amount to be raised at £3,840,000. This amount, on a turnover from horse-racing which, in 1967–68, the latest full year for which figures are available, amounted to no less than some £830 million, represents substantially less than half of 1 per cent. of turnover; about 1d. in the pound. To put this in perspective I should also mention that the Totalisator Board, with a turnover during the same period of only £33 million, and with relatively higher expenses, contributed a levy of 2 per cent. to the sixth levy and 1½ per cent. to the seventh levy and they have never had a dispute with the Levy Board.
However that may be that it would be quite inappropriate for me to express any view on the proposed level of the eighth scheme. Indeed, the whole purpose of the Bill is to transfer to the Home Secretary the determination of the appropriate level of the levy in disputed schemes. Noble Lords may rest assured that in reaching a decision the Home Secretary will take into account the views and interests of all concerned and, moreover, that the decision ultimately reached will be impartial. I suggest that

605
what we propose in this Bill is just and fair and certainly not oppressive. The levy scheme could not now be effectively replaced; it must be implemented. I ask the House to ensure that it is implemented by giving this Bill a Second Reading. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Stonham.)
3.43 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham is wearing his racing suit to-day: it is very appropriate. I am not going into all the details of the Bill because they have been explained in great detail, and very clearly, by the noble Lord. May I say straight away that I agree with the principles of the Bill and I completely approve of Clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5. May I also say first one word about the present Act? It was brought in, of course, by a Conservative Government and it has been, I think, in large measure a great success. I do not know how racing would have continued without it.
Although the Act was brought in by a Conservative Government it was, in the event, largely an agreed measure. I seem to remember that, by and large, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, fully supported it, as did other noble Lords opposite. Even the bookmakers though they did not of course like being levied—nobody likes being levied—realised that they must pay a share of the expenses of the racing industry, and that if the racing industry was unable, because of economics, to continue the bookmakers would all go out of business.
As the noble Lord has said, these levy schemes worked pretty satisfactorily until the seventh scheme. I do not want to go into this unfortunate dispute, but in fact the Bookmakers' Committee more or less said that they were going to wreck the existing Act—in other words, that they were going to thwart the will of Parliament. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that that clearly could not be allowed. So, my Lords, we have this Bill which in certain respects is pretty tough on the bookmakers. It ties them up pretty tight; it ties up quite a lot of other people pretty tight. But I think that is absolutely necessary.
606
May I go back to one thing which was said by the noble Lord. Lord Stonham? He explained (and I think this is important) that in the event of a disagreement over any particular levy scheme in any year between the Levy Board and the Bookmakers' Committee, under the present Act a decision could be imposed by three people who have come to be known as the "Three Wise Men". They are the three members of the Levy Board appointed by the Secretary of State partly because of their knowledge of racing but principally because they do not represent any section of the racing industry. 'They are not bookmakers, and they are not members of the Jockey Club—I think I am right about that. Anyhow, they are independent members so far as anyone in this world is independent. They can authorise a scheme when the Levy Board and the bookmakers fail to agree.
When the present Act was introduced and the Bill was going through the House, I do not think that anyone could have foretold that there was a possible loophole, but it is that loophole of which the bookmakers have now taken advantage. This Bill contains a clause which I think is quite wrong, Clause 1. Under this clause, when there is a lack of agreenient—I will not say a dispute—about a levy scheme between the Levy Board and the Bookmakers' Committee, the Secretary of State, for some extraordinary reason which has never been adequately explained by Her Majesty's Government in another place (and even to-day I do not think has been explained) has to take over the job of the "Three Wise Men".
The Secretary of State may well know nothing at all about racing. He may know even less about betting; and I dare bet that he will get little technical help in the way of advice from anybody in the Home Office. From what I saw of them I should be very surprised if Home Office civil servants ever have the time to go racing. I know that very few of them take the slightest interest in it, except academically as "back room boys" for the benefit of the Home Office. Under this Bill the Secretary of State —this man who probably knows nothing about racing and who has not sat in on any of the discussions between the bookmakers and the Levy Board, or any

607
other discussions which may be going on—can refer for his advice to other people. But, my Lords, to whom can he refer for advice on the arguments which have been put forward, if he wants to know what has been going on, except the "Three Wise Men"? So we are back to square one. He can later see the bookmakers, and even later see the rest of the Levy Board, but the only people who can tell him why they disagree, and what were the arguments, are the "Three Wise Men". Why put in the Secretary of State? My Lords, we have had no reason for this, but I put it down to the love of this present Government of interfering in matters which hardly concern them and about which they know almost nothing. It seems singularly stupid.
I have only one other matter to talk about in connection with Clause 1, and it has been mentioned by the noble Lord. Lord Stonham. As I said, the present Act was, in the event, largely an agreed measure, not only in Parliament but to a large extent by the interested parties outside. Under that Act, the "Three Wise Men", when they come to impose a scheme, are required by Statute to have regard to, among other things, the capacity of the bookmakers to pay. I may say that in another place the Government shifted their argument on this point four or five times, but the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, now says that the words "capacity to pay" mean nothing; that they are not enforceable, and that what in fact the present Act says is that the "Three Wise Men" shall "have regard to" this; they have not to prove capacity, but must "have regard to" it.
In Committee in another place, the Government were defeated and the words "capacity to pay" were inserted—I agree, by rather a snap vote—but they were taken out by the Government on Report stage, without any particular reason being given; so that the Bill comes to your Lordships' House without the reference to "capacity to pay". I have not the slightest doubt of the bookmakers' capacity to pay. May I explain why the bookmakers attach importance to having these words in, or other words to the same effect? They are afraid that when we get a Secretary of State who knows nothing about the subject, he will act as a politician, and the public generally
608
have a healthy distrust of Governments and politicians. They are not afraid about the present Home Secretary. He has given an undertaking for himself, which is all he can do, that he will take capacity to pay into account when he has to decide upon a scheme. And this applies not only to the present Home Secretary but to any other Home Secretary of the present Government.
The bookmakers, however, are naturally suspicious that some Government, or some Home Secretary of the future who may be against betting, will decide that there ought to be a Tote monopoly. They say that if there is to be a Tote monopoly one day the necessary legislation should be introduced. If these words are not in the Bill, the Home Secretary of the day could make a scheme, with a levy which it was impossible for the bookmakers to pay, and thereby get a Tote monopoly "by the back door". Whether those fears are justified or not, I cannot say; but I do say that the bookmakers regard these words as important. In the last few years, we have seen quite a bit of legislation "by the back door".
Government spokesmen have repeatedly said that the Home Secretary could be questioned in Parliament, but supposing he was asked why he had made a scheme with a levy which the bookmakers could not pay, all he would have to say in answer would be that there was nothing in the Act about taking into account capacity to pay. It may sound farfetched, but it is a real fear of the bookmakers. I believe that if this new Bill is to work smoothly, no one part of the industry should be unduly suspicious. We should have the co-operation of the whole industry.
When we come to Committee stage, I hope that your Lordships will consider putting Clause 1 into proper order. I am giving notice now that I shall put down Amendments about the Secretary of State and "capacity to pay". We have not had any proper reason for the insertion of the Secretary of State except that the Government want it. Nobody in the industry, so far as I can see, wants it. As regards "capacity to pay", or words to that effect, they may be useless words, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, says. But I believe that they can do no harm and will give confidence to the

609
bookmakers, and I think that they ought to go into the Bill. Apart from these two criticisms, I am sure that your Lordships ought to give the Bill a Second Reading, because the bulk of it is good and of importance.
3.56 p.m.
LORD MANTON: My Lords, I know that your Lordships are always generous to a maiden speaker, but I think I have a special reason for claiming your Lordships' indulgence this afternoon. This is a first time that a member of my family has spoken in this House. Another place has become a little prickly lately about the outside interests of its Members. My reasons for coming here to-day to speak in this debate are that I am both interested and to some extent involved in the subject under discussion. I have some knowledge of racing and its problems as a member of the Jockey Club, although I am one of its newest members.
The Bill before your Lordships' House this afternoon has my strongest support. The present 1961 Act is badly in need of an overhaul. This new Bill seeks to impose a scheme under which turnover will be substituted for profit. That is the basis of assessment. The new Bill, as we have already heard, should raise £3·8 million a year instead of, in the current year, £2·3 million. The effect of this will be that the amount of levy paid by many smaller bookmakers will be reduced. This is a point that sometimes has been missed. The small bookmaker in the small back streets and the country villages will not pay as much as he has done under the current levy. But conversely it will increase very substantially the levy paid by the big bookmaking enterprises.
The larger bookmakers, as we have already heard, are threatening to defy the old Act by not putting in returns. I only hope that the Government will not tolerate such wrecking tactics. At present, there are three bookmaking firms who practically control the whole of the horse, racing betting in this country. These three firms the Bill will hit the hardest. In the past, their contributions to the levy have been to my mind totally unrealistic. The articulate and wellorganised opposition to this Bill is by these few large enterprises and is not representative of the feelings of the
610
majority of small bookmakers, many of whom, as I have said, will benefit under the Bill.
However, I should like to be satisfied that there are adequate safeguards and powers for not enforcing the levy where, despite a large turnover, there could be a genuine loss. I must emphasise the word "genuine". The Bill has the wholehearted approval of the racing authorities. It will go some way towards helping to maintain and improve the standard of racing in this country and the amenities of those who go on racecourses. I for one admire the skill of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, who has persuaded the Government to find time for such a much-needed measure. I will not delay your Lordships or the progress of this Bill any longer, but in conclusion I should like to thank your Lordships for the indulgence that you have extended to me. I hope that I have not overtaxed your staying powers.
4.0 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Manton, on his maiden speech, which I am sure the whole House has enjoyed. His great knowledge of racing will be much appreciated in this House, and I hope that we shall hear the noble Lord speak often in the future. I had the pleasure for many years of knowing his father, who was also a member of the Jockey Club.
In supporting this Bill, I wish to say how sorry I am that it has had to come before the House. I, like many other noble Lords, was a supporter of the 1961 measure, which was an agreed measure to clean up street corner betting and improve racing. All the bookmakers agreed to pay levy for the privilege of being allowed to set up licensed batting shops, and this, as my noble I Fiend Lord Derwent has said, has brought in the substantial sum over the seven years of £17 million. I do not know where the racing industry would have been to-day without that £17 million.
However, I am worried that it is necessary to bring the Minister and Parliament into this matter because the 1961 Act tried to let the industry settle their own affairs. But, as has been said, we cannot have the will of Parliament flouted. I think the bookmakers have been very unwise in the action they

611
have taken of flouting the will of Parliament and refusing to pay any levy. Therefore, we must do something about it. At the same time, as my noble friend Lord Derwent said, we have to be fair to all sections of the industry. It would be a sad day, in my view, if bookmakers departed from the racing scene. They are part of the British racing scene. The public like to have freedom of choice in their betting, and this is what we try to give them.
It is important to have some words in the Bill, and I am sorry that the Government decided to reverse the decision of their main Committee. The Amendment to have in the words "capacity to pay" was carried by only one vote in Standing Committee in the other place; but it was carried. The effect of the words "capacity to pay" has been one of the difficulties all the way through the negotiations, but, as my noble friend Lord Derwent said, we think that they give some protection to the bookmakers, and this is what they want.
I think it is regrettable to have to bring in the Minister and Parliament, but in the circumstances it is inevitable. It does not seem to be possible for the "Three Wise Men" to settle their affairs with the Bookmakers' Committee hence this Bill. But I feel that we should insert some words for the protection of the bookmakers—words that the Minister should take into account. Therefore I was glad when my noble friend Lord Derwent said that he would put forward an Amendment on the Committee stage, which I think is to be taken next week, to consider this important point. With those few words, I support the Pill regretfully, because I think it would have been much better if the Levy Board and the Bookmakers' Committee could have settled their dispute without having to come to the Minister and Parliament. However, in the circumstances, I see no other alternative, but I think some adequate safeguard should be put in the Bill.
4.5 p.m.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: My Lords, I should like to add my humble congratulations to those of the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, to an old friend of mine, the noble Lord, Lord Manton, on his maiden speech. I should like also to offer my sincere and warm
612
congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, on the admirable exposé he gave us of the present situation of the Horseracing Betting Levy Act. It was masterly. I find myself, I am sorry to say, in disagreement with two noble Lords on this side of the House who feel that they would like to see reintroduced during the Committee stage of the Bill the Amendment which I believe was very nearly inserted in the Bill in another place.
I feel that, as other speakers have done. I should declare my interest. I have had the honour to do five terms of office as a Steward either of the Jockey Club or of the National Hunt Committee. That comes to a total of 16 years. I have also been five years Chairman of Tattersall's Committee, which deals with the disputes between the bookmakers and the betting public. So I have a little inside knowledge of the way bookmakers' minds work, and the mind of the public, too. I am also Chairman of the Racecourse Technical Services, the company that operates under the Levy Board and provides all the essential services at racecourses. I am Chairman of two racecourses, and have been an owner and breeder in a humble way for 45 years. I thought that I should explain that.
I should like to stress one point. In my opinion, there has been a great deal of misconception about this mysterious "capacity to pay" by the bookmakers in relation to the small amount that the eighth levy scheme is seeking to impose on them, which is only half the amount recommended by the Benson Committee on the Future of the Racing Industry, copies of whose Report no doubt a number of your Lordships have seen. That sum was fixed at £8 million, which is a little over double the contribution that the eighth levy is seeking to impose. In my view, the bookmakers' "capacity to pay" in relation to these small demands is virtually unlimited. When you look at the sporting papers and the financial papers you see nothing but advertisements every day by the leading bookmakers for more, bigger and better betting shops. Do not tell me that those people are working out of philanthropy, and that they are not going to make a great deal of money out of it. Moreover, one has only to look a little further to see the financial results announced by some of the leading bookmaking firms.

