Lords Sitting of 20 January 1970

Preamble
Reassembling after the Christmas Recess, the House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.
The Earl Cowley—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

ROYAL PARKS: NIGHT CLOSURE
LORD DERWENT: 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 it is their intention to continue to allow Hyde Park and Green Park to be used as dormitories.]
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will be glad to know that my right honourable friend has decided, after reviewing the reports he has received, that it would not be in the interests of Park users generally to continue the experimental opening of Green Park at night. As he announced last
2
month, the Park has now reverted to nighttime closing. Hyde Park will, as hitherto, remain closed at night.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness very much for her Answer about Green Park, but I do not understand what she said about Hyde Park. I understood her to say that, as previously, Hyde Park would not be open for sleeping. But last summer it was allowed to be open on occasion for people to sleep there. What is going to happen this summer?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I can explain that point. I know that it is rather confusing. Hyde Park is permanently closed at night, and was last summer. But when 200,000 people came there for specific occasions it was impossible for the police and the park authorities to keep them all out, and on one or two occasions people slept there. But it was not in any sense a regular thing.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. I quite understand the position. But are Her Majesty's Government going to encourage this large number of people to hold these concerts in the Park this summer so that they will have to sleep there?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I am afraid that I should require notice of that question.

WATERWAYS BOARD AND RIPARIAN OWNERS' RIGHTS
2.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: 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 why the British Waterways Board, in their letter, reference number PCL/100/S, of December 15, 1969, told a riparian owner that his rights under The Regents Canal Act of 1812 had been cancelled by the Transport Act of 1968, without telling him that he had a right to compensation, and that his rights continued till that compensation was paid; and whether they will see that no further cases of misinformation occur.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE, R.A.F. (LORD WINTER-BOTTOM): My Lords, I am advised that the British Waterways Board were correct in informing the riparian owner in question that any rights he may have had under the Regents Canal Act 1812 were abolished by the Transport Act 1968. There is no provision in the 1968 Act which makes the extinguishment of such rights conditional on payment of compensation and no question of misinformation therefore arises.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I am most puzzled about this matter. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at the time of the passage of the Bill said that the public rights which were abolished could not have added to them the private rights, which it was also hoped to abolish, because this would make the Bill into a hybrid Bill. Can my noble friend tell me whether these rights have been abolished, and, if they are abolished, how is it that I seem still to have them and have been given licences on the basis of my rights?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, my noble friend has led me into deep and murky water. The actual rights were abolished by the Transport Act 1968. But I understand that the difference between my noble friend and his neighbour is that my noble friend exercised his right before the day on which the Act came into force and that his neighbour did not.

HUNT PACKS AND HAZARD TO TRAINS
LORD CROOK: 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 have observed that railway trains were seriously delayed and near-accidents took place on January 5, 1970, by reason of the hounds of two hunts crossing the main Cardiff to Swansea line, and whether it is intended that the Pentyrch and Llangeinor Hunts be prosecuted accordingly for causing trains to be at hazard.]
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport is aware of the incidents to which the noble Lord refers but it is for the Railways Board and not for him to institute proceedings against the hunts if the Board consider this justified. The Railways Board say that they do not propose to prosecute the hunts concerned.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, will my noble friend ask the management of British Railways whether they will give due consideration to closing the railway lines on foxhunting days?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend what reasons the Railways Board gave for not taking any action in this matter?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is something which one should not take too desperately seriously. Here it was not the hounds coming on to the line that caused the trouble, but the jamming of the brakes when they were applied by the guard. In fact, the trouble occurred not as the result of the hounds being present on the line but because of a mechanical failing.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that hounds were in fact killed, and that trains were delayed for twenty-one minutes?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, yes. It is unfortunate that hounds were killed. On the other hand, the delay was not due to the fact that the hounds

5
were killed, but was due to the breakdown of the braking system.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that agreement has been reached between hunting interests and British Railways headquarters in Cardiff as to the future conduct of foxhunting in this area?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: Yes, my Lords. There is no real dispute between the hunting community and the Railways Board. This is a hazard that can occur. It has happened rarely. I cannot remember a previous occasion. But, as I have said, the Railways Board do not propose to prosecute.

TAXES MANAGEMENT BILL [H.L.]
2.44 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain of the enactments relating to income tax, capital gains tax and corporation tax, including certain enactments relating also to other taxes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

INCOME AND CORPORATION TAXES BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce: a Bill (the Long Title of which is almost exactly the same as that of the last Bill, but I can assure your Lordships it is a separate Bill—it is also, I think, the largest Bill that I have ever seen) to consolidate certain of the enactments relating to income tax and corporation tax, including certain enactments relating also to other taxes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Baroness Phillips to advance the Second Reading of the Insolvency Services (Accounting and Investment) Bill from Tuesday the 27th of January to this day, and that the Bill be taken first.— (Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INSOLVENCY SERVICES (ACCOUNTING AND INVESTMENT) BILL
2.43 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Insolvency Services (Accounting and Investment) Bill, which I am asking your Lordships to read a second time today, is concerned with matters incidental to insolvency law; it does not affect the substantive provisions of this law. Under the Bankruptcy Act 1914 and the Companies Act 1948, trustees in bankruptcy and liquidators of companies must, subject to certain exceptions, pay moneys coming into their hands into accounts kept by the Board of Trade with the Bank of England. The Board hand over to the Treasury for investment in Government securities the amounts estimated to be surplus, for the time being, to their requirements for meeting the demands in respect of bankrupts' and companies' estates. The income from the investments, together with fees collected in connection with bankruptcy and companies winding-up proceedings, is paid into the Bankruptcy and Companies Winding-up (Fees) Account established under Section 13 of the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1926 and operated by the Treasury. Issues may be made from this Account towards meeting the costs of administration of the insolvency services. Section 14 of the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1926 requires that, in fixing the scales of bankruptcy fees and of companies winding-up fees, regard shall be had to the sum which it is anticipated will on average be from