613
I intend to be quite brief, but I should like for a moment to tell your Lordships a little about this so-called "capacity to pay" and the misconception attached thereto. I must give your Lordships a few of the racing figures in relation to what happens over the water in France. In England we have four times the number of betting shops that exist in France, where the Paris Mutuel Urbain, which is their off-course totalisator organisation, provides what corresponds in England to our betting shops. They have about 4,000 in France against about 16,000 over here. Our betting turnover figures, which the noble Lord announced, are just about double what they are in France. Yet French racing receives approximately six times the revenue out of betting that we succeed in getting in this country; that is, something in the neighbourhood of £17 million to £18 million—it naturally varies every year—as against about £3 million in the past few years, both from the bookmakers and from the totalisator combined. So I do not think that anybody can say that the demands that the Levy Board are making at the present time on our betting industry are other than extremely reasonable.
Furthermore, this figure may endear itself to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I believe that the latest figure in France, with their system of betting, with their smaller number of betting shops and half our turnover, is that the French Treasury get the equivalent of £60 million per annum out of betting, whereas I believe that our estimate is that our Chancellor of the Exchequer will receive about £50 million. So those figures rather speak for themselves. If anything, my Lords, I feel that possibly this Bill does not go far enough in view of the fact that the Benson Committee recommended this very conservative figure of £8 million. On the other hand, there is the good old principle that half a loaf is better than no bread. For that reason, I beg your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading and I would ask those of us who will be here next week to do their best to resist any Amendment to the Bill concerning this so-called capacity of the bookmakers to pay.
4.12 p.m.
LORD STONHANT: My Lords, I would join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Manton, on
614
what was in fact a double maiden; it was not only his first speech in your Lordships' House but, although he is the third Baron, the first speech made by any holder of his Lordships' title. I thank the noble Lord for his maiden effort and hope that he will speak again, not only on racing and sporting matters but on other matters, and with the great advantage that his speech had, which my own speeches never have, that he was; brief and to the point. I am old enough to remember as a boy what the name of the Manton Stables meant in racing. I was very glad to hear the noble Lord say that he fully supported the Bill, and in particular the point he made (which I mentioned but did not sufficiently emphasise) that it will have the effect of reducing the amount of the levy paid by the small bookmaker.
I do not want to say too much on that score and must be extremely unbiased in the matter, but it seemed to me extraordinary that some of the strictures made by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, about the capacity to pay can be made when we look at the scheme itself, which provides, except for bookmakers exempted under Part I, that a bookmaker with a turnover of up to £15,000— that is the lowest— would pay only £50 a year. That is just about £1 a week on a turnover of up to £15,000. At the other end of the scale, with a turnover of over £1 million, bookmakers; will be paying £5,250.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt but I evidently did not make myself clear. I said that I was not in any doubt about the capacity to pay. I was talking about the form of words, which will give comfort to the bookmakers. I am quite certain they can pay.
Loin) STONHAM: My Lords, I was very careful to note down the noble Lord's wounding words and I shall come to them in a moment. But first I was dealing with his noble friend Lord Manton in welcoming this point which has been made, because it is quite possible that other noble Lords have not studied these Schedules quite so assiduously as has the noble Lord, Lord Derwent. I always find that whenever I make a point and it goes home I am bound to be interrupted. That is the certain way of being sure that one has made one's point. There are of

615
course other bookmakers who, under Part III of the Scheme, will pay nothing. So when we are considering this matter these points should be borne in mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Manton, also said that the articulate opposition to the Bill is from the large bookmakers. That is perfectly true. I am glad that he made that point so that I do not have to make it. One thing he asked me for was an assurance that the levy will not be charged where there is a genuine loss. This is an assurance that I cannot give. The levy, when it has been agreed, when it has been revised or confirmed by the Secretary of State, will of course be in accordance with the Schedules devised. My mind boggles at the thought of deciding when a bookmaker has made a genuine loss—and the noble Lord emphasised the word "genuine". So I regret to say that that particular point is not one that I would regard as practicable.
The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, congratulated me on wearing my racing suit. I thought that with a Bill of this kind there should be at least one hacking jacket here so that we could get into the right mood. He asked why the Secretary of State could adequately replace the "Three Wise Men"; and incautiously said that my right honourable friend knows nothing about it and quite probably his advisers at the Home Office know nothing about it either—they do not have the time to go racing. It is astonishing that a former Home Officer Minister should say such things.
LORD DERWENT: That is why.
LORD STONHAM: Well, things have changed since the noble Lord's time; that is all I can say. On so many subjects it has been my lot to find that our divisions and departments have quite remarkable knowledge in matters of this kind, and if they do not have the knowledge they always know where to go to get it. So I regret the noble Lord's remarks, particularly his bringing in stupid political remarks that we get in other places about putting it down to the love of the present Government to interfere in matters of which they know nothing. This is not a Party Bill; this is a common-sense Bill for the benefit of racing. So for the rest of the stages of the Bill, particularly the Committee stage, let us exclude remarks of that kind.
616
We of course have the highest possible regard for the capacities of the Chairman and the two appointed members of the Levy Board—the "Three Wise Men" as the noble Lord calls them. But the objection (if I may use the word "objection") to the "Three Wise Men" is that their part in determining how the levy should be spent gives them so close an association with the needs of horse-racing that they cannot be seen to be impartial. They become, as it were, judges in their own cause in deciding any dispute between the bookmakers and the Levy Board. We therefore felt that it was right for the Secretary of State to decide these matters, and he will indeed have the opportunity, if he feels it necessary, to seek other advice. Suppose we had set up, in place of the Secretary of State, another independent tribunal. Where would you find the people with the necessary knowledge and expertise who did not have some kind of interest in this particular industry in one capacity or another? This solution is quite a usual and quite a right one in other fields, and I am certain that it will work very well.
The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said, quite wrongly, that I had said that capacity to pay did not matter. If he looks at my speech to-morrow in Hansard he will find that I did not say that. What I did say, and what I mean, is that the Secretary of State would balance capacity to pay against the needs of the industry. I do not want to say any more about capacity to pay, because a great deal was said by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, and it was cheered on this side of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, also said that bookmakers are suspicious that we intend to create a Tote monopoly.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I did not say that; I said "if in the future some Government wished to create a Tote monopoly".
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am grateful for that correction. Of course I cannot commit a future Government, but it can be said that there would have to be legislation and that legislation would be decided by Parliament, and I cannot imagine any Government of any political colour perpetrating an injustice. It may well be that a change of policy would be possible under some future Government—I do not know—but I can say

617
that this Government have no such thoughts in mind.
As to the Amendments which the noble Lord promised to put down, we shall consider them with great interest. The only thing I hope is that in dealing with them I shall not be led into disclosing a lot of figures. When he speaks about "capacity to pay", the noble Lord seems to have forgotten that the seventh levy was based on turnover, and that was suggested by the bookmakers themselves. The only real problem has arisen because the Levy Board have decided that the eighth levy, also based on turnover like the seventh levy, should be £3·8 million, whereas the other was £2·3 million. That is really what all the trouble was about. I am grateful for the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, and I agree with him that bookmakers are unwise to flout the will of Parliament in this way. But we certainly bear no malice. I am also grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out that he did not think it possible for the so-called "Three Wise Men" to come to agreement with the Levy Board.
I think the last time I spoke in the same debate as the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, I was sitting on those Benches and he was sitting here. That was about eight years ago. I also remember that on that occasion we found ourselves in full agreement, as we do now. I was glad that he said there was a great deal of misconception about the capacity of bookmakers to pay, and in his view the demands now being made are extremely reasonable. My Lords, I am the only Member of your Lordships' House who has spoken in this debate who is not, never has been and perhaps never will be, the owner of racehorses, but I think it is a very great sport. I believe this Bill is wise, it will do racing a considerable service, and I hope that now we shall give it a unanimous Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 23, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

AGRICULTURE (SPRING TRAPS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
4.25 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD BURTON LORD BURTON moved as an Amendment:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Killing or taking of otters by spring traps.
".After 1st July 1969 it shall no lodger he competent for the Secretary of State to make an order under subsection (4) of section 50 of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948 authorising the use of a spring trap other than an approved trap as defined by subsection (3) of that section for the purpose of killing or taking otters; and as from the said date any order authorising the killing or taking of otters by spring traps shall cease to have effect."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that little explanation of this Amendment is necessary. If r was correct in interpreting the feelings of your Lordships on the two previous stages of the Bill, you would like to see the gin trap abolished for otters now, as opposed to 1973 when the Government propose to abolish it. I hope that that is what this Amendment will accomplish, but I must admit to difficulties in drafting, and it may be that some alteration will be needed to the wording. I gather that there may be some difficulty for the Government in accepting the Amendment, owing to undertakings given to the Salmon Net Fishing Association. However, as a director of an East Coast salmon net company and of another company which has West Coast salmon fishings, I am not unduly worried about disagreeing with the Salmon Net Fishing Association.
I would be the last to whitewash the otter. Few would deny that he likes a nice piece of salmon or that he is capable of doing substantial damage in a hatchery. But the otter is also partial to eels, which are very damaging to the

619
salmon spawn and which also take pike and other coarse fish, so in their present numbers the otters are probably doing more good than harm. However, I gather it is the case in my own locality that the overall numbers of otters are diminishing; so much so that the British Field Sports Society has recommended a reduction in hunting. Therefore there seems to be a definite case for conservation and protection.
If, however, one wishes to control or reduce their numbers, they are not hard to shoot. They can be seen quite readily when they are fishing on a summer evening, and also when they cross over land. They will go a considerable distance from water course to water course, and being clumsy on their short legs they prefer to keep to regular paths, where I believe it is not difficult to snare them. As a matter of interest, I may say that two summers ago, while fishing for trout one evening, I was reeling in a little fish when an otter took it. For nearly ten minutes we struggled, but I lost my fish eventually when the otter broke my line. On another occasion a dog chased an otter into our estate office and I had the job of catching it and putting it into a laundry hamper. I sent it off to Mr. Gavin Maxwell, the author. So your Lordships will see that I have had some experience in handling otters.
It may seem somewhat incongruous that at one stage of the Bill I am pressing for the retention of the trap for foxes and at the next for its abolition for otters, but there is really nothing strange in this. Unless a replacement for the gin trap is found we shall have great difficulty with foxes in some areas, and possibly with wild cats also, but there is no reason why it should not be abolished for otters now. In fact, there are strong grounds for its abolition at the earliest possible moment. My noble friend the Duke of Atholl wished his name to he added to this Amendment, but I must apologise to him because unfortunately I was too late in submitting his name and the Amendment had already gone to print. He had hoped to be present in order to speak in favour of the Amendment, but he said that he might be detained on business and, if so, asked me to express his support for the Amendment. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Burton has said, there were on the Committee stage two points about which some of us were a little doubtful. One was the removal of the power of the Secretary of State to prolong permission to use gin traps for foxes in remote Highland areas after 1973, and the other was permission in the Bill to use gin traps against otters over the next two years. I think the first point, to which my noble friend has referred, with regard to foxes in remote areas, was fully discussed in Committee, but the point about otters was not so fully discussed and I hope the Government will consider this Amendment favourably.
I am an owner of salmon net fishings and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, knows, I am also, on public grounds, very anxious indeed to do everything to protect salmon stocks. The salmon is one of our greatest national assets in Scotland, and it is an asset which is at the moment in great danger from several quarters, but otters do not represent one of those dangers. This is a question of the opinion of modern naturalists. No one would object to the killing of pests which are destroying salmon, but most up-to-date opinion given by people who are good naturalists—those who advise the Nature Conservancy and others—is to the effect that, on the whole, the otter does more good than harm to salmon stocks, and that, in any case, the harm which he does cannot be very serious. I do not see therefore what justification there is in a Bill of this kind for prolonging the period.
We are all agreed that gin traps ought to he abolished. We are not all agreed about the question of making exceptions in the case of protecting hill sheep from foxes. But surely we ought to be agreed on this point: that there is no reasonable case for leaving in the Bill this permission to trap otters, and that if it is going to be abolished it ought to be abolished now. And, of course, all the arguments which were quite fairly used by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in reply to our other criticism about foxes would apply to this permission—if people buy, or set, gin traps for other creatures they can excuse themselves by saying they are using them to catch an otter. I hope that the Government will favourably consider acceptance of the Amendment moved by my noble friend.
4.32 p.m.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Burton. I have had a certain amount to do with salmon, and I have seen plenty of otters. I am quite certain that the damage done by otters to salmon is well balanced by the good that they do, because in nine cases out of ten I am quite certain that the otter, where it has a chance—and it has plenty of chance just now—will go for diseased or damaged fish; and as we all know the rivers have been full of those. I believe that there is no excuse whatsoever for prolonging the use of the gin trap for the otter.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I should also like to support the Amendment. I do so because I am convinced that people who fish and people who own salmon fishings would desire that this Amendment should be accepted by Her Majesty's Government, and I believe that would also be the wish of the general public.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I should like to press most strongly from these Benches that the Government should accept this Amendment. I know that there are difficulties, that word of some sort has been given to the Salmon Net Fishing Association, but in view of the present position of the otter in this country I should have thought that the noble Lord could probably find some way round that and accept the Amendment.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, although since this point was debated in Committee my attention has been drawn to at least one case in which an otter in one night did an enormous amount of damage in a hatchery—and they can do a lot of damage when they get loose in such a place—nevertheless, if the noble Lord presses this to a Division I shall go into the Lobby with him. It seems a pity that we should have to consider this matter again, and a pity that the Government did not accept the proposition at Committee stage by which trapping would have been permitted with gin traps in the hands of licensed persons.
4.36 p.m.
THE VISCOUNT OF ARBUTHNOTT: My Lords, I rise to support the Amendment. In doing so, I apologise for not having entered into this discussion at an earlier time. I support the Amendment
622
for slightly different reasons from those put forward, and say that I do not think we should be led too far along the path of alternative forms of trap is the main object of the exercise is the abolition of cruelty. Any form of trap can be cruel if set inexpertly and it can be just as indiscriminate unless the trapper knows what he is doing. Fears have been expressed that no suitable alternative form of spring trap will be available in 1973. My fear is that by that time there will still not be evidence of any serious attempt to organise pest control in the most suitable way.
Each area needs to be considered from its own peculiar standpoint. Consideration should be given to what is the predominant pest, what are the most appropriate methods of combating each species, how this should be organised so that all concerned are encouraged by example and satisfactory financial assistance to participate; and, above all, there should be the very closest attention paid to the training of the men responsible for pest destruction. The present gin trap need be no more cruel than the new types if they are improperly utilised. The human element is always of prime importance: the need for better knowledge of the pest itself, and, indeed, how far it needs to be hunted and destroyed. There seems to be ample evidence of this ignorance in relation to the otter which has been mentioned this afternoon. Therefore, a real understanding of the animal is required if only to determine the best method of catching and killing it.
I think also that some insight into the economics of pest destruction relative to their overall worth is required and, above all, the need for discipline in the operator of the trap line, for instance if only to consider the frequency with which the trap is visited. All these, I suggest, are as important matters for attention as the mere substitution of one form of trapping device for another. While I could not condone the continuation of the gin trap indefinitely as the major or only form of spring trap, I realise and appreciate the disquiet felt by many that its abolition is not being supported by a sensible appreciation of what should be clone now to form a satisfactory pest policy.

623
"Abolition" and "gin trap" recalled for me my days in the Navy, when "gin trap" referred to a snare set for young officers coming off the forenoon watch and into which they were most liable to fall between the hours of 12.30 and 1 o'clock. I do not suppose we are considering abolishing this trap, but I would suggest that an alternative lure more appropriate to the Scottish economy might be considered. This idea is not worth an award, I am sure, but it might be worth a thought. Seriously, I do not think we want the gin trap to become an exclusively Scottish trap, but in my submission I think it should cease to be an otter trap forthwith, if only to demonstrate that it is our intention to form a rational pest policy in 1969.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHR: My Lords, I should like to add my voice in support of the many noble Lords on all sides who have pressed the Government to accept this Amendment. I have taken some interest in the preservation of salmon, but even so, anxious as I am to see the species preserved, I would most willingly support the Amendment.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, may I say that there is another aspect to the question; that is, that many societies which are interested in the preservation of wildlife in the country have been very seriously worried about the position of the otter. Its numbers are diminishing very rapidly, and I think that anything we can do to preserve it—and we have heard from many noble Lords that it does a great deal more good than harm—would be welcomed. I therefore wholeheartedly support the Amendment.
4.39 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, it must be very embarrassing for my noble friend on the Front Bench to have to consider accepting an Amendment which has been moved and supported by Conservatives, backed up by Liberals, reinforced from the Cross-Benches, with nothing but silence so far from this side of the House. I therefore should like to add my voice to those who have pleaded for the abolition of the gin trap in so far as otters are concerned. The otter, despite its harmful habits, is a very nice wild creature, and we are in danger
624
of seeing so many of our wild creatures become extinct. I therefore sincerely hope that my noble friend will be able to accept this Amendment.
I can hardly agree with the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, in his further suggestion that he would like to see the gin trap preserved for foxes, not merely for the period stipulated in the Bill but for a longer period as well, in the northern parts of Scotland. I think we have all come to the conclusion that the gin trap is a very cruel instrument and should be abolished as quickly as possible, and I should not like it to be, as the noble Earl suggested, extended for use in the northern part of Scotland beyond the period stipulated in the Bill. I know I spoke like this in an earlier debate on this subject in this House, and I know that I spoke from the incongruous standpoint of having been one who had followed a pack of foxhounds for ten seasons some years ago. But I think that in our heart of hearts we all feel that the gin trap is cruel and I sincerely hope that if we cannot abolish it immediately for foxes we should now abolish it for otters.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I was thinking the same thing as my noble friend Lord Leatherland. The way in which otters are caught can hardly be considered a political question, and it would have been a pity had there been no voice from this side of the House to ask my noble friend, whatever his brief may say, whether he will give serious thought to the acceptance of this Amendment. The otter is a charming animal. He does little harm—probably he does more good than he does harm. The gin trap is, of course, the most barbarous method of trapping him, and if the Amendment is pressed I should like to vote in favour of it.
4.41 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am quite certain that it will be a matter of great regret to all those who have taken part in the debate that the advice which I must tender to your Lordships is that the Government do not recommend the acceptance of this Amendment. It is not an unusual experience for me to feel lonely in this House in a Scottish debate. I am generally faced with the serried ranks opposite, but it is a comparatively new experience to find myself being sniped

625
at from behind as well. But even that I could have borne if I had had inside me the conviction that I have always had in these Scottish debates, that the Government were right.
It would be wrong if I were to attempt at this stage to conceal the sympathy which I have already expressed for this Amendment when it was forecast at the Committee stage. But I am not here to put forward personal views. When Lord Burton spoke of this Amendment—or, rather, when the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, first spoke of this possibility—I was immediately impressed with the desirability of accepting it if it could possibly be done. I therefore consulted my colleague the Under-Secretary who has responsibility for the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland; and he, like me, approached it from a sympathetic point of view. Those of your Lordships who have been Ministers will not be surprised that in no time at all the Department were able to find six most convincing reasons why the Amendment should not be accepted; and I can, without unduly breaking into the traditions of Government secrecy in the matter, let your Lordships know that neither of us had any difficulty in "shooting down" five of them.
But we were left with one which was not a matter of politics—because there are no politics in this matter. I would say that if there is any question of votes in it the line which the Government take on this is much more likely to lose them votes because, if for nothing else, of the reference which the noble Lord, Lord Burton, made to Gavin Maxwell's book, A Ring of Bright Water. Anybody who has read that must approach the subject from the point of view that killing an otter must rank close to killing a child. One wonders what the reaction of noble Lords opposite would have been if Gavin Maxwell had kept a pet fox instead of a pet otter. Should we then have had a strong possible membership drive for a society for the preservation of the fox? Because if there is such a body as a society for the preservation of the otter I would say it has never had a better opportunity of getting a large number of distinguished titles among its membership and of collecting guineas.
But the consideration which I could not "shoot down" was the fact that we
626
had the most strong representation made to us by the Salmon Net Fishing Association. Quite unfairly, I thought, it started off by pitching against me—not against the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, for suggesting it but against me—for what I said in reply to the debate. Perhaps I may quote the beginning of the letter which came from the Salmon Net Fishing Association. It said:
"I have received your letter of yesterday in regard to the above subject. I am rather surprised at the terms of the statement made by Lord Hughes in the House of Louis last Tuesday when the Agriculture (Spring Traps) (Scotland) Bill received its Second Reading."
Then the letter goes on to say that the Association are surprised, and the writer goes so far as to say:
"I can only state, therefore, that my Association would consider it to be a breach of faith if the Government were to accept at this late stage an Amendment which would vary radically the terms of the Bill which have already been accepted by the House of Commons."
Having said that, I think I must, in fairness, let your Lordships know that we communicated with three Associations interested in salmon fisheries--the Association of Scottish District Salmon Fishery Boards, the Salmon Net Fishing Association of Scotland (from whose letter I have just quoted), and the Scottish Salmon Angling Federation. The other two organisations either have no views about it or are prepared to accept an Amendment along the lines proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Burton. So in fact the main objection comes from the principal commercial salmon interests, and they remain violently opposed to this proposal.
Had it not been for that, and the fact that we accept that the Government could not feel themselves clear of the allegation that a breach of faith was involved. I would have fought very strongly indeed against the last remaining argument against the acceptance of this Amendment. But the fact is that these discussions did take place, and we got the agreement of these Associations to the Bill in the form which it now takes.
Your Lordships may say that that is all very well; that the Government are seeking to preserve the undertaking which they gave to the Associations, but that this House has not given any such undertaking. That, of course, is a matter for

627
your Lordships. But I think that I must stand up for the principle that when Government Departments deal with Associations which have a strong interest in a matter, and then arrive at a conclusion and produce a Bill which tries to give effect to the consensus of opinion arrived at, it is wrong for the Government to be a party to departing from it. If this Association could have seen its way, like the other two, to consent to this Amendment, I personally should have been delighted, my colleague would have been delighted, and I am quite certain that the Department would not have fought against the proposal.
The noble Lord, Lord Burton, said that he had great difficulty in drafting the Amendment, and that he suspected it might be defective. On this occasion his suspicions are well founded: the Amendment is defective. But again, trying to be as fair as possible, I must tell your Lordships that although it is not in the form that we should like to see it on the Statute Book it would not present the courts with any great difficulties in interpretation. The Bill, therefore, is workable. I am quite certain that if your Lordships do not accept my advice—though I hope that you will—and the Amendment goes to another place, if they were to decide to accept it it would be put in terms which would be more acceptable from a drafting point of view. I therefore do not rest my case on technicalities. I do not rest on the case which could have been made: that if there is any use of the gin trap from which the element of cruelty is less apparent, it is the gin trap when used against the otter. I mean, in fact, if it could be used in these identical conditions against foxes, the case for its abolition would have been very much weaker. I do not rest it on that, because our general objection to the gin trap is that it is cruel, and it will be an essential part of its abolition—of the aboli-
tion of its use against foxes—that it should be illegal to use it against otters, because one of the enforcement procedures must be that it will be illegal to sell gin traps. If its use were continued against otters on the ground that it was not unduly cruel in this case, then everybody who bought or sold a gin trap would, of course, be selling it for use against otters—never for use against foxes—and the law would become a dead letter in that respect. So I cannot argue both ways; I cannot argue that we must stop its use against otters in the interests of stopping the cruelty against foxes, and then argue that it is reasonable to continue it for two years because it is not cruel against otters.
I hope your Lordships will appreciate that I am trying to be as fair as I can in seeing the principle of the case and yet wishing to protect the happy relationships which we in the Scottish Office have with the various Scottish Associations with whom we have to consult from time to time. We are not unmindful of the fact that we still have the major issue to go through in relation to salmon, and we do not want to find ourselves ultimately legislating on the Hunter Committee Report in the knowledge that we have bitterly antagonised one of the principal Associations, on the basis that, "You cannot rely on what the Government are going to do with salmon, because when it gets to the House of Lords they cannot control the situation". I have never believed that we could guarantee control of any Scottish situation in the House of Lords. I have done my best this afternoon.
4.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 25.

CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Chorley, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Arbuthnott, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Ferrers, E.

Atholl, D.

Crawshaw, L.

Ferrier, L.

Auckland. L.

Cromartie, E.

Goschen, V.

Balerno, L.

Denham, L.

Grenfell, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Derwent, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L

Belstead, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Hanworth, V.

Burton, L. [Teller.]

Dudley, L.

Headfort, M.

Carrington, L.

Dundee, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Effingham, E.

Hurcomb, L.

Jackson of Burnley, L.

Milford Haven, M.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Morrison, L.

Snow, L.

Jessel, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Somers, L. [Teller.]

Kilbracken, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Kilmany, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Rankeillour, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Rowallan, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Lauderdale, E.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Thurlow, L.

Leathcrland, L.

St. Helens. L.

Trefgarne, L.

MacAndrew, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Vivian, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Sandys, L.

Willis, L.

Mancroft, L.

Selkirk, E.

Wise. L.

Merrivale, L.

Shannon, E.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Meston, L.

Sherfield, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Amulree, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Ogmore, L.

Archibald, L,

Gladwyn, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Beswick, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Serota, Bs.

Bowles, L.

Hughes, L.

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Burden, L.

Latham, L.

Shepherd, L.

Byers, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs. [Teller.]

Sorensen, L.

Champion, L.

Stonham, L.

Crook, L.

Moyle, L.

Tayside, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

GAMING (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
5.0 p.m.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lord, I beg to move that the Gaming (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill be now read a second time. I should like to give a short explanation of its objects. Clause 1 of the Bill applies to amusement arcades. There is at present a great increase in the number of amusement arcades. Applications to open one of these places follow certain rules, but owing to the high rateable value of these arcades local councils are loath to refuse a licence. This seems wrong. The Gaming Board can only make a recommendation, and the local council can override it. And the council, after all, is dealing with it mainly as a planning matter. The only way to stop the expansion of the number of arcades now seems to be to curtail the profits. This can be done by the prohibition of gaming machines and by giving the Gaming Board the overriding power to grant a licence.
There are other objections to amusement arcades. First, young people and children under 18 can use them, thus encouraging the gambling fever. Secondly, the profits to proprietors of gaming machines are in my opinion excessive, and if they are not high enough to satisfy
630
proprietors a man known as a "fixer" can be sent for to manipulate the machines to retain a bigger stake. Thirdly, I have been told, though without proof, that amusement arcades are being used to push drugs.
Clause 2 deals with licensed premises. Gaming machines in licensed premises are a nuisance. They distract the customers from the serious business of drinking and conversation; they are noisy; they encourage gambling, and my serious objections are the same as against the amusement arcades in Clause 1 of the Bill. I have noticed, incidentally, that gaming machines are rarely to be found in London public houses, but the reverse seems to be the case in country districts. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Nunburnholme.)
5.2 p.m.
LORD DERVENT: My Lords, I am somewhat surprised to see this Bill being introduced at this moment of time. Your Lordships will realise that Parliament passed the Gaming Act only last Session, and parts of the Act are not yet even fully operative. The 1968 Gaming Act received the sort of Parliamentary examination which very few pieces of legislation receive. In your Lordships' House it was not only given a Second Reading, a Committee stage, a Report stage, and a Third Reading stage, but it went before a special experimental Public Bill Committee upstairs, when every

631
single line was exhaustively—the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, might say exhaustingly—examined. Surely it is a little early to have amending legislation before we even know how the Act is working.
The noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, desires by Clause 1 of his Bill to put amusement arcades under the Gaming Board instead of under local authorities. As I understood him, that is being done not with the idea of restricting the number of gaming machines allowed under the Act, but with the idea of restricting "by the backdoor" the actual number of amusement places, simply by making it less attractive for people to go into them. This matter has been discussed at great length, and surely the people who know best whether an amusement place ought to be licensed are the local authorities. What will the Gaming Board know about them? All they can do is to ask the local authority whether the premises are suitable, and so on, since this all comes under the local authority. If there is any objection to the granting of a licence, then it is undoubtedly the local police who would bring an objection. I do not believe that it would improve the Act to alter its provisions so as to put these places directly under the Gaming Board, instead of under the local authorities, which is where Parliament thought they should be.
The noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, in Clause 2 of his Bill wants to do away, with gaming machines in public houses. Why? Clubs have them, and so do other places. Why should not people in pubs have them? If they are noisy, and people do not like the noise, then they can go somewhere else. Some pubs like noise, as one can find out if one goes into a public house in the East End where one finds singing, bands—the lot: they are packed. People who do not like noise just do not go to them. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, that most public houses in London do not have gaming machines—because the proprietor feels that they would not be popular with the people who go to drink there. The noble Lord further said that one ought not to have these machines in public houses because they interfere with drinking. That is one of the things that public houses are for.
632
It is quite extraordinary for the House to be asked at this stage to amend the 1968 Act when we do not know whether it is working. It would be another matter if such a Bill were to be put forward in two or three years' time, after experience of how the Act was working. But, as I have said, the present Act has received the most careful examination in Parliament, as well as having had a great deal of discussion in Committee upstairs when every detail was gone into. Parliament decided upon that Act, and I suggest that it is too early to think of amending it when nothing, so far as we know, has gone wrong up to the present.
5.10 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the speech with which the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, introduced his Bill had the great advantage of extreme brevity, but I think he would be the first to agree that he did not advance any powerful arguments in favour of it. There has been considerable interest in this Bill and, I believe, some misunderstanding and misapprehension about it. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will bear with me while I explain not only the Government's attitude to it, but what the Bill would achieve if it were enacted and why the Government find it unacceptable.
As the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, pointed out, it was only last October, after a very thorough examination, that your Lordships gave a Third Reading to the Gaming Act 1968. I certainly did not imagine then that within a matter of months, before the Bill was actually in operation in this respect, that I should be talking to the House again about a Bill to extend the provisions of that Act to amusements with prizes and amusement machines, because that is what this Bill is about.
The objects of Lord Nunburnholme's Bill are twofold: to apply to amusement places in which gaming machines are installed the licensing procedure instituted by the Gaming Act 1968 for commercial casinos, and to prohibit the installation of gaming machines in public houses. I would emphasise that we are concerned here solely with amusement machines with minor prizes, and not the machines permitted under the 1968 Act in registered clubs which allow substantial prizes.
When the Gaming Bill was passing through this House no attempt was made