7
time to time required to meet the costs of administration of the insolvency services.
Despite this statutory link between costs and income for the insolvency services, deficits have occurred on an increasing scale since 1933. The Board have looked closely at the administration of the insolvency services and take advantage of such scope for economy as is possible. Bankruptcy and companies winding-up fees were substantially increased from May 1, 1969 and the Board consider that the present fees are as high as is consistent with the need to avoid discouraging creditors, debtors and shareholders from making proper use of the official services. There is no prospect of eliminating the remaining deficit on the service and the Bill accordingly repeals the statutory link between costs and income; the Fees Account will also be wound up. Nevertheless, fees will be reviewed in 1970 and subsequent years to ensure that the administration remains efficient and economical and that the net cost to public funds is no greater than the circumstances justify.
Section 15 of the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1926 requires the Treasury to cause to be prepared, and laid before both Houses of Parliament, an annual account showing receipts and expenditure in respect of bankruptcy and companies winding-up proceedings. These arrangements have been criticised by the Public Accounts Committee on the grounds that the annual account is not subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General and does not include any record of the sums deposited with the Board or invested by the Treasury. The Bill accordingly makes new arrangements in respect of the form of the annual accounts and their audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General who will lay them, with his report, before Parliament. The new form of accounts will be adopted for the first complete financial year after the Bill comes into operation.
The Bill also transfers, from the Treasury to the National Debt Commissioners, responsibility for investment of surplus insolvency funds and sets up an Insolvency Services Investment Account to be kept at the Bank of England by the National Debt Commissioners for this purpose. The Bill will enable the
8
Commissioners to invest the moneys standing to the credit of the Investment Account, in accordance with directions given by the Treasury, in any manner specified in Part II of Schedule 1 to the Trustee Investments Act 1961. Income from the investments will initially be paid into the Investment Account. Where the annual account kept by the National Debt Commissioners shows that the gross amount of interest earned from the securities exceeds the aggregate of a sum, determined by the Treasury, to provide against depreciation of the securities and the sums paid out to meet companies' entitlements to interest payments, the excess amount will be paid into the Consolidated Fund. If this aggregate is greater than the gross amount of interest earned during the year, the deficiency will be met from the Consolidated Fund. I feel sure that there must be a simpler way of saying that.
The Bill also provides for the surrender to the Consolidated Fund of unclaimed dividends and indivisible balances arising from estates in bankruptcy and companies in liquidation before a date determined from time to time by the Treasury. This date will be chosen on the basis that demands from creditors and share-holders in respect of unclaimed dividends and indivisible balances are no longer likely to arise. Thus the balance in the Board's accounts (together with the sums due to the Board from the Investment Account) will more nearly reflect the Board's realistic liabilities. The arrangement will not, however, affect the ability of creditors and shareholders to claim any sums to which they are entitled. Finally, the Bill provides for recourse to the Consolidated Fund if the funds in the accounts maintained by the Board of Trade or the National Debt Commissioners are insufficient to meet their liabilities. In practice, such recourse is unlikely to be necessary.
I fear that these are somewhat intricate arrangements. In fact, the honourable Lady who introduced the Bill in another place said that it had been described as a Bill of minute interest and revolting complexity, an attitude with which she found herself in agreement; and I must say that I have no reason to change that opinion. I will not weary your Lordships with a detailed clause by clause explanation of the Bill. I should, however, make

9
it clear that the Bill does not in any way change the duties of trustees in bankruptcy or liquidators of companies, or the rights and obligations of creditors and debtors; neither will the Bill lead to any additional subvention of the insolvency services by the taxpayer beyond that which would have been unavoidable anyway. Nevertheless the Bill is necessary and indeed overdue; the failure of successive Governments to introduce it earlier has been the subject of criticism from the Public Accounts Committee. It will have the desirable effect of permitting improved scrutiny by Parliament of the transactions carried out by Departments administering the insolvency services and will relieve the Board of Trade of statutory obligations with which it is no longer practicable to comply. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Baroness Phillips.)
2.52 p.m.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships would like me to thank the noble Baroness for her introduction of the Bill and for so lucidly reading out the brief which she had been hurriedly handed. As this is the first occasion on which your Lordships have met in 1970, I do not wish to start off in any mood of disparagement, but rather would like to congratulate the noble Baroness on contributing —I think I am right in saying—to Parliamentary history. I believe that it is the first time that a daughter has, as a Minister, introduced into the House of Commons a Bill which her mother has then introduced into your Lordships' House. That is notable, and we should certainly like to wish the noble Baroness and her daughter all success in their political careers. I am sure that nobody would be more forward in offering congratulations than the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, who unfortunately has been narrowly pipped at this historical post. It might have fallen to her to pull off such a notable double, but in fact it has fallen to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips.
I must say that as this is a Board of Trade Bill I am very sorry that the Member of your Lordships' House who is a Board of Trade Minister did not think it necessary to be here himself. He is not out of the country and he is
10
not ill. Indeed, when I arrived here at twenty-five past two I had every expectation of seeing him ready to take his Department's Bill through your Lord-ships' Chamber. It has often been a criticism of mine that in your Lordships' House we have very few Ministers. Those we have we like and they are very good, but we should like to see Ministers who are responsible departmentally taking their own Bills through the House and not handing them on to spokesmen. It is in some cases inevitable that a spokesman for a Department should make a speech on behalf of a colleague; but when we are lucky enough to have a Minister of State of the Board of Trade in your Lordships' House I think he might have taken the trouble to come here this afternoon. I have not given him notice of my remarks, because it never occurred to me that he would fail to be present.
Also, I am rather sad, because I was looking forward very much to congratulating him on the honour bestowed him on January 1, an honour which I think is well merited and fully justified. But it is rather difficult to congratulate a person who does not bother to come on a day when his own Bill is before the House.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is carrying this point unnecessarily far. My noble friend Lord Brown has special responsibilities for export and he is carrying out those duties very well indeed, to the satisfaction, I hope, even of the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale. He is not able to be here all the time, and he does not have any particular connection with this Bill. My noble friend Lady Phillips does have a special connection here, and I should have thought the whole House would welcome the fact that she was taking the Bill through the House.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, I have made my point and noble Lords can judge for themselves whether the view of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is more appropriate than mine. But certainly my training and experience was that a Minister always came to the House, whether it was the Lower House or the Upper House, when it was a Bill of his Department, and I hope that that principle is not to be breached by the precedent created to-day.