633
to amend it in either of the ways proposed in this Bill, if there had been a need for legislation on these lines, that was the time I should have expected it to come to notice, and that would have been the appropriate occasion for the necessary provision to be made. In view of the detailed examination we made then of this part of the law, I felt that the noble Lord introducing this Bill had a very heavy burden to prove that further legislation on this subject is needed so soon after. With the greatest respect, I do not think he has discharged that burden.
I am of course aware that some local authorities are alarmed at the large number of applications that have recently been made for permits for amusement arcades. Some authorities have complained that neither the provisions in the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, nor those in the Gaming Act 1968, which will in due course replace the earlier measure, sufficiently arm them to resist the spread of what many of them regard as a social evil. I do not accept that their powers are inadequate and declare, alternatively, that if they were inadequate the solution put forward in the Bill is not the answer. The noble Lord said that the only way to control proliferation of amusement machines was to limit their profits. The way to control these amusement places is for the local authorities not to license them if there is too great a number—just to say, "No". Of course, they have the power to do that.
Before I go on to deal with the provisions of the Bill, I shall have to explain the significance of some of the expressions used in this field of the law, the meaning of which is not always obvious. The "amusement places" to which Clause 1 of the Bill applies are premises used wholly or mainly for the provision of amusements by means of machines, or for the purposes of a pleasure fair consisting wholly or mainly of amusements. The expression includes amusement arcades, pleasure grounds and seaside piers, which specialise in what are described as "amusements with prizes". "Amusements with prizes" is a term of art, the meaning of which is apparent when we examine Part III of the Gaming Act 1968. Amusements with prizes may take two forms: they may comprise the use of machines, or consist of ordinary forms of games like the wheel of fortune or prize bingo. The Bill now before us is concerned only with
634
machines and with machines for which when the relevant section of the Gaming Act 1968 becomes operative the maximum cash prize is limited to 2s. or a prize of cash and kind not exceeding 5s.
In addition to amusements with prizes, amusement places also provide machines which have no connection with gaming at all but provide pure amusement. They are "What the Butler saw",—if that is amusement—the football games, kiddy rides, as well as highly-sophisticated machines such as, "Sink the battleship" which offer no prizes but simply provide amusement. The "amusements with prizes" consisting of games do not directly concern this Bill. I mention them only to complete the description of the "amusement places" which we are discussing. It is to the "amusements with prizes" which take the form of machines that I want to draw your Lordships' attention. These are gaming machines in every sense. They are gaming machines within the definition of the 1968 Act. They are gaming machines in their method of construction and use. But the law says that if you operate a machine of this kind so that the prizes are limited in the way I have just described, then the machine is an "amusement with prizes"—a form of gaming, but gaming of a strictly limited kind.
The responsibility for issuing permits in respect of amusement places is placed on the local authority, which is given an absolute discretion, subject only to appeal to quarter sessions. If a local authority feels there is too great a proliferation they have the power to stop it. But Clause 1 of the noble Lord's Bill—and I ask him very seriously to consider this—would take this power away from the local authority (and they certainly do not want that) and transfer it to the Gaming Board, so that the Board could apply the full rigours of the licensing procedure provided in the Gaming Act 1968 which is intended only to deal with gaming of the most serious kind.
To understand the full implications of this we need to bear in mind that the Gaming Act already forbids the installation in amusement places of most gaming machines and allows only those that I have already described, which are constructed to offer these strictly limited

635
prizes. The noble Lord's Bill would not touch those amusement places which provided no amusement with prizes machines, but concentrated instead on prize bingo and group games, which in some respects are more sinister because of the speed with which games can be conducted, and the high profits which result. Under the Bill local authorities would still be left with responsibility for these premises.
I turn now to the kind of controls which this Bill seeks to impose on these minor forms of gaming by means of amusement machines. A person who wished to run an amusement place with amusement with prizes gaming machines would, in the first place, have to apply to the Gaming Board for a certificate of consent before he could apply to the licensing justices. The Gaming Board would have to examine the character, reputation and financial standing of the applicant and his financial backers, even if he wanted six machines on the pier, and then decide whether or not to issue a certificate of consent to enable him to proceed with his application to the justices. Is it seriously suggested that is what the noble Lord wants?
The licensing justices would then have to undertake a thorough examination of the application, and hear objections from the Gaming Board, the police, the local authorities, the fire authorities and everybody except Uncle Toni Cobley. Presumably the noble Lord envisages that the Gaming Board would give advice on demand, layout of premises and similar matters. The licence would be subject to annual renewal. The provisions of Schedule 2 of the Gaming Act would require very substantial modification, which is not in this Bill, if they were to produce a viable scheme.
My Lords, in the view of the Government these proposals are quite unacceptable in principle, let alone in practice. The procedure proposed is wholly disproportionate to the problems of gaming of this minor kind. It would place an unjustified burden of work on the Gaming Board and the licensing justices, who will have quite enough to do with the important matters entrusted to them by the Gaming Act. They ought not to be troubled with the problems of amusement places, with
636
which the local authorities, I should have thought, are fully capable of dealing.
The Government remain convinced that local authorities are the appropriate bodies to deal with amusement places. If their powers need strengthening—and there has been a lot of correspondence with the Home Secretary about this—there are simpler solutions. One has been put forward by local authorities themselves, and that is to give them power to pass policy resolutions to control the number of amusement places. At present, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is not persuaded that the powers of local authorities are inadequate, but conversations on this will of course continue. The I-Tome Secretary has already given local authorities advice about the exercise of their powers both under the 1964 Act and under the 1968 Act. He is keeping a close watch on recent developments (and we are perfectly well aware of the concern that is felt, particularly with regard to children), and he has said that he will not hesitate to take action if necessary. So much, my Lords, for those proposals of the Bill that deal with amusement places.
I come now to the second object of the noble Lord's Bill, which is to amend the Gaming. Act 1968 so as to prohibit absolutely the use of gaming machines on premises (other than club premises) where a justices' on-licence for the sale of intoxicating liquor is in force. In the event of a breach of this ban the noble Lord's Bill provides the most drastic penalties, amounting, on indictment, to an unlimited fine, imprisonment up to two years, and liability to the loss of the liquor licence. These penalties, of course, are modelled on those included in the 1968 Act to deal with unlawful gaming of the most serious kind. But I must again remind your Lordships of the kind of machines under discussion here. The 1968 Act does not permit the use on these premises of gaming machines with large or unlimited jackpots, such as are to he allowed in gaming clubs licensed under the Act, or in genuine members' clubs registered under the Act. The machines allowed in public houses and other on-licence premises are those with limited stakes and offering limited prizes of the kind I have already mentioned.
My Lords, amusement machines have been allowed in these premises, in pubs,

637
on permit from the local authority ever since 1960. Under the 1968 Act—this is a new departure, a new restriction—permits will in future be obtained from the liquor licensing justices, who have authority to refuse them or to limit the number of machines permitted, subject again to appeal to quarter sessions. It has been the practice in the past for machines to be obtained largely on profit-sharing agreements with the suppliers, but as your Lordships will recall this is to be prohibited under the 1968 Act as it has led to an artificial stimulation of demand. Your Lordships will remember, I am sure—certainly the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, will remember—that we discussed this particular point on Amendments in Committee, and again on Report to the House; and the issue was strongly fought. It was decided that we should prohibit these profit-sharing agreements for the sole purpose of, we thought, limiting, or at least reducing, the use of these machines in public houses, and we are convinced that it will bring about a substantial reduction.
While the installation of amusement machines in public houses may be irritating to some people, there was no suggestion during the passage of the 1968 Bill that they should be banned from those places altogether. Such a ban would be all the more keenly felt and resented because public houses are to some extent in competition with registered members' clubs but, being public places, have been denied the right to use machines with large or unlimited jackpots. I think we were right to take that course, but surely it would be quite unjust now to come back and say that they must be deprived altogether of these very strictly limited amusements.
Having said that, my Lords, I must tell your Lordships that it is the Government's view that it would be going too far and would be unfair to ban machines altogether from public houses. We are satisfied that the matter can now safely be left to the discretion of the licensing justices, who will exercise their discretion wisely in their knowledge of the circumstances of individual premises. Nothing has happened since the passing of the Act, as the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said, to persuade the Home Secretary that the provisions of the 1968 Act are inappropriate. I have considered
638
the points which were made by the noble Lord, Lord Numburnholme, in support of his Bill. One of them I have dealt with. He said he had been told that these places were used to "push" drugs. This may well be so; I do not know. Unfortunately, there are a lot of places, including street corners, which are used to "push" drugs. I should not have thought that that was a serious argument for banning amusement places.
The noble Lord has also said that these machines are noisy, and possibly this is so, although the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, dealt with that point. He also dealt with the point that some people like one kind of pub and some people like another. I remember the story of the local village pub where silence was mostly the order of the day. A newcomer to the village came into the pub one night and said, "It's rather cold, isn't it?" Nothing else was said. Then, the next day somebody else said, "Seasonable weather". One of the oldest inhabitants hurriedly finished his beer, got up and said, "Too much talk round here for me". It takes all sorts to make a world, and I suppose that if people like pubs with singing, dancing and music, they will go to them. If they do not, they will go to the quieter places. But, my Lords, I am not persuaded that the noble Lord is right in saying that a complete ban would be justified. We so often have cases, both in the House and outside it, where complaint is made about restrictions, about limitations on personal liberty—and many of these complaints are right. Before we add to them, we should be absolutely certain and should satisfy ourselves that they are justified.
I have explained the objections of principle which the Government see to the proposals in this Bill, but I have not touched upon the drafting. Suffice it to say that substantial Amendments would be needed to produce a workable scheme to achieve the noble Lord's purposes if the House agreed to the principles of the Bill. I have made it clear that the Government do not accept the principles of the Bill. We believe that its proposals are unnecessary, unworkable and, in some respects, unjust. I have gone into this matter thoroughly, as I hope the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, will agree; and I have said what I have not only for your Lordships' House but also

639
for local authorities and other people outside who are interested. I trust that the noble Lord will not persist in his Motion that the Bill be given a Second Reading, but that he will withdraw it. However, if he does not withdraw it I must advise your Lordships to oppose it.
5.29 p.m.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, I am sorry that I have to add one more voice in opposition to the Bill of my noble friend Lord Nunburnholme, and I regret doing so because I feel certain sympathies with his general principles. I believe that the fruit machine is a most diabolical instrument, and, moreover, that its proliferation in the course of recent months has really been frightening. I think that perhaps something ought to be done about it. But, having considered this Bill carefully, I must say that I feel that this is perhaps not the way in which it should be done.
May I deal with the two points that my noble friend has in mind? First, he is proposing that no fruit machine should be permitted in a public house. I find this rather a strange restriction to propose; because there are already fruit machines available in other establishments. It is probably much more serious that gaming machines in amusement arcades are available to young persons under the age of l5 or 16 who can go in without any restriction at all. I should have thought that in the pubs you would get a fairly adult, responsible person. There may be the objection that the fruit machine interferes with the serious business of drinking; but your Lordships will recall that these are known as "one-armed bandits" and that therefore you have the other arm which can be profitably employed holding a pint of beer. You can do both things at the same time.
My Lords, on the proposal that fruit machines, or rather the places in which they are installed—amusement arcades, fun palaces or whatever euphemism is used for them—should be subject to the same controls as gaming clubs. I must say that I find this is really unnecessary. In the first place, the local authorities already have absolute power to restrict the number of gaming clubs available. The relative paragraph in Schedule 9 says that
640
"the grant of a permit shall be at the discretion of the appropriate authority;"
I must pause here to say that in many parts of England the local authorities seem to have taken an extremely liberal view and not to have exercised their discretion in many cases where I should like to have seen them do so. But what has not been mentioned so far is that if the local authorities do not restrict the number of gaming machines and the number of amusement arcades then, in the end, on my reading of the Act, a right does reside in the Minister under Section 37, which states:
"… The Secretary of State may by regulations prohibit, or impose such restrictions as he may consider necessary or expedient on, the sale, supply, maintenance or use of machines to which this Part of this Act applies…".
Therefore, even if the local authorities should perhaps fall short of what we should like to see, the Secretary of State still has the absolute right, at his own discretion, to limit the number of gaming machines.
Finally, I can only agree completely with my noble friend Lord Stonham when he says that it is impossible to expect all these amusement arcades all over the country to come under this most elaborate mechanism that has been set up for dealing with gaming clubs, to expect each proprietor to have to apply for a certificate of consent and to have to go to the local authorities and so on. I cannot feel this is necessary in the case of an amusement arcade that has half a dozen machines in it. But I do think that these "one-armed bandits" are an evil in our society; I think that amusement arcades can be used for the distribution of drugs and certainly I think that they are breeding places of vice. I also think that many of the machines are rigged in a very unfair way to retain a far greater percentage of the pennies or threepenny pieces that is put into them than they should. There is absolutely nothing to stop the proprietor from adjusting the machine to keep 60 per cent., 70 per cent., or 80 per cent. of what is put in. What we should do, therefore, is to wait to see whether the licensing authorities see sense; wait and see whether the Minister takes action. If the noble Lord were to withdraw his Bill at this stage, he may perhaps, after we have seen what has happened, introduce a new one at some later moment.
5.36 p.m.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I am afraid that I, too, must join in the general chorus of disapproval of this Bill. Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, reminded me of when we sat in Committee on the Gaming Bill—except that on this occasion I am behind him and certainly there were cases on that Committee stage where I was definitely not behind him. I also think it very strange that the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, should be seeking to-day by a Private Bill to alter so recent an enactment as the Gaming Act 1968. As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has said, he had ample opportunity then of making his voice heard but he never availed himself of the opportunity. If he has suddenly seen the light—
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: Yes, my Lords, I have.
LORD JESSEL: Then, my Lords, we must pay attention to his views; but I think he might have restrained his enthusiasm until the Gaming Board had finished making their regulations telling us what they proposed to do. In regard to Clause 1 of the Bill, I think the noble Lord is jumping the gun: the local authorities do their job perfectly well. If they do not, I am sure that the Gaming Board will bring our attention to it when in due course they report. As to Clause 2, to this I am utterly opposed. You cannot put the clock back. These pubs have to compete with clubs who are allowed these machines—and not only these machines but also those which the noble Lord Lord Kilbracken, called the "one-armed bandit".
Furthermore, there is a genuine demand for these amusement machines; the public have got used to them. I think that it was on the Third Reading debate of the Gaming Bill 1968 that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth told us that he had been into a pub and had talked to several people all of whom told him that they did not want the machines. Well, my Lords, if a Bishop asks a question in a pub he is very likely to get the answer he wants. I should like to know how he framed the question and how many people he asked. These machines have been licensed by the licensing justices; yet the Bill seeks to eliminate them completely, at the
642
same time leaving untouched the thousands of much more vicious "one-armed bandit" machines in the clubs. I hope that your Lordships will reject this Bill.
5.39 p.m.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I think that there is only one thin that I can do, having heard such round-the-House opposition to my Bill. I did not expect to get it through; and therefore I shall ask the permission of the House to withdraw it. But I do not think that it does any harm to bring out this danger of the proliferation of amusement arcades and also to draw the attention of the local councils to this fact. Whether one likes the "one-armed bandit" in pubs or not is a matter of opinion. I thank all my critics from all sides of the House, and I beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw my Motion for Second Reading.
Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

LICENSING (SCOTLAND) BILL
5.40 p.m.
Loan TAYLOR OF GRYFE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to make provision for the establishment of licensing courts for any new small burghs, with a population of 7,000 or more, formed since 1961 or which may be formed in the future under Section 133 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947, and for effecting certain consequential alterations in other licensing courts and courts of appeal.
Under the Licensing (Scotland) Act, whether or not a Scottish burgh has its own licensing court is determined broadly by its population. In general, a burgh will have a licensing court of its own if it has a population of 7,000. But "population", as defined, is population according to the last Census taken. In practice, changes in licensing courts for small burghs must therefore at the present time await the making of an order by the Secretary of State following the declaration of census figures. This means in fact that it is two years after the census is taken that the necessary order is made, and since the census is taken only every ten years, it could mean that a newly created burgh with a population of more than 7,000 might be required to wait 11 years before it had its own licensing court.

643
A change in accordance with the provisions of this Bill was suggested by the Guest Committee. Recommendation No. 5 of their Report said that it should be permissible for the Secretary of State to take cognisance for licensing purposes at any time of changes in boundaries or population resulting from the creation of new burghs; and that is exactly what the Bill proposes. It would mean in effect that the Secretary of State for Scotland could make an Order providing for the setting up of a licensing authority within a new burgh, based on population figures supplied to him by the Registrar General for the purposes of establishing licensing courts in new burghs.
When this matter was discussed in another place the Member for North Lanark, who introduced the Bill, quoted the example of a new burgh in her own constituency, the new burgh of Bishopbriggs, which was established as a burgh in May 1964. Under the present provisions it must wait until 1973, nine years after its formation, before it can have its own licensing authority. The population of the burgh of Bishopbriggs is 19,000. This Bill, therefore, is designed to clear up what is an obvious anomaly, and I hope that it will commend itself to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Taylor of Gryfe.)
5.44 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, on introducing this Bill, and to give it support from this side of your Lordships' House. It is a useful little Bill and it corrects what is obviously an extremely irritating anomaly—irritating, that is, for any small burgh which might be caught by the present law. I have no comment to make on it except perhaps to refer to a Committee point which we might dispose of now.
I am not altogether clear what happens on an appeal from the licensing court of the burgh if there is at the present time no
"court of appeal constituted under the said Part II for the county in which the new burgh is situated of every burgh situated in that county …"
I understand that the appeal would go to a committee composed of small burghs; but if there is no such committee
644
actually in existence, I am not sure that the words are apt. In any case, if a committee has to be created solely for the small burgh which is becoming a licensing authority, it seems that there would then be an appeal from the licensing authority of the burgh to the licensing authority of the burgh; although it would then be called a county committee. Apart from that comment, my Lords, I have no suggestion to make, and I commend the Bill to the House.
5.46 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, this is an easier task than I had last time. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, has stated the case for this little Bill so clearly, yet so comprehensively, that there is really nothing for me to say, other than that the Government commend the Bill to your Lordships. It is a very suitable form of amendment, or correction, of a minor defect in the licensing laws, and the sort of thing which is eminently suitable to be done by a Private Member's Bill. I congratulate the noble Lord on having, so early in his career in your Lordships' House, been able to attach himself to a measure which is unlikely to meet with other than general approbation from your Lordships.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will forgive me if I do not answer his point on appeal. As he stated, it is a Committee point. Technically, of course, it is for the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, to answer, because it is his Bill and not mine; but I do not know the answer and I am not at all certain that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, knows it either. Apparently, my Lords, he does, and in that case I am wasting my time. All I would do is to add, as an addendum to what I have said, that he having the answer to this question shows how completely right it is that he should have accepted paternity for this Bill in your Lordships' House—even though he is a teetotaller.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their friendly acceptance of the Bill which I have submitted. May I deal, so far as I can, with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn? As I understand the position, unless the burgh population is more than 20,000 appeals

645
will go to the burgh court of appeal which is set up for all the burghs in the county with populations between 7,000 and 20,000. Instead of the county appeal court, a body will be set up consisting of the burghs who will constitute a county appeal court. The burgh appeal court consists of magistrates of each burgh according to numbers prescribed in the First Schedule to the 1959 Act, and an equal number of justices. The county appeal court consists of an equal number of county councillors and justices. I am not sure that that makes it completely clear to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, but at least it will appear in Hansard and perhaps be clarified subsequently. As I say, I am appreciative of the support given by noble Lords. Licensing, particularly liquor licensing, is perhaps a matter on which I am not a great authority, but I am glad the Bill has received the reception it has from your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WHITE FISH AND HERRING SUBSIDIES (UNITED KINGDOM) (AMENDMENT) SCHEME 1969
5.50 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move the two Orders standing in my name. When the House debated the Sea Fisheries Bill last December we said that in due course the Government would bring before Parliament a Scheme to implement the proposed new subsidy policy. The second Order, the White Fish Subsidy (Deep Sea Vessels) (United Kingdom) Scheme 1969, is the promised Scheme. Together with it there is this small Amendment Scheme about which I will say something separately.
The new arrangements have been well discussed already. The industry is content with the improved support and indeed awaits eagerly the first payments, which are to be made as soon as the Scheme is approved by Parliament. I should perhaps remind your Lordships that, as well as increasing the total payments and relating the subsidy to the industry's level of profits, the Scheme is to enable the subsidy to be distributed on a new basis related to the "added value" contributed by vessels. This means that
646
it will be distributed on the basis of efficiency instead of on a flat rate related to classification and days at sea, which is the present basis. The total payments due to the industry for the first six months period will be £1,669,000 but after deducting the £481,000 already paid under the current 1968 scheme the actual payment will be £1,188,000. This will be shared between 534 vessels.
The new basis is welcomed by the industry and they have been fully consulted in drawing up the details of this scheme. The industry have a guarantee of support for three years to July 31, 1971, and while the arrangements are to be reviewed before the end of that period, the Government have said that any revised arrangements will provide a corresponding level of return for a further two years. We look forward to this improved support leading to a better and more stable future for the deep sea industry.
I should like to say a word or two about the Amendment Scheme. This makes a minor change, which relates mainly to the basis of payment for inshore vessels, but will also concern deep sea vessels until July 31 next, when the current 1968 Scheme expires and the deep sea subsidy is paid solely under the new arrangements. Hitherto, the landing of certain kinds of fish not normally sold for human consumption was excluded from subsidy. There is a prospect of an extension of these landings for fish meal manufacture, similar to the present landings of sprats and herring. This should make a useful contribution to the import saving programme of the Government and the amendment will make all species subject to the same subsidy arrangements. I commend these two Schemes to the House and I hope that they will be approved. I beg to move.
Moved, That the White Fish and Herring Subsidies (United Kingdom) (Amendment) Scheme 1969 laid before the House on February 25 last be approved.—(Lord Beswick.)
5.54 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for describing these two Schemes to us, particularly for what he has told us about the White Fish Subsidy Scheme, which is most important. I am particularly glad to hear that the industry

647
has agreed to it, because this is basic and fulfils the assurance that the noble Lord gave the House when we discussed this rather more fully on the Second Reading of the Sea Fisheries Act 1968. If a subsidy has to be given to the distant water section of our fleet—and I am afraid that without it our industry could not survive the import of unlimited quantities of subsidised fish from our foreign competitors—this structure of subsidy is in my judgment the best that can be devised. It gives the maximum incentive to the crews of each vessel to maximise their catch and their profits. I think that the total liability of £4 million to the Treasury is very limited in the circumstances of the industry I should like to congratulate all those in the Ministry of Agriculture, in the Scottish Office and in the industry who have worked so hard to hammer out this Scheme. I hope that it achieves its end of encouraging the most efficient and profitable sections of the fleet to stay in business and, indeed, to expand.
There are just two points that I should like to put to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. In the Second Reading debate of the Sea Fisheries Act I discussed at some length this remarkable trend of escalating Government subsidies, for which the pace has been set by all foreign Governments in their subsidies to their fishing fleets, and I asked whether Great Britain could prohibit imports to this country in the same way as is done by European countries, where literally the markets are closed to imports and reserved for their own fleets. The noble Lord informed your Lordships that there was to be a conference of EFTA countries in February or March of this year to discuss this problem and seek a solution. Would the noble Lord tell us whether this ministerial conference has been held and, if so, what was the outcome?
Secondly, I discussed the prospect of the merger which had been mooted between the Ross Group and Associated Fisheries, which together cover pretty well the whole fleet of distant water vessels. Your Lordships may remember that this merger was being promoted by the I.R.C.: it was hoped that it would strengthen the economic structure of the industry. I wonder if the noble Lord would tell us whether this merger is proceeding, where it has got to and what prospect there is of it being completed.
648
Those are the only two comments that I wish to make on the White Fish Order, and hearing from the noble Lord that the industry is panting to receive the payments I should like to speed it on its way.
I would, however, add just one comment on the Amendment Scheme which the noble Lord commended to us. This seems to be a sensible Scheme. It has one slight drawback, of which I am sure the noble Lord is aware. The good sense of it is that the subsidy will now be extended to fish which goes for the manufacture of feedingstuffs or fertilisers as well as to fish for human consumption. Obviously this is sensible, because it will encourage and give greater incentive to the production of fishmeal for fertilisers and feedingstuffs, and so will limit the amount we have to pay for it in imports. On the other hand, it does give an undesirable incentive to factory fishing, to dredging out everything in the sea, since it all goes for manufacture. This is something that has to be watched, to see that we do not get, as some countries have, a kind of specialised business of fishing for this purpose, and for this purpose alone, catching in the process all the small fry, very much to the detriment of our conservation policy. With these comments, I have much pleasure in supporting the two Orders.
5.58 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for his generous welcome of these two Orders. He made three separate points. About imports, I did say in December that there would be a meeting in February or March, and I understand that the meeting will take place next week. I am assured that what the noble Lord said when we discussed this matter in December will be in the minds of the United Kingdom representatives at this meeting. Of course, it is impossible for me to say what will be the outcome of this meeting.
The position about the proposed merger is that no definite report has yet been received from the I.R.C., though I understand—and the Press seem to be even more certain than I am—that the I.R.C. are now very near the conclusion of their investigation and will soon be making their report to the Government.

649
All concerned—the I.R.C. and the two Government Departments involved, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Board of Trade—are well seized of the fact that there is an element of urgency here and that all possible speed should be exercised in coming to a conclusion when the report is before the Government.
The noble Lord made some observations about the Amendment Order. I am not quite certain what substance there is in the—not exactly criticism, but the observations that he made. I am not sure whether there is a danger of effort being diverted into dredging up, as he says, of all the small stuff instead of catches for human consumption. Nevertheless, I will see that what the noble Lord has said is considered. All I would add is that at the present time upwards of £30 million worth of fishmeal is being imported a year, and clearly if we can reduce that figure it will be an advantage to the national economy. I think that answers what I was asked, and I hope, therefore, that the House will now accept these two Orders.

WHITE FISH SUBSIDY (DEEP SEA VESSELS) (UNITED KINGDOM) SCHEME 1969
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the White Fish Subsidy (Deep Sea Vessels) (United Kingdom) Scheme 1969 laid before the House on February 25 last he approved.—(Lord Beswick.)