11
We start off into the dazzling 1970s on the first day of your Lordships' attendance with a Bill produced by Her Majesty's Government for the insolvency services. This is their great offering to the white hot technological revolution, to progress, to the fuller life, to the full development of our natural and other resources. All they can offer your Lordships is the Insolvency Services (Accounting and Investment) Bill. Well, my Lords, something has to be first in 1970, and this is what we have got. But what I think is so tragic is that it is such a dreary little Bill. This is symptomatic of the way the Board of Trade is being treated by the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues.
There was a time when the Board of Trade was a great Department of State, when almost every year one of the major legislative Acts of the Session was a Board of Trade measure. Now all we get from the emasculated Board of Trade is the Insolvency Services (Accounting and Investment) Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Brown, when he was taking the Companies Bill through your Lordships' House, confidently promised us a second and very important Companies Bill before the end of the present Parliament. This, as we know, is the last Session of the present Parliament. Do we get a major Bill? Do we get the Companies Bill, the Bill which we were assured would include the authorising of no par value shares—one great promise which has of course been broken? What we get instead is an Insolvency Services (Accounting and Investment) Bill, which the President of the Board of Trade did not bother to take through the Commons and which the Minister of State at the Board of Trade does not even bother to take through your Lordships' House.
This is not only a reflection on your Lordships' House; it is also a clear exposition of what the present Prime Minister thinks of the emasculated Board of Trade. He was once a President of the Board of Trade himself, and an important psychiatrist said to me the other day that he thought that what is happening is because, having learned the real facts of life when he was at the Board of Trade, the Prime Minister is now determined to reduce its status as far as he possibly can. We can accept that, as we have to accept many other things. We accept,
12
too, the description of the Bill given by the noble Baroness.
We note that in defence of the Bill the noble Baroness said that bankruptcies had increased rapidly in 1969—another feature of the Labour Government's attitude towards private business, and particularly small companies, because it is the small companies that are going bankrupt or becoming insolvent at the present time. We know that the present Administration do not like private enterprise. They are a Socialist Government. We know, too, that they cannot really attack the big companies, so they take it out of the small companies—take it out of them in the form of corporation tax and close company legislation specifically directed against the small businessman and the small company. They take it out of them in the S.E.T. levy and in other ways. Small wonder, therefore, that many of these smaller businesses are going bankrupt and that insolvency services are having to cope with a bigger demand than ever before! That is why this Bill is regrettably necessary at the present time.
Although I do not like the Bill, I would not recommend noble Lords to divide against it, because it is a necessary piece of machinery in the climate which the Government have chosen to create. After all, they are usually preferred creditors. They want to make sure that they get out of the broken businesses what they can of P.A.Y.E. instalments which otherwise would not be paid. They want to make sure that any arrears of tax are collected before the other creditors get a chance. This is dressed up as a modest piece of social legislation. The taxpayer must pay for the cost of this measure, but he will get back a good deal of what is expended on the insolvency services, because otherwise the Government might have much greater difficulty in getting in first at what is left of the "kill". So this sordid little measure is what the present Labour Administration offer to your Lordships' House on the first Sitting Day of a new decade.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, if I did not know the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, so well, I might take him seriously. But I feel that he can hardly describe this Bill as a "sordid little measure" when, so far as I can discover from my researches, it was originally put forward at a time when he must have