SCROTAL CANCER
6.1 p.m.
LORD CROOK LORD CROOK rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking, in the light of the latest information, to supplement the excellent efforts of the Factory Inspectorate as to scrotal cancer. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, a Question which has been deliberately phrased on this occasion. When I have raised this issue in the past I have related it mainly to the Factory Inspectorate. On this occasion the Question has been
650
widened, because I am clear that a number of Government Departments are involved, and it is useless just looking to the Factory Inspectorate in this matter.
The truth of the position at the moment, of course, is that some employers have been forced into facing their responsibilities after nearly a hundred years. They have done so because a learned judge has given £10,000 agreed damages to a widow, and in giving judgment the learned judge indicated that it was wrong that the factory doctor had failed to institute six monthly inspections of men at risk, despite weighty medical opinions making such a recommendation. And still there are some employers who want to run away from their responsibilities for the lives of their workers; still some who are doing nothing.
I am asking to-day not only for a reappraisal by the medical section of the Factory Inspectorate for short-term action, but also that this field of consideration and investigation should be widened. Doctors are predicting an increase in scrotal cancer during the next few years, an increase which it may be could have been avoided if notice had been taken of the warnings of over 90 years ago. The medical profession is unanimous that the male scrotal sac is the part of the skin most susceptible to cancer in the human body.
It was in 1922, in Scotland, that 65 cases were first clearly diagnosed in the Scottish shale oil industry. Four years later, in 1926, arising out of that, a Home Office inquiry found:
"conclusive information that certain mineral oils, including such refined mixtures as lubricating oils, are capable of inducing cancer".
The cause of the present increase—and, as I shall try to show, the forecast of a greater increase—is that most of the oils used to lubricate and to cool machines contain cancer-producing agents. The faster the modern machine, the greater the need for special oils, the more the splashing and the saturation of the clothing of the workers. Ten million workers in this country come into contact in some way or other with mineral oil in their daily work. Those most at risk are the tool setters, who lean over machines to adjust them; and the next at risk are the machinists. The stomach, thighs and groin area of their clothing comes into

651
contact with the oil. But the really worrying thing about this type of cancer is the known long incubation period. Dr. Francis Roe, of the Chester Beatty Institution for Cancer Research, says that the average period of incubation is very long—in fact, up to 50 years.
At present, most cases are occurring to men in their late fifties. Dr. Roe was among others who commented recently on the forthcoming likelihood of an increase in cases. He said—and I quote:
"Bar automatic machines came into wide use in the 1920s, and if one allows 40 to 50 years from this time one would expect the main wave of cases to begin about now."
The evidence that the number of cases is on the increase is confirmed by Dr. C. N. D. Cruickshank, the world authority on the disease, who is head of the Medical Research Council Unit for Research on the Experimental Pathology of the Skin. He agrees that it is inevitable that the notifications to the Factory Inspectorate are fewer than the actual cases that occur. This he says—and I agree with him—is due mainly to two causes. The first is lack of notification through ignorance. The second, and more important, is because the cancer may occur years after the patient has left the work where he was exposed to risk from the mineral oil and at the time of his development of the cancer is employed in an occupation where there is no obvious hazard. I am quite satisfied that the Factory Inspectorate figures are not inaccurate, as was alleged in a newspaper: they are completely accurate, and record what is notified to the Factory Inspectorate—which is no guide to us at all, and of no use. And this is one of the reasons why I want to develop my plea for going outside just a reliance on the Department of Employment and Productivity.
The Minister of that Department indicated in another place on January 27 that the number of deaths was negligible. This produced a Press statement from Dr. J. A. H. Waterhouse, the Director of the Regional Cancer Registry at Birmingham, and Reader in Medical Statistics at the University of Birmingham, that it was:
"absolutely astounding and completely out of touch."
It was an understandable reaction for a newspaper to try to get from a man of that distinction. The two sets of figures
652
are not completely comparable. What is true and is comparable is that in the Birmingham area there are greater figures each year than the Factory Inspectorate figures given for the whole of the country.
In the Birmingham area, which I think is probably the worst in the country, it is reckoned that one in every 1,000 tool-setters contracts scrotal cancer. There are, on average, 14 new cases a year. Between 1950 and 1966 the number of deaths in the area recorded by the Birmingham Cancer Registry was 65 among tool-setters and machinists, 7 gas workers, 5 garage hands and 3 chimney sweeps. That is a total of 80 in the 17 years. There were another 95 deaths from scrotal cancer in that period, but they were not investigated, solely because as Dr. Waterhouse has said, his unit does not have the resources. But he added:
"I feel sure that if we did, we would find a history of contact with mineral oil among many of them."
So you see, my Lords, that in the Birmingham area alone it is known officially that there was an average of five proven cases a year. And if note is taken of those cases that were not followed up the figure could reach probably 10 a year. Yet the Minister's figures of notification to the Factory Inspectorate given in another place gave the average number of deaths notified to the Factory Inspectorate as two a year. So much for establishing the facts. What is being done about them is part of what is involved in my Question.
Coming back to what I said in opening, obviously concerned in this question are not only the Factory Inspectorate but, I think, a total of seven groups. They are the workers; the employers; the Medical Research Council; the Ministry of Social Security in its Health Department, and the Factory Inspectorate, which fits in there; the Ministry of Technology, and the great oil companies. I ask that each of these shall be looked at, and shall themselves be asked to look at their responsibilities and their problem.
I start with the workers quite deliberately, because it must clearly be true that the workers who are at risk must make their own contribution to their own good health. Washing after going to the toilet is something recommended to all of us.

653
Washing before going to the toilet is clearly advisable for those at risk, and notices should indicate that. They should not keep their oily wiping rags in their trouser pockets. They should drop the practice, which some of us, in fact many of us, have seen, of cycling home in clothing oil-soaked in their middle parts in order to get home just that little bit sooner.
That brings me to the employers, who for their part must buck up their ideas. The worst standards must be brought up to the best. I have endeavoured to find out what are the present standards at the factory involved in the £10,000 judgment. I find that they seem to be setting standards that others might well copy. I ask that the Factory Inspectorate should see to it that the standards of other firms do at least as well as those of the firm in question. The proper hot water washing facilities which are provided for in the Factory Acts are of course an obvious "must". The provision of shower baths for the men at risk is essential. So is the supply of adequate protective clothing, with a regular laundry service. Barrier and cleansing creams must be available, and clean wipers must be available in the factory without stint. What is more, I ask that these provisions be made mandatory, to be observed by firms large or small.
I like the idea that this firm have introduced, and I ask that the Factory Inspectorate shall look at it. They have provided something for their workers based on the sporran worn by the Scots. This is used for the oily rags to be deposited in as the men move about their jobs. I have no doubt that all employers should be made to provide protective clothing. I have no doubt in my own mind that the trade unions should consider whether their workers should be under terms of service which compel the wearing of that protective clothing and, what is more, compel their submission to medical examinations under properly defined rules.
I realise, of course, the care with which the question of compulsory medical examinations must be faced. The learned Judge, in the judgment to which I have referred, pointed out that the factory doctor had been afraid of frightening the men with talk of cancer. Clearly, the men must be talked to. They must be
654
told that the incidence of the disease is very low and for that reason it is possible to control the situation if care is taken in the right way at the right time. As I have said, the learned Judge based his decision on the fact that the advice that had not been taken was that there should be an examination every six months. To this, my Lords, there is resistance, which is another reason why I put this Question to the Government. One doctor, Dr. Geoffrey Mathew, the medical officer of Rolls-Royce has gone on public record as saying:
"we are prepared to take the liability."
My Lords, what an answer to come from a member of the medical profession on behalf of a great firm! They are to take the responsibility of paying compensation to a widow, and to hell with what happens to the man! That is no answer to people who are at risk. That doctor describes the judgment as "impracticable and unreasonable".
Let us now look at the reaction of another medical man, Doctor Raymond Routledge, chief medical officer of the English Electric Group. He came out at once with the statement:
"We have always been alert to the dangers but this case has provoked us to do mere."
English Electric did not find the, judgment impracticable. They started the six-monthly check-up at once. Put the Medical Defence Union, which might be called on of course to pay for the defence of doctors who are found blameworthy, supported Doctor Mathew's view with this statement:
"One judge's view has placed industrial medicine in a silly position but we are saddled with the judgment and failure to make six-month checks will make a firm liable."
Again the same thing, my Lords—money is the thing that matters; never mind about the lives of men.
There was no bright spark in this matter, in my view, until yesterday. I welcome the fact that yesterday the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Employment and Productivity, Mr. Ernest Fernyhough, who was accompanied by the Chief Factory Inspector and other factory inspectors, opened the Conference on Safety on Construction Sites. He referred to the employers' estimate that their accidents cost in the order of £500 million, and he

655
went on to say—I quote him with great pleasure:
"During the next two days"—
that is, yesterday and to-day—
"you will be analysing and considering all these figures more closely. But I would like you also to remember, as I am sure you will, the costs that cannot be counted. I mean, of course, the effect of many of these accidents on the future life and employment of the individual worker. And in the case of the fatal accidents, just think for more than a moment of the effect on the lives of widows and children concerned or left behind."
That is the kind of attitude that I am asking the Government to show in reply to this Question.
But I am still worried, even about the Factory Inspectorate whose great standards of work I have admired and respected and supported in this House over the years, for I gather that the Medical Inspector of Factories, Doctor Kipling, has said that the judgment has caused the biggest ever shake-up in industrial medicine. He takes the view, I read,
"that the examinations are doubtful medically and the task very, very large".
That is another reason, perhaps, for increasing the number of inspectors on the medical side. Members of my Party pressed for more factory inspectors when we sat on the other side of the House; there is no reason why we should not still go on pressing for them now that we are sitting on this side, as my noble friend Lady Summerskill and the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and I have done over the years. Doctor Kipling went on in his statement:
"The answer is probably in finding and examining only the workers exposed to the neat cutting oils which are the most carcinogenic."
All I am suggesting in this Question to the Government is that they should get down to the job and make up their minds; carry out a swift examination and make a pronouncement.
English Electric, who have done this good job as I have said, say that 300 men are exposed to risk in a typical factory of 12,000 men. Doctor Pelmear, who is responsible for the medical affairs of G.K.N., says that in some engineering factories 17 per cent. of the works population can be considered to be at risk of scrotal cancer. But he is in no doubt what to do. He is seeing every setter and every operator exposed to neat oil
656
every six months, and others exposed to neat or soluble oils annually. Is it a practical proposition? Well, my Lords, listen to the figures applicable from the day of the death of the man who died from the scrotal cancer which resulted in the judgment. The annual figures of examinations were as follows. In 1965 they did 75; in 1966 they managed to do 339; in 1967 the figure had risen to 580 and last year it had reached 834. So your Lordships will see that the practice which the Rolls Royce doctor described as "impracticable and unreasonable" is certainly shown to be practicable, which therefore leaves only the fact that someone is unreasonable. The truth is, of course, that the judgment of the court can be said to be in advance of Statute law.
May I put one point to the Government with regard to these regular examinations? They not only permit of an examination of the part of the body for skin warts and cancers, but the medical officer can also look for oil acne and dermatitis. These latter indicate exposure and sensitivity to oil, so that the individuals concerned must take extra care. In asking this question I commend to the Factory Inspectorate a system which has been developed at the factories of G.K.N. When a man leaves a notification is sent to the man's general practitioner, stating that his patient has been in contact with mineral oil and warning the doctor that a watch should be kept for a scrotal cancer condition arising.
I learn that most of the workers appreciate the health service which is offered them. Unfortunately, however, the natural shyness of men asserts itself. It may be surprising to some of your Lordships that in these modern days this is so, but some of us who have dealt even with the problems of the showers know something of this shyness of men. The truth is that they will resist any examination which involves their private parts unless that examination is made obligatory. I am told that throughout the works the figure who take that line is roughly 4 per cent. They will not even go to their own general practitioners, and in the factory to which I have referred we had the clearest proof of the value of examinations and how tragic it is that men will not take advantage of them. One of the men who would not

657
take advantage of the examination scheme had to consult his general practitioner six months later when he was in pain and his general practitioner had to send him away to the hospital suffering from scrotal cancer.
I have been talking about large factories, but from my discussions over the last twenty years I know the Government do not need me to remind them that the majority of factories in this country are small. These factories are part of the life-blood of the country, and I realise that what is possible in the big factories is not possible in the small ones, and only a national Occupational Health Service could deal with the problem. I urge that this is not just a question for the Factories Inspectorate; the Health Division of the Ministry of Social Security and the Ministry of Technology should come into the picture. I ask the Government to consider this point for a number of reasons. First, there is the question of machine tool design, to ensure that oil is not splashed about as much as it is by some machines to-day. The second is the suggestion made by Dr. Cruickshank, to whom I have already referred, that mineral-oil based cutting fluids should be replaced by other lubricants, or alternatively that the only oils used for this purpose should be further refined to remove the aromatic fraction containing the carcinogenics.
I am sorry that I have taken up so much of your Lordships' time, but the health and lives of workers are involved here, as in the days when the campaign in regard to mule spinners' cancer was proceeding. The intention and the desire is to ask the Government to face the problem, both for some immediate action and also for a long term solution. I will conclude with one final quotation, which is not my suggestion but a suggestion made by a Dr. Roe of the Chester Beatty Institute for Cancer Research, from whom I quoted in opening:
"I feel that legislation will have to be introduced to enforce frequent medical checks on men at risk, even after they retire or move to another occupation. Even the medical profession has to be alerted, for there have been odd cases where doctors have failed to appreciate the significance of the development of a wart on the scrotum. From our present knowledge and methods, 80 to 90 per cent. of all discovered cases would then have a chance of being effectively treated."
My Lords, in the hope that people can be so treated I beg leave to ask the
658
Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
6.26 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Crook, for putting down this Unstarred Question because I put down a Starred Question on the same matter in your Lordships' House last October, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was good enough to reply. I do not want to cover the field which the noble Lord, Lord Crook, has so well covered. There is little more for me to add, except to say that I entirely agree with what he has said and I share his anxiety for the future. For that reason I wish to associate myself with the Question he is asking.
There are certain drawbacks and loopholes in the present system of notification. I think I am right in saying that the legal duty of the doctor is to notify cases of scrotal cancer which have been associated with mineral oils, and to report them to the Factory Inspectorate. That is something which it may be difficult for the doctor to do because quite a number of people who have been associated with mineral oils change their occupations. This was one of the things that was first found out in the year 1925. There is nothing very new about that. In 1925, when a departmental committee of the Home Office reported, it was found that the disease was due to mineral oil and that the mineral oil could be detected in the atmosphere of the factory.
Then the person who was the secretary of that departmental committee, Dr. Henry, of the Home Office, produced a Report in 1946 in which he tracked down with enormous care and labour the particulars from the death certificates of all the people who had died from scrotal cancer from as far back as he could trace—and the period went back quite a long way. By careful and patient research he found that although when they died their occupation might have been any one of a number of things, they had one and all been at one time associated with work connected with mineral oil: and mainly at that time they were mulespinners in Lancashire. Things have changed now. At the present time there are cases of scrotal cancer which appear not to be associated with oil, but when

659
one inquires into them one finds that they all are so associated.
There were three cases reported from a hospital in North London over the last five or six years. Two of them concerned people who were recorded as having worked with mineral oil, and the third was recorded as being a security officer. But when his case was investigated further it was found that at one time he also had worked with mineral oil. As the noble Lord, Lord Crook, has said it may be as long as 30 to 40 years before the cancer appears. The incubation period is exceedingly long.
There was a time, in 1930, when Professor Twort, working at the Cancer Hospital, showed that certain shale oils were potent in producing cancer while certain other oils were not. It was preferable to use these non-carcinogenic oils in factories and places where oil has to be used. One does not know whether that finding has been followed, but the position was known, and just as the work on scrotum was done in 1925, this work was done in 1930. So there is nothing new or modern about it. One does urge the Government to do what the noble Lord, Lord Crook has asked, to encourage the employers and the unions and the factory inspectors to take great care of this problem. One noble Lord, when I put my question to him, said that two officers in his regiment had both developed cancer of the scrotum because they had been working in a motorised unit with a good deal of oil about the place. One died and one did not.
The disease has been notified since 1920; so we have a great deal of information about it. And of course, when one looks at the figures of those who have died one finds that the numbers are not very large. Between 1920 and 1943 1,355 cases were notified. It is a very curable form of cancer. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, told me on October 23 that there had been 30 deaths among about 300,000 people at risk in the years 1963 to 1967. Although that is not a very big number, it is a number which is preventable; and, as was said on a famous occasion before, if it is preventible why is it not prevented? That is the question I want to put to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in support of the noble Lord, Lord Crook. Although
660
the numbers are not very great, he may be interested, as a good start, if I refer him to Luke XV, verse 7.
6.32 p.m.
LORD COLLISON: My Lords, I too, am deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Crook, for putting down this Question. I must declare an interest, because on Monday some colleagues of mine from the T.U.C. and myself will be meeting representatives of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions to discuss this very subject. That it is a matter of some urgency I have no doubt at all. I have with me an extract from the Sunday Times of October 13, 1968, an article by Derek Humphrey, which starts by saying that the doctors are predicting an increase in scrotal cancer cases in the engineering industry during the next few years, that the disease has reached worrying proportions, and pointing out that the tragedy is that the suffering—and it is real suffering—and the deaths from scrotal cancer caused by contact with industrial oil could largely have been avoided if warning signals during the last 90 years had been heeded. In the same article it is pointed out that roughly one in every 1,000 tool setters in the Birmingham area contracts cancer of the scrotum, and every year there are 14 new cases in that area.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Crook, when he says that we do not know the full extent of the cases that are caused by the use of these oils. The noble Lord mentioned Dr. Cruikshank, and he has recorded that in one town there were 30 cases developed from the use of cutting oils at a time when the incidence for Scotland, England and Wales was reported officially as only 18. So it is quite clear that the number of reported cases is very small in relation to the actual number of cases which must be occurring. Dr. Robert Mallory, the Medical Adviser of the T.U.C., who was previously with the International Labour Organisation as their medical officer, reports that, in his experience, out of 250 cases which he knew only three were notified.
The fact that exposure to tar, soot and shale oil can lead to cancer has been known for a long time, in fact since the beginning of the century. Indeed, it was first described by Percival Pott as a hazard for chimney sweeps in 1776.