13
been the President of the Board of Trade. Until now time has not been found for it by successive Governments in their parliamentary programmes.
I should like to take up one point that the noble Lord mentioned. I do not think I said that the number of bankruptcies was increasing. I said that bankruptcies and companies winding-up fees were substantially increased; but those, of course, are the fees dealing with the fund. I was also rather intrigued when the noble Lord, Lord Erroll, told us that this is the last Session of the present Parliament. I am very glad that he has so much information. He obviously has a recourse to the Prime Minister which perhaps the rest of us are not so fortunate as to have.
In defence of my noble friend Lord Brown I would merely say that I have offered all along to assist Ministers so that they did not have too heavy a programme of legislation. It may be that my noble friend thought he was giving me something to do—and I must say I have enjoyed it. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Erroll, does not share this enjoyment, but as the Bill goes through your Lordships' House perhaps we shall have further exchanges. I should not like him to feel, however, that I do not have the Board of Trace behind me, because I have been fortunate enough to have a great deal of briefing, comment and discussion for this Bill and I therefore commend it to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [H.L.]
3.2 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 [Redistribution of business among divisions of the High Court]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 23, leave out ("senior") and insert ("principal").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the first Amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. I am afraid that after the excitement of the Insolvency Services (Accounting and Investment) Bill your Lordships may find the Report stage of this Bill rather dull, but I shall do my best.
The first Amendment arises in this way. The Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 was a straight consolidation. The chief probate registrar was referred to in some of the Acts consolidated as "the senior probate registrar" and in others as "the principal probate registrar"; and I am afraid that that habit has been followed so far in this Bill. That does not seem at all sensible. It would be right, I think, to choose what his title should be, and to stick to it. As between, those two titles, "the senior probate registrar" suggests that the one who has been longest in office will always be appointed as the chief registrar, and that might not be desirable. Therefore the object of this Amendment is to fix his title as "principal probate registrar". While dealing with this Amendment, perhaps I may mention Amendments Nos. 32 to 36 inclusive, which have exactly the same object. I beg to move the first Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 2A:
After Clause 3, insert the following new Clause:
The Vice-Chancellor
".—(1) The Lord Chancellor may, from among the puisne judges for the time being attached to the Chancery Division of the High Court, nominate one of them to be Vice-Chancellor, who shall be responsible to the Lord Chancellor (as president of the Chancery Division) for the organisation and management of the business of the division.
(2) The Vice-Chancellor shall be included among the persons with power under section 99(4) of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 to make rules of court; and in that subsection—

(a) for the words 'and four other judges' there shall be substituted the words ' the Vice-Chancellor and three other judges'; and

(b) for the words 'The four' there shall be substituted the words 'The three'."

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 2A concerns another question of a title. In the Court

15
of Appeal and in each of the Divisions of the High Court there must necessarily always be a judge who is responsible for the management and administration of that Division—which judges are to take which cases; what is to happen if a judge is ill, and so forth. In the Court of Appeal this is the Master of the Rolls; in the Queen's Bench Division it is the Lord Chief Justice; in the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division it is the President. In the Chancery Division, the judge who has this responsibility has no special name. The Lord Chancellor has always been the President of the Chancery Division and, of course, used to sit in the Lord Chancellor's Court. And for times when he could not sit, from as early as 1813 there was a Vice-Chancellor; and at subsequent periods there have been as many as three Vice-Chancellors.
The fact that the judge responsible has no name is somewhat awkward. In the profession he is referred to as the senior judge of the Chancery Division; but sometimes he is not. In fact he has not been for a good many years, because Mr. Justice Lloyd Jacob, whose recent death we all deplore, was, strictly, the senior judge of the Chancery Division, but he was the patents judge, dealing only with patents and trade marks, and therefore not having great experience of the ordinary work of the Division. Therefore, another judge—Mr. Justice Cross (until he became a Lord Justice), and since then Mr. Justice Buckley—has acted in this capacity. So the only object of this Amendment is to find an appropriate title by which the judge who is responsible for the administrative work of the Division should be called, and "Vice-Chancellor" seems the obvious title.
The second part of the Amendment provides that the Vice-Chancellor shall be ex-officio a member of the Rule Committee. Here again, the only object is to regularise the existing position. The existing statutory provision is:
"Rules of court may be made by the Lord Chancellor together with any four or more of the following persons, namely, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Probate Division, and four other judges of the Supreme Court, two practising barristers being members of the General Council of the Bar, and two practising solicitors of whom one shall be a member of the Council of the Law Society and the other a member of the Law Society and also of a provincial Law Society."
16
Accordingly, what is proposed is that the Vice-Chancellor should be added, but in order not to disturb the composition "the four other judges" will become "the three other judges". In fact, of course, some rules may relate only to the Chancery Division, and in practice the senior judge of the Chancery Division has always been a member of the Rule Committee. So this will do no more than regularise the existing provision. My Lords, I beg to move.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I welcome this new clause. It seems rather pleasant to revive the old title of "Vice-Chancellor", which graced the Law Reports for over half a century, at any rate, in the 1800s. This is obviously the right name for the senior judge—the principal judge, should I say? —in the Chancery Division. The rest of the new clause, in subsection (2), is pure machinery, which I think is also entirely to be welcomed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.10 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
Court of Appeal (criminal division)
".—(1) A court of the criminal division of the Court of Appeal shall, for the purpose of exercising any of its jurisdiction, be duly constituted if it consists of an uneven number of judges, not being less than three.
(2) A court of the said division shall be duly constituted if it consists of two judges, but not for the purpose—

(a)of determining an appeal; or

(b)of determining an application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords; or

(c)of refusing an application for leave to appeal to the criminal division, other than an application which has been refused by a single judge under section 31 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

(3) In section 45(2) of the said Act of 1968 (which defines "single judge", for the purposes of sections 31 and 44 of the Act, as meaning any judge of the Court of Appeal or of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court) the words "of the Queen's Bench Division of" shall be omitted.
(4) In section 83(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (which enables the Secretary of State to make regulations about legal aid in criminal cases and, by paragraph (b), enables a court's powers in relation to legal aid to be made exercisable by a member or officer of the court) that paragraph shall have effect in relation to the criminal division of the Court