661
and investigations into the reasons of scrotal cancer among cotton spinners in Lancashire began as far back as 1928. A conclusion reached by various committees, including a Medical Research Council Committee in 1948, was that cutting oils were carcinogenic, and, as we all know, the mule spinning health regulations of 1953 made the use of technical white oil or animal or vegetable oils—that is to say, non-carcinogenic oils—compulsory, It is interesting to remember that in 1851 spindle oil from Scottish shale was introduced into mule spinning, and it was not until 1953 that we got these regulations making the use of technical white oil compulsory. That has been quoted rather cynically as an example of the one hundred years' law—that is to say, that it takes a hundred years from the introduction of a hazard until it is brought under control. This is no doubt an exaggeration in many cases, but in the case of mule spinners it was not.
The development of automatic machines in the engineering industry using cutting oils has taken place relatively recently, from about 1890, and this has happened particularly in the Midlands area. Oils as we know, mainly mineral oils, are used for cooling and lubricating the cutting edge of tools in a wide variety of operations, such as turning, grinding, milling and honing. Evidence of scrotal cancer in the Birmingham area has shown that it does not tend to spread any more quickly than other types of cancer. But the evidence does show that, for the reasons Lord Crook has mentioned, individuals are less likely to report it in its early stages. This is because of the undue modesty which men have—a point that has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Crook—which to us may seem inexplicable, though it is unfortunately a fact. In recent years there has been evidence that the number of notifications of the disease in the area has become more frequent—it may be because people are becoming more educated or aware of the dangers involved.
Records in the Factory Inspector's report show that a very high proportion of those affected by the disease were tool setters, setter operators and machinists, and those are the occupations that are most exposed to the neat cutting oils, rather than to soluble oil emulsions. As the noble Lord mentioned, it is work which involves bending over a machine;
662
men are working at close quarters with the machines; there is a great deal of splashing, and clothes get contaminated. We have a situation in engineering now which is almost identical with that which applied to mule spinners some 30 or 40 years ago. The records of reported scrotal cancer show that 55 persons who contracted the disease worked in occupations which exposed them to oil, and in particular the occupations I have mentioned.
Again, it is I think a fact that since the automatic machine in the engineering industry was developed only some 35 years ago, insufficient time has elapsed to assess the hazard completely. The peak of cancer in mule spinners was reached in 1927, which was some 70 years after the introduction of shale oil for lubrication. So it is quite clear that this hazard, which has been extant for many years, is just beginning to show the evils of it. But the results will multiply, and we shall have a kind of epidemic. As I say, I am meeting the representatives of the industry on Monday to discuss the matter, and no doubt we shall be making suggestions to the appropriate Ministers. I agree that the problem relates to a number of Departments, not just one; though I would add that I believe that the main burden of giving protection, producing regulations and providing the inspectorate must lie with the Factory Department.
However, I want to make some suggestions as to what precautions could be taken. In the first place, as in the mill spinning industry, the type of oil is fundamental. Steps have already been taken in the cotton industry to use non-carcinogenic oils, and we should do the same in the engineering industry. One appreciates that perhaps more research needs to be done to establish the exact type and quality of oil to be used, but as much of the research has already been done there is no reason why the findings of that research should not now be applied.
Measures should be taken to enable workpeople to avoid contact with, or close proximity to, machines to avoid the splashing which we have mentioned. There should be the provision of a regular laundry service for overalls as well as for oil-soaked clothing of all kinds, and there should, of course, be good washing facilities. In this context, it is quite clear

663
that the washing facility provided by supplying a wash-hand basin with hot water is not enough. As in mining, men get quite dirty; indeed, in this sector of the engineering industry they get even more dirty than do miners. I believe it is highly necessary that showers should be provided. It is worth reminding your Lordships in this connection that it has been demonstrated experimentally that the incidence of tumours in mice exposed to carcinogenic oil can be diminished considerably by washing the site of application with soap and water shortly after exposure.
Again, there is need for widespread education. I will accept that it is up to the trade union movement to play their part in this direction. We shall certainly discuss this problem on Monday. The main point is that the worker should get over any feelings of unwillingness to go to his doctor when he finds suspicious nodules appearing. We should encourage him to go to his family doctor, and we should stress that any kind of irritation is a matter of some seriousness which should be reported. Again, there is the question of periodic medical examination. I agree that this may present some difficulties. It is one of the matters which we shall discuss with the representatives of the union on Monday. But I would make the point that a periodical examination may prove to be essential.
Time is short. I do not want to say any more, except this. I am anxious to hear what the Minister has to say. Quite recently the T.U.C. took up the question of bladder cancer which developed among workpeople who many years previously had been employed in the cable industry. I wish to give credit to the then Ministry of Labour and to the chief of the Factories Department for the efforts that they made, and for the efforts they are continuing to make, to trace workers who have worked in that industry and may have left or retired. We have had that example of the development of a dreadful disease which could have been prevented. We have had the example of the mill spinners. There is no excuse at all for allowing this to happen once more in the engineering industry. I stress that, and hope that it is recognised by employers in the industry, and indeed by the Government.
664
Finally, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Crook, when he says that this kind of happening, and the others I have mentioned—just two of them: bladder cancer, asbestos poisoning and the rest—point quite clearly to the need in this country for something that they have in other countries in Europe, an Occupational Health Service, properly manned, properly financed to do the necessary research and to provide the necessary field officers which such an occupational service would demand. I think it also underlines the demand of the Trade Union Movement that every factory should have a safety committee. We are discussing on Monday the whole of this question. We are going to stress the need for understanding and publicity. The best way to get understanding of the danger and to insist that people take precautions against it is on the factory floor, through the efforts made by a joint consultative committee of the type I have mentioned.
My Lords, it is late and I apologise for having taken a little of your time, but you will understand that as the chairman of the Insurance and Welfare Committee of the T.U.C. and as one who, with the help of the experts behind me in the T.U.C. and elsewhere, has to deal with these matters, I am greatly concerned about the evidence we are getting that the incidence of this disease is building up. We must do something to prevent it running into the future.
6.47 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, once more I am glad to have the opportunity of joining with other noble Lords, and particularly with my noble friend Lord Crook who initiated this debate, to help to focus attention on a problem which is of great importance to the industrial worker. With the rapid advance of technology in industry and with the use of new substances in various processes there will undoubtedly be new industrial diseases, associated with symptoms with which we are not familiar. But, of course, that does not apply to the disease which we are discussing to-day, cancer of the scrotum. Many years ago it was almost confined to chimney sweeps. Indeed, when I was a student, and I am sure when my noble friend Lord Amulree was, we used to call it "chimney sweep's cancer To-day,

665
however, the increased number of cases stems from the fact that mineral oil used in various processes has carcinogenic properties. We must remember that.
We are not seeking to-day for a cause of this serious disease. We all know the cause. Too often we discuss symptoms and diseases and we are in the dark as to what is the origin of the disease. We are in a strong position to-day. We can say to the representative of the Government here that we know the origin; we know that it can be prevented; and therefore it is entirely wrong that men should be exposed to this oil and not be given the protection which is their due. There can be no excuse for not protecting them, because, broadly, the protection of the chimney sweep in the last century and the protection of a worker in a modern plant is the same; namely, to ensure personal hygiene. For this reason, those who are responsible for protecting them cannot complain, as sometimes they have done in the past when my noble friend and I have raised the question of industrial disease, that the cost of some protective clothing or apparatus is prohibitive.
Nevertheless, whatever protective clothing may be worn, it will not be effective unless the management has a well-developed social conscience—not like one doctor, I am ashamed to hear, at Rolls-Royce, who was so cynical as to say, "We shall be responsible for the costs, presumably, if a case is brought". The first thing we want is to ensure that the management has a social conscience; that the management exercises vigilance, and is prepared, patiently and persistently, to disseminate information concerning the health hazards involved in the use of mineral oil. The importance of this approach cannot be over-emphasised, because we are told that there are 10 million people at risk.
I am sorry to learn that in the House of Commons an attempt was made by the representative of the Government to minimise the danger. The fact is, of course, that we cannot possibly compile statistics if years have to pass between the exposure of a man and the time when the first symptoms appear. Both my noble friends have mentioned this fact. One excuse given for failing to give protection is that men are shy of any reference
666
to their genital organs. As a woman doctor—and women doctors to-day treat many, many men—I really fail to accept this excuse. I would say that it is more likely that in those factories where men appear to be shy there is a failure of public relations, and that is the reason for any resistance to good advice. We must recognise that in these days small boys who are taken to maternity and child welfare clinics are accustomed to having women doctors, and are brought up with women doctors. I confess that I was qualified in 1925, and I have never yet met a man who, on being told that something might be very seriously wrong, resisted being given advice and treatment because he was too shy to discuss the subject. Of all the excuses given for failing to provide facilities for examining women for cervical cancer, nobody has yet thought of that excuse.
My noble friend has given the House details of the case of Stokes v. G.K.N. Bolts and Nuts, Limited, which was heard in October, 1968. In that case, the judge considered Doctor W. Jeaffreson Lloyd to be negligent on two counts. That is a very serious charge to make against a doctor; indeed, it could jeopardise his whole career. Consequently, I read with some interest a letter written by this doctor to the British Medical Journal on December 28, 1968. He did not complain about the findings of the judge—which incidentally were very serious, and my noble friend has mentioned them—but in view of his 27 years' experience among industrial workers, he thought he should comment on the whole question.
I would remind your Lordships that this letter was in the British Medical Journal, arid it was for the purpose of informing doctors who, I think one might say, are the only people who regularly read the British Medical Journal. He told these medical readers that it is a legal duty for a doctor, seeing a case of epithelioma of the scrotum, if there has been exposure to mineral oil, to report the case to the Chief Inspector of Factories on Form 303 as the disease is notifiable, and that it was the doctor's moral responsibility to tell the man that he could claim under the Industrial Injuries Act. Furthermore, he said that the doctor would be well advised to inform the employer, in writing, of the company's

667
duty to notify the occurrence to the local Inspector of Factories and to the appointed factory doctor.
My Lords, I should like now to ask my noble friend on the Front Bench why these elementary reminders to doctors are necessary unless the appropriate Government Department has failed to provide them? Why should this doctor at this stage feel that the doctors in charge of these industrial workers needed reminding of the elementary facts of the position? The duty of displaying all statutory notices concerning cancer of the scrotum devolves upon the factory occupier, who is also responsible for the distribution of leaflets. Where a factory uses mineral oil it is statutory to display the cautionary notice, Effects of Mineral Oil on the Skin, form S.W.W.397, and the leaflet, Effects on the Skin of Mineral Oil, S.H.W.295, must be distributed to every worker subject to exposure.
These leaflets, I understand, are a free issue, but until recently they were in very short supply. If my noble friend cannot answer me now I shall quite understand, but I should like to have a letter telling me whether these leaflets are now in ample supply in every factory; whether they are being displayed and are being distributed, or whether there are employers in these factories who are disregarding their responsibilities—in fact, disregarding their statutory responsibilities.
There is another point. Many non-English-speaking immigrants are employed in these factories. Are these leaflets translated for their benefit? It seems stupid to me for a Cypriot, or a Pakistani, to be given a leaflet which perhaps contains advice which is a little difficult to understand because it contains some neomedical terminology. It is a little irresponsible to leave these men in ignorance of what the leaflet says.
My noble friend spoke in detail of the case I have already mentioned, that of Stokes. The judge in that case ruled that everybody in contact with mineral oil must have his scrotum examined by a doctor at six-monthly intervals—and presumably this must continue after he leaves employment. Therefore, there must be a very careful follow-up. This of course is easy, because every doctor has records, and even if a worker trans-
668
fers to another area his records would follow him. It would seem that garage hands would also fall into this category. The point is—and I think this is the most important aspect of the whole thing—that there are not statutory regulations about routine inspections. Therefore, although the judge gave these heavy damages of £30,000, although he criticised the doctor, Doctor Lloyd, and said that he should have made these examinations, there are not statutory regulations about these things. I should like to know what action has been taken regarding these rulings.
Of course, there is no doubt about it that a routine medical inspection may create a false sense of security. The man may well say, "Well, I have had my examination. That is all right, I need not worry." But of course that is not enough. Therefore, I should like to know how much research is being conducted in the oil industry on types of guarding and individual protection. We have just heard from my noble friend that a kind of sporran has been manufactured in which the man puts his oily rags, but this seems a rather primitive approach, and I should like to know what developments are taking place. That is really all I can say, except to say that this debate, in a sense, is an anachronism, for we have had to raise questions regarding an industrial disease which should have been settled many years ago unless, my Lords, there has been some failure of responsibility.
6.59 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, the whole House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Crook, for having raised this very important Question. The pity of it is that there are not more noble Lords present to hear of a problem of a very serious social nature. I cannot claim the knowledge of factories and factory life as some of our experts in the medical profession and in the trade union movement who have spoken, but as a Vice-President of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and as associate director of a firm of business consultants. I from time to time visit factories. I recently paid a visit to a large machine tool factory in the Midlands where a good deal of this oil is used. In this field the most important factor is that of education.