17
of Appeal as if for the reference to a person entitled to sit as a member of the court there were substituted a reference to any judge of the court or of the High Court."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, we now come to a somewhat more complicated matter. This is a new clause which affects the functioning of the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal in two ways: first, by permitting a court of two judges to dispose of certain matters which can currently be disposed of only by a court consisting of at least three judges; and, secondly, by making it clear that the "single judge" powers under the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 may be exercised by any High Court Judge.
Under the Criminal Appeal Act 1966, which transferred to the Court of Appeal the jurisdiction previously exercised by the Court of Criminal Appeal, a court of the Criminal Division must consist of at least three judges. On this point there are two distinctions between the Act of 1966 and the Criminal Appeal Act 1907 which originally established the Court of Criminal Appeal: one, there is now no statutory requirement that the court must consist of an uneven number of judges; and, two, no express provision is now made for the constitution of the court when dealing with an application as distinct from an appeal. However, in both these matters the Criminal Division has invariably followed the practice of the Court of Criminal Appeal and the full court always sits with an uneven number of judges, never less than three.
Under Sections 31 and 44 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, which consolidated and now governs the exercise of the Criminal Division's jurisdiction, certain powers of the Criminal Divsion can be exercised by a single judge, whether of the Court of Appeal or of the Queen's Bench Division. These powers do not extend to the determination of an appeal or of an application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords, but do cover a number of ancillary matters, of which far the most important is the giving of leave to appeal to the Criminal Division, whether against conviction or sentence. The present position is that there are only three cases in which there is an absolute right of appeal to the Court of Appeal in a criminal case. One is where the appeal is solely on a point of law; the second
18
is where the trial judge certifies that it is a case fit for the consideration of the Court of Appeal; and the third is where a case is referred to that Court by the Home Secretary. In all other cases leave has to be obtained.
Under Section 31 of the Act of 1968, a single judge can grant or refuse leave to appeal. If he grants leave, the appeal comes before the full court of three judges in the normal way, and the new clause does not in any way affect that. But if a single judge refuses leave, the appellant has a statutory right under Section 31 to renew his application before the full court, whose decision is final. Thus, if the full court refuses leave to appeal—whether after prior refusal by a single judge or at first instance—the appellant has exhausted his rights. An application for leave to appeal made to a single judge is dealt with in private and not at a formal sitting of the court. It is also normally dealt with on the papers; that is to say, on an examination of the notice of application (which will include the grounds of appeal), the relevant trial documents, a transcript of the essential parts of the shorthand note taken at the trial and other vital documents such as probation and borstal reports and other matters relevant to sentence. These papers, which may be voluminous, are considered by the single judge, who frequently has at the same time to consider related applications; for example, legal aid, bail pending appeal, and so on. If the judge refuses leave to appeal, these ancillary applications will also be re-fused; if leave is granted, or if the judge decides to refer the principal application to the full court, they will be dealt with as appropriate.
Refusal of leave to appeal by a single judge may, as I have already explained, lead to renewal before the full court in which case the papers in the case have to be studied by each of the three judges constituting the court. When the judges look at these papers—and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice can explain all this better than I can—they do not simply pay attention (nor does a single judge simply pay attention) to the grounds of the appeal which the man sets out; because in the large majority of cases the man has done his own form of application and, not unnaturally, he does not really know what a point of law

19
is: they read all the summing up and the papers in the case to see whether there is any ground, whether it is contained in the notice of application or not; whether the summing up omits anything that it ought to have contained, or whether there has been any misdirection or any misreception of evidence and so on. And this occupies a considerable amount of time.
Refusal of leave to appeal by a single judge may lead to a renewal before the full court, in which case, as I have said, the papers have to be considered by all three judges. There is a well-established practice that if any one member of the full court thinks that there is an arguable case, leave is given. Thus, where the papers go before a single judge in the first instance, the appellant will succeed in getting leave if any one out of four judges comes to the conclusion that there is an arguable case. Where the application goes straight to the full court he will succeed if one out of the three are of that opinion.
The justification for the present proposal, that in those and other cases of ancillary jurisdiction and interlocutory matters the court may consist of two judges, is that this latter principle gives a wide enough right of appeal without involving unnecessary expenditure of the judges' time. The main effect of the proposal is that if an application has been refused by a single judge and is then renewed to the full court, a court of two judges should have power to determine the question of leave to appeal finally. If either of these two judges thinks that there is an arguable case, the current practice of the court will ensure that leave is given; so that the applicant will get his leave if one out of three judges considers that there is a case worth arguing.
My Lords, the practical advantage of the proposal is considerable. Every time an application is renewed after refusal by a single judge, three judges have to examine the papers for the purpose of seeing whether there is an arguable case. The reading of these papers imposes a considerable burden on the judges: for example, the business of the full court in 1969 meant the examination by the judges of 8,013 sets of papers. If a two-judge court could have dealt with those applications which had pre
20
viously been refused by a single judge, 1,108 fewer sets of papers would have had to be read. This would have represented an appreciable saving in judges' time and the time so saved could more usefully have been expended in doing "single-judge" work. Few people, I venture to suggest, appreciate how much work judges have to do out of court; and this question of reading papers in applications for leave to appeal means, I know, that many judges have to take work home for the weekend, to spend literally most of the weekend reading vast piles of these papers.
The volume of criminal appeals has greatly increased over the past five years and shows no sign of diminishing. We did not help, I think, in this respect by two provisions of the Criminal Justice Act. When that Act was passed, the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal could increase the sentence where there was an appeal against sentence; and secondly, in most cases the time occupied did not count against sentence. It seemed to us that both these things were rather unfair. It was very unusual for the court, in fact, to increase a sentence; but it did mean in the case of every appeal against sentence that one had to warn the man that there was a possibility that if he appealed against sentence it might not only not be reduced but might be increased. In occasional cases one had to say, "You are just as likely to get it increased as reduced." Secondly, so far as loss of time was concerned, it did not really seem fair that a man should spend an additional period in prison because he dared to exercise his legal right to appeal.
But the result of curing those two in-justices, as I think they were, is that there is now virtually nothing to lose by appealing. The numbers of appeals, mostly in person, have accordingly increased enormously. In 1965, when the Donovan Committee on the Court of Criminal Appeal reported, the number of new cases registered was 3,449. The numbers in 1966, 1967 and 1968 were 4,451, 6,932 and 8,714. For 1969, the figure was 9,698. There are many, and often substantiated, complaints about the interval which normally elapses before an application to the Criminal Division is disposed of. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, has made

21
it clear that the difficulties facing the courts stem from the sheer volume of applications most of which—probably about three-quarters—are absolutely hopeless from the start. Nevertheless, each application has to be examined by a judge before it can be said whether there is an arguable case, and the consequential demand on the Judiciary puts a considerable strain on it The two-judge court would ease that strain without involving any undue restriction on the right of appeal.
It may be remembered that in 1965 the Donovan Committee considered a related proposal; namely, that all applications for leave to appeal should be heard by a two-judge court, sitting in private, whose decision would be final. The Committee rejected this proposal (paragraph 240) on the grounds, first, that it represented a serious restriction on the right of appeal; secondly, that final decisions of such importance should not be reached in private; and, thirdly, that the saving in judge power, though significant, would not be enough to outweigh these disadvantages. The present proposal, however, is very different. It does not involve a private hearing; it still allows the applicant to succeed if one out of three judges thinks that he has an arguable case. Thirdly, the need for not wasting judges' time is greater now than it was in 1965. It is accordingly proposed that a two-judge court, while not able finally to determine an appeal, shall be able to deal with applications for leave to appeal, and with a number of ancillary matters.
Putting it at its lowest, it is very doubtful whether a High Court judge, other than a judge of the Queen's Bench Division, has jurisdiction to exercise these powers, and the second part of the new clause provides that any High Court judge shall be able to act as the single judge for the purpose of an application for leave to appeal. The Act of 1968 provides in terms that the powers are exercisable by a judge of the court or of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court. Although under Section 7 of the Judicature Act 1925 a judge of any division can, if so requested by the Lord Chancellor, sit as an additional judge in the Court of Appeal, it is very far from clear whether this would enable a judge of the Chancery or Probate Divi
22
sions to do single-judge work, as distinct from sitting in the full court.
My Lords, it is most desirable that all judges of the High Court should be able to do this work and thus relieve the current strain on the Queen's Bench judges. In the first place, most of the judges of the Probate Division have considerable criminal experience and regularly deal with criminal cases on assizes. They go on circuit and while on circuit are not limited to divorce cases; they can also hear common law cases, and crime. Ten of them have held recorderships before being appointed to the Bench. Seven are chairmen, or deputy chairmen, of quarter sessions, and an eighth was deputy chairman until last year. Moreover, those who in due course become Lords Justices of Appeal are likely to be invited from time to time to sit in the Criminal Division, and experience of single-judge work will keep them familiar with the court's practice. The main advantage to be gained is the relief of the very heavily burdened Queen's Bench judges and the consequentially greater facility for bringing applications quickly before a single judge.
My Lords, before I formally move this Amendment may I say that, as this is the last Amendment to be moved under Part I of the Bill, I am disappointed not to be able to move an Amendment to provide that the judges of the Commercial Court may sit as arbitrators. I am hoping to do so on the Third Reading of the Bill, but I thought that I should mention the point now. On the whole, I should prefer, even if it were the Third Reading, to move an Amendment in your Lordships' House, rather than it should be moved in another place where this House would have had no opportunity to consider it. My Lords, I beg to move.
3.25 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am sure that the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his extremely full explanation of what is not, on its face, a very easy matter. As I understood his argument, the main job of the two-judge court will be simply to deal with applications which have already been refused by the single judge. I do not know whether there are other jobs

23
for the two-judge court, but I did not think so from listening to the noble and learned Lord.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I did not want to go into too much detail, but the two-judge court will, in effect, be able to do everything except those things which are excluded by subsection (2) of the new clause.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Then, my Lords, there is a strange wording, which I do not altogether understand, in subsection (2)(c) of this new clause. I can understand that the two-judge court can either grant or refuse leave to appeal to the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal where a single judge has already dealt with the matter and has refused leave. But what, apparently, they can also do is to grant an application for leave to appeal which is made to the Criminal Division in the first instance without its having gone first to the judge. The only thing they are not allowed to do is refuse leave to appeal when it comes up at first instance. My Lords, how does the court know at the beginning of the hearing of an application for leave to appeal to the Criminal Division, which has not already been to the single judge, whether they are going to grant or refuse that leave? If they are going to refuse it, they have to get another judge; if they are going to grant it, as I understand, they can do so with two judges. That seems a little strange and I wonder why the word"refusing"rather than"dealing with"appears at the beginning of subsection (2)(c). If the noble and learned Lord could explain that it would allay my doubts about the correctness of this particular draft.
I should have thought that the general case which the noble and learned Lord has put forward is a perfectly sound one. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice—and, of course, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor— thinks that this will provide all the protection that an appellant needs, I certainly do not want to disagree with them. I should like the noble and learned Lord to answer that point at some time.
The other thing that seems a little alarming is the statistics he gave us about the number of appeals since the provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 1967. He told us of the restraints and the
24
danger to the appellant which had been removed. But what 1 seem to recall having been included in the Criminal Justice Act 1967 is a provision whereby a person who has been convicted by assizes or quarter sessions and who wishes to appeal to the Criminal Division can get, as he previously could not, legal aid to draft his appeal. It would seem that the effect of that has been almost entirely nil. It may be that some people have applied for legal aid and have been told by their counsel that they have no case, and then they have simply appealed on their own. But the statistics seemed to suggest that legal aid had not been granted in these cases, and that the prisoners, as they did before, have proceeded to sit down in their cells and write out whatever formula they were able to get hold of to constitute an appeal to the Criminal Division. I believe that this was intended to be avoided by the provisions in the 1967 Act, and I wonder whether that has fallen rather flat and has been much more disappointing in its effect than we hoped at the time. I should be very interested to know whether the noble and learned Lord has any information on that subject.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as we have the great advantage of the presence of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, I should like to wait to hear what he may say.
3.29 p.m.
Lord PARKER of WADDINGTON: My Lords, I welcome the Amendment introduced by this new clause. The work of the Queen's Bench judges has increased so enormously over the last ten years that anything that can be sensibly done to ease the strain would be worth while. When I say, "ease the strain ", I do not mean that they should have less to do, but that they should be able to use their time to do the other, more necessary, work. In connection with Clause 4, I felt constrained to explain, on Second Reading, the difficulties the judges were having in dealing with work, both civil and criminal, on assize. The difficulties in London are no less great. If I may take civil work, the figure of Queen's Bench writs issued in 1969 was 96,000, as compared with 76,000 for 1968—a sensational increase in civil litigation of 20,000 plaints in the Queen's Bench alone.