669
I was surprised to read in the 1967 Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Factories that this disease occurs in men between the ages of 40 and 50. Have the Government any evidence whether this is a creeping disease, since some of these men clearly must have been working in these factories for 20 years? I should like to know whether this is a condition which has been developing and which has failed to be spotted.
Other speakers have mentioned the necessity for inspections. The inherent shyness of men in relation to this particular part of their body is something which is widely known. In the unit in which I started my Army service we had a woman medical officer, and there was no question that she carried out the routine tests to establish freedom from infection by venereal disease. One was detailed to parade and she carried out the tests. I do not know how many factories which employ predominantly male labour have woman doctors to perform these tasks; I imagine that they are relatively few. But it would appear that regular inspections are necessary in the machine tool and heavy engineering works where these oils are used. Diagnosis of this condition is not always easy. Possibly the doctors who are connected with these factories are not experts on the subject of cancer, and a man may have to be referred to a specialist, so that the examination may take time. In these times when we are moving into the era of automation fewer men may be needed on these machines, and it may be felt that the accent on safety is not quite so vital as it should be. In these times there should be more prominent notices in factories warning of this and other conditions which are invariably fatal, and there should be regulations governing this whole matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Crook, mentioned the importance of hygiene, as did other noble Lords, It is true that in many of our older factories shower baths and ordinary baths are in very short supply. It is clear that unless this situation is remedied it will be very difficult to counteract this distressing condition. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House are most grateful to the noble Lord for having highlighted an important social problem.
7.5 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Crook made one statement which was quite unnecessary, and that was when, towards the end of his remarks, he apologised for the time he had taken. I know we shall all agree that not one word he uttered was unnecessary, not one second was time wasted. I consider that the same can be said of the other speeches which have been made on this Unstarred Question. To a certain extent my noble friend Lord Collison went over the same ground as that covered by my noble friend Lord Crook, but it was permissible and necessary that he should do so. When one bears in mind his close and immediate contact with the problem, and the discussions in which he is taking part, it is worth while that it should go on record in your Lordships' House that not only was he aware of the whole background of history to this disease, but he was well aware, like my noble friend Lord Crook, or the possible solutions.
My noble friend Lord Crook began by giving a résumé of the statistics and referred to the apparent discrepancies which exist between notifications and the actual number of cases. He completely cleared away any suspicion that one set of figures was right and another wrong. He made it quite clear that there were two different sets of statistics and that because of the circumstances of the case, became of the long incubation period and the fact that it may be 30, 40 or 50 years before the disease appears, a cause and a result cannot immediately be identified by the doctor who diagnoses the disease.
As my noble friend Lady Summerskill said, it is not one of those diseases in which the real worry is that one does not know the cause. In this case the cause is known. I accept what noble Lords have said, and therefore, I will not spend any time at all on the statistics. I shall go straight to the question of what is going to be done about it. I do not want to appear to be heartless about what has gone on in the past, but the regrettable situation is that a number of cases will occur in the future because the harm has already been done. The important thing is to see that nobody will become notifiable in 20, 30 or 40 years' time if there is any action which we can take now to prevent it.

671
My noble friend Lord Crook mentioned in his speech the people who were involved: the workers, the employers, the Medical Research Council, the Department of Health and Social Security, the Factory Inspectorate, the Ministry of Technology, and the great oil companies. Then he proceeded to make suggestions as to what should be done by each of these groups of people. I cannot completely accept what my noble friend said. I believe he started off by saying that certain measures should be mandatory in all cases, whether the factories were large or small. I may be wrong in that, however, because later in his speech he clearly differentiated between what was possible in a big company and what was possible in a small one. What it is reasonable to expect G.K.N. or Rolls-Royce to do may be a totally unworkable proposition in a garage employing two people. Those two people may well be at risk, but what it is reasonable to expect that garage to do and what is perfectly proper in a big factory can be different propositions. But the men in the garage must still have protection, and my noble friend made the very useful suggestion that the remedy lies with the factory health service, so that responsibility is not placed directly on the small individual employer, and the community is brought in.
The provision of proper washing facilities is mandatory at the present time, but that is not the position with regard to shower baths. My noble friend asked that an adequate supply of protective clothing and barrier and cleansing creams should all be made mandatory. But in dealing with these matters my right honourable friend thinks it is better to get things done with the good will of those concerned, who accept that their social conscience should require them to do something. It certainly is not possible to legislate a social conscience into anybody, but it is possible to make people aware of the fact that they should be doing something. I do not know whether one can acquire a conscience if one does not have one. I suppose that everybody has one, but sometimes it needs stirring up.
My Lords, that is the first approach, but if something is not done in a reasonable time, as a result of the willing co-
672
operation of those concerned, then we will certainly not rule out making mandatory those things which are obviously within the capabilities of firms.
Some of the questions are difficult. The judge in the case referred to laid very great weight on the six-monthly inspection, but here the co-operation of workers is very much needed. Although I should never be so daring as to disagree with any expression of medical opinion by my noble friend Lady Summerskill, I can point to the fact that my noble friend Lord Crook said that in the case in question there were four men who, in spite of everything the firm were doing, refused to have a medical inspection. Unfortunately, one of the four turned out to be a victim. Perhaps all that was wrong with my noble friend's statement was that she slightly exaggerated in order to emphasise the point. It may well be that shyness is not so common as some people think, and that this was just an exception. I hope she is right, because it should be easier for these inspections to take place. It was suggested that a six-monthly inspection might cause complacency. There is a certain amount of risk, but not if the other steps are being taken.
My noble friend Lord Crook went on to talk about what is being done. I was sorry that my noble friend Lady Summerskill thought that the sporran was rather primitive. I wish I could afford to buy her, as a present (not that she would ever have the right to wear it, of course), one of the more elaborate specimens of sporran. She would certainly agree right away that the use of the word "primitive" was completely erroneous.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: When was it invented?
LORD HUGHES: It does not need to be of recent development to be not primitive. Men and women were invented a very long time ago, but we are not primitive—at least, not all of us. This is the sort of article which is already used in trades. I have knowledge of the building industry, and joiners use a leather bag with a strap in which to carry their nails. No one would think of comparing it with a sporran as they have it hung over their hip instead of in front of them,

673
because of the conditions under which they work. But although it seems a perfectly reasonable suggestion we could not make such a bag mandatory, because it is only one of a number of satisfactory methods. What is important is that the employer with a social conscience recognises that he has an obligation and undertakes to provide protective clothing or equipment. Whether it is an imitation sporran, a nail bag or some kind of apron matters not, so long as it serves the purpose of giving protection.
As the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, said, the most important question is that of education. If the employers do all we wish them to do we shall still not accomplish our object if the men themselves do not do what they ought to do. This brings me to the question of the leaflet. My noble friend Lady Summerskill was very kind and she gave me an "out" on the question of the leaflets. I regret very much that her generosity was unnecessary, because for once I have the answer. The distribution of these leaflets was taking place at the rate of about 20,000 a year, not because they were in short supply but because they were not always distributed. In one factory, for example, the doctor deliberately did not distribute the leaflets. He said that he did not want to alarm anybody. The situation has changed completely since this case arose, and the number of leaflets distributed since last summer is 250,000—more than ten times as many in nine months as were previously distributed in a whole year.
The Department are in the process of getting out a new leaflet, and I have a copy here. It is in very simple terms, and there is no technical or medical language used in it. It will bring the point home quite well to those who read it. But having said that, I must add that I think it is an exceedingly dull-looking little document, and it will not cause anybody any special interest. People are just as likely to glance at it and throw it aside. The Department are working on something which will be just as informative but more striking, and much more likely to catch the attention of the men, including an illustration of the sort of thing they should look for.
Whether this will take the form of an actual photograph or whether it will be
674
a sketch has not been decided, but it is going to be something much more striking. It will be more in keeping with the notice that goes on the board, which is a much more useful thing than this little document. On the other hand, not everybody reads a notice on a board. If a man has a thing put in his hand which is likely to interest him, which is likely to attract his attention, and he then goes on to read it, there is a greater chance that he will do those things which are going to be his own best safeguard. After all, even if he worked in a place where the firm did none of the things that they ought to do, if he himself did every day the things which were within his own power, the likelihood is that he would never contract the disease. But if this is not firmly impressed upon him he is not going to do it. This is why I come back to Lord Auckland's point—a point which other noble Lords also made: that the important thing is to impress on the men concerned the fact that they are the people at risk and that a very considerable part of the remedy is in their own hands.
May I come now to the other point about the leaflet? The point about the number of people at risk in some of these factories, particularly in the Midlands, who still have little or no knowledge of English had not occurred to me, and I shall certainly draw the attention of the Department to the very useful suggestion that consideration should be given to making this leaflet available in languages which will make it possible for everybody to read and understand it. There is no point in making this a very much better leaflet if it is then put into the hands of men who will be able only to look at the picture and who wonder what it is all about.
My Lords, as to the question of supplementing the work of the Factory inspectorate, as my noble friend Lord Crook said, the Inspectorate are well aware of the harmful effects of mineral oil on the skin. They have been for many years; and a great deal of work has been done in this matter. Nothing new has emerged about the subject in recent years except that there is an increasing awareness of the problem following the publication of the Medical Research Council's Report and the inclusion of a chapter on "Oil

675
and the Skin" in the 1967 Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories, together with Press reports on the £10,000 damages to the widow of a Birmingham tool setter. This has undoubtedly given rise to alarm in the engineering industry, particularly among those workers in some sections of the industry who were not aware that they were at risk. It has also led to a greater awareness on the part of employers of the risk from exposure to mineral oils.
There is no proposal at present to make regulations for the protection of workers from the risk of scrotal cancer from exposure to mineral oil. This cannot yet take the form of a requirement to substitute safe oils for those at present in use because there is still no completely safe oil available—and this takes me on to the question of what is being done about finding safer oils. The position, as I am informed, is that the Factory Inspectorate are in close contact with the Institute of Petroleum, which set up a committee to consider the problem of carcinogenic risks from oils. Cutting oils used in enginering are divided into two broad types, straight oils and soluble oils. The latter are less dangerous when in use than straight oils, because they are mixed with a relatively large quantity of water and are more easily removed from the skin. Solvent-refined cutting oils are available for use in substitution for straight oils, and factory inspectors have been instructed to encourage occupiers to use them. The problem of producing a less hazardous soluble cutting oil is more difficult and, so far, has not been resolved, so that where these oils are used unmixed occupiers are at present being advised to take more than special care to protect their workers.
This is where we come to the value of the statistics which my noble friend Lord Crook gave about the examinations which G.K.N. have taken. Your Lordships will recollect that these examinations are taking place not over the whole range of their employees but primarily with the people who are most at risk. Even if we take the doctor who was so much criticised—and, as I have not read all that has been said about it, I am not going to join in the criticism of the Rolls Royce doctor; neither do I feel myself, in the absence of any knowledge, obliged to rush to his defence—what I would say is that while it may be completely
676
impracticable at this stage to have six-monthly examinations of every one of the workers in a factory of that kind, what has been done, as my noble friend has pointed out, is to show that it is completely practicable at least to have examinations of the men who are most at risk, and that it is equally practicable to get their co-operation. Obviously this is a very necessary first step.
My Lords, time, as more than one noble Lord has said, is against us as far as the clock is concerned. It ought not to be against us as far as finding solutions to this problem is concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, referred to the loopholes in the existing procedure. When I was informed (because noble Lords will appreciate that I have to be informed of these matters; they are not things within my day-to-day Ministerial responsibility) of the fact that the responsibility was to notify the cases which were of occupational origin, I said, "Why not make it a responsibility to notify every case of scrotal cancer to the factory inspector?" Then I was led into the tremendous ramifications to which the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, referred: that the man goes along to the doctor, he is examined, the doctor says, "What do you work at?", and he finds that the man is selling vacuum cleaners or that he works in a shop and there is no connection between his job and the disease. It would be a piece of nonsense to write to the firm selling the vacuum cleaners, or to the owner of the draper's shop, telling him that his employee was suffering from scrotal cancer; and, without taking up a great deal of the doctor's time and in many cases for wasteful purposes, there is no way in which he can go back, asking the man what all his previous jobs were, until he finds, perhaps, that twenty years previously he worked with mineral oils.
But what I was told was that every case of cancer of any kind has to be notified to the Cancer Research Bureau. My noble friend Lord Crook referred to that, and pointed out that their difficulty was that they did not have the staff to follow up every one of these notifications, going back over the years, to find out whether this was an occupational hazard. Perhaps I could say, in passing, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, who asked whether this was a creeping disease,

677
whether it developed over a period of years, that I am sorry, I do not know the answer. A number of speakers have referred to the fact that the so-called incubation period can be very long. It may be that doctors know, but I certainly do not know whether it is something which can be caused by a minimal period of working with mineral oils or whether it is something which develops because of continued, sustained contact with it. What is accepted is the fact that it may occur a very long time after the man has ceased to have any contact with the mineral oil.
I was a little at a loss to know the exact significance of the religious reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree. He did not quote it. I took the opportunity of having it looked up, and Luke, Chapter XV, verse 7, reads as follows:
"I say unto you. That likewise joy shall be in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentence."
The doubt in my mind is whether it is my right honourable friend the First Secretary (who is responsible for the Department of Employment and Productivity) who is being cast in the role of the one sinner or whether it is my unfortunate person temporarily occupying this Box on this subject. I can say, however, that I do not feel a sinner in this matter. I think I would have great difficulty in disagreeing with what has been said. This is not the sort of debate at the end of which your Lordships will expect me to answer every point that has been put forward, and to say that I accept this and reject that.
What I would say is that it will be well worth the while of the Department of Employment and Productivity and of my right honourable friend the First Secretary if, in the midst of all her many preoccupations, she can read, and the Department can read, this debate; because some of the suggestions which have been made are being acted upon, some are capable of being acted upon and some may have to be followed up if voluntary action is unsuccessful.
I undertake to make certain that the whole of this debate is studied, at least departmentally, and I hope that if my noble friend Lord Crook should wish to return to the subject in the not too distant future we may be able to give
678
him further evidence of the fact that the Department, the Factory Inspectorate, and other Government Departments (and I take the point that it ought also to be brought to the notice of other Ministers concerned) are all playing their part in seeking to see not that the statistics of this year or next year are down but that the statistics of the future are going to be as near as possible a "nil" return.

CORN EXCHANGE BILL [H.L.] PHOENIX ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
Reported, without amendment.