25
To take another matter, the interlocutory work which a judge has to deal with in chambers, whereas until recently that work could be done by one judge, now most of the time it is necessary to have two judges to cope with that work. Again, take the criminal work in London. It is often necessary now to have two judges available to deal with bar applications alone, something which was unheard of two or three years ago.
When we come to applications for leave to appeal, as the noble and Jearned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said, these applications have increased enormously. The figures for 1969 are now available and they show, within one or two, 9,700 applications to the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal, as against 8,700 in 1968, an increase of almost 1,000 in one year; and I have little doubt that in the current year applications will reach the five-figure range. Nor is it a question that appellants are just becoming more appellate-minded, because the Criminal Statistics issued by the Home Office (which I am afraid are always months behind) show that for the first quarter of 1969 there was an increase of 25 per cent, over the corresponding period in 1968 of persons found guilty of indictable offences. In other words, if that increase continues, the potential number of appellants to the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal, will rise by 25 per cent., so that the five-figure range of applications is almost a certainty.
Last year, the full Court of Appeal dealt with some 2,671 cases and 7,287 were channelled or routed to a single judge. May I make this position plain? Nothing short of a full court of the Criminal Division, consisting of three judges, can refuse an application. Of course, we could not deal with those numbers; we should have to sit in division after division of the Court of Appeal. Therefore, it is necessary to route or channel as many of these applications as possible to what we refer to as a single judge—a different judge, of course, among those who are available—exercising the powers of the full court.
But if the single judge refuses leave to appeal, then the prisoner has an absolute right to come to the full court of three. The result is that last year judges had to read, as single judges, no fewer
26
than 7,287 applications—and, I may add, most of that in their spare time. On these figures, it is clear that a number of the cases dealt with in the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal will be these renewed applications. In 1968, they numbered 1,100. The figures for 1969 are not out but they are clearly going to be more, and in 1970, more still. So that if it is possible to save one judge reading 1,100, 1,200 or 1,300 of these cases, it may well be that over a year there will be almost a saving of one judge. Clearly that is desirable, if it can be done without prejudice to the prospects of the appellants.
I venture to think that there is no prejudice. As I have said, the theory is that only three judges can refuse an application. Traditionally, if any one of those three thinks that there is a case to be argued, leave to appeal is given, and accordingly, but for this routing or channelling to the single judge, a prisoner would have his papers read and considered by three judges. The effect of channelling these cases to the single judge is that the mar has the advantage of his case being considered by four judges—the single judge who has refused the application and then, when he comes to the full court, by three judges.
I venture to think that there is no reason why a man should have his case considered by more than three judges, which is what is provided for by Statute and what happens time after time now with the cases that are not routed to the single judge. Many are not cases where a man is privately represented. They may be cases of short sentences, and sending them to the single judge would only delay matters so that when they came finally to be dealt with the prisoners would have served their sentences. Accordingly, what this Amendment does is to provide what a man alone is entitled to—the opinion of three judges, because it is only by reason of this convenient arrangement of using the single judge that he now gets the opinion of four judges. I welcome this Amendment, because I think that it will enable the judges to do more of the work, whether civil or criminal, which is really needed to be done.
Before I sit down, may I refer to what the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, said on the question of the use

27
being made of legal aid in regard to advice on appeal. As the noble Viscount said, it is not working well. We took a sample from the Inner London Sessions. We found that only about 5 per cent, of prisoners made use of the new arrangements whereby they are entitled to the advice of solicitor and to have the grounds of appeal settled by counsel, if there are any. A form letter has now been circulated, which prisoners get as soon as they arrive in prison, informing them of their rights under legal aid to advice, solicitor and counsel, and setting out, below a perforated line, a draft letter to the solicitor. All the prisoner has to do is to fill in the name of his solicitor and sign his own name; then he can get advice. That arrangement has only been working for about a month, and all I can say at the moment is that it has possibilities. I put it no higher than that.
The real difficulty is the prison rule called Rule 52. Under this rule a prisoner is entitled to special treatment, which means visits and letters, as soon as he puts in an application. Human nature being what it is, a prisoner, under the shock of his conviction, wanting to see his family and to have visits and letters, puts in his application at once, without consulting his solicitor or counsel. I think that in the last resort the only thing to do will be to change prison Rule 52, to provide, as an act of humanity, that for X days (be it 7, 14 or 21) a man should get special treatment, should be able to see his family and have letters, and that thereafter the special treatment should cease, unless he can produce some opinion of solicitor or counsel that he has an arguable case on appeal. I would say in answer to the noble Viscount that only in that way can use be made of these legal aid arrangements.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice has answered most of the points raised by the noble Viscount. The answer to the first point is that the reason for giving these powers to a two-judge court, under subsection (2)(c), is that a renewed refusal application might be coupled with an ancillary first instance application which the two-judge court must be able to deal with
28
if it decides to grant leave, for example, for legal aid: and there are other matters.
With regard to legal aid itself, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice knows, I am as much concerned as he is. We thought at the time of the Criminal Justice Act that any flood of appeals on the ground that there was now really no deterrent would be prevented, because under the recommendations of the Committee of which Lord Justice Widgery was chairman they would get legal aid. At that time legal aid worked very well until you went into the dock, and then it broke down. The purpose was that it should be extended so as to cover advice on the question of appeal. We felt then that they would be advised in proper cases: "This is absolutely hopeless; there is no ground for appeal." That simply has not happened. As the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, said, it has given us considerable concern. It may be—I do not know—partly because solicitors do not realise that legal aid does go on to cover advice and appeal. But the main difficulty seems to be that the men do not know, in spite of the notices in their cells, and insist on filling up—it may be a tradition of their prison —the notices of application themselves. They are now given that notice which tells them that they have this right, and of the other steps of which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice has spoken, which we hope will bring about the desired result.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.42 p.m.
Clause 5 [Restriction on power of committal under Debtors Act 1869]:
Clause 6 [Restriction on magistrates' power of committal for civil debt]:
Clause 7 [Courts with power to attach earnings]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendments Nos. 4 to 10:
Page 5, line 30, leave out ("Part I of").
Clause 6. page 5, line 38, leave out ("enforceable as a fine") and insert ("treated (by any enactment relating to the collection or enforcement of fines, costs, compensation or forfeited recognizances) as so adjudged to be paid").
Page 6, line 2, leave out ("Part I of").

29
Page 6, line 4, leave out from beginning to ("or") in line 5.
Clause 7, page 6, line 29, leave out from second ("order") to end of line 31.
Clause 7, line 37, after ("costs") insert ("compensation ").
Clause 7, line 39, leave out from beginning to ("or") in line 41.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, if no noble Lord objects, I should like to move together Amendments Nos. 4 to 10, and also to speak to Amendments, Nos. 15, 22, 28, 37, 39, 40, 43, 44, 45, 46 and 48. The main purpose of these Amendments is to remove an anomaly in the law relating to costs in criminal cases and thereby implement a recommendation of the Payne Committee. This I am afraid, is very technical. Costs awarded by assizes and quarter sessions may, under the present law, be enforced cither in the same manner as an order for payment of costs made by the High Court in a civil case or as sums adjudged to be paid summarily as a civil debt; but in the case of costs awarded by the Court of Appeal only the former method is available. The Bill, as at present drafted, provides for these provisions to be repealed and for all these costs to be enforceable in a magistrates' court as sums adjudged summarily to be paid as civil debts. Clause 32 in its present form sets out in subsection (1) a list of all those costs enforceable in this way and in subsections, (2) and (3) provides that they shall be recoverable only as sums adjudged by a magistrates' court to be paid as civil debts, except that where it is desired to use a method of enforcement that is not available in the magistrates' court, proceedings may be taken in the High Court or the county courts.
The Bill has to provide for committal to prison to be available for the enforcement of all criminal costs. It was necessary, therefore, since committal for failure to pay civil debts was being abolished, to have another list of criminal costs which would be enforceable as civil debts after the Bill becomes law. This other list, therefore, appears in Part II of Schedule 3 and includes both the list in Clause 32(1) and other costs already enforceable only as sums adjudged summarily to be paid as civil debts. Clause 6, which deals with committals, refers to this list in subsection (2)(b). The inclusion of these two lists
30
in the Bill is not very satisfactory, and in considering how to simplify these pro-visions it became clear that the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1952 contains an anomaly. Costs awarded against an accused in a magistrates' court are enforced as a fine (Section 10(3)(a)), but those awarded by assizes or quarter sessions are enforceable as civil debts (Section 10(1)), as are those awarded on appeal.
This anomaly led as to think, as did the Payne Committee (in paragraphs 275–276 of their Report), that, by whatever court they are awarded, costs against an accused person should be enforceable as sums adjudged to be paid on a conviction, and costs against a prosecutor as sums adjudged to be paid as civil debts. This has enabled the draftsman to dispense (in the Amendments) with the two lists of costs in Clause 32 and Schedule 3, and to produce a greatly simplified Clause 32 in which the provisions as to costs are set out in the first two subsections. References to criminal costs are also deleted from Clauses 6 (committals) and 7 (attachment of earnings) since costs awarded against an accused now fall within the general words"sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction "; and this involves a consequential Amendment to Clause 11. Subsection (5) of the new Clause 32 applies the provisions of The Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 relating to the transfer of the enforcement of fines from one court to another in England and Wales, and from a court in England and Wales to a court in Scotland, to an enforcement of costs in criminal cases as well.
Part II of Schedule 3 is deleted, and the new Schedule (to be inserted after Schedule 7) sets out in Part I the costs to be enforced as a sum adjudged to be paid on conviction and in Part II the costs to be enforced as sums adjudged to be paid as civil debts. The opportunity is taken to include compensation in Part I and, as the Payne Committee recommended, costs awarded in non-criminal matters at quarter sessions (for example, affiliation and licensing) in Part II. There are consequential Amendments (deleting the references to Part I of Schedule 3) in Clauses 5, 6 and 8. The relevant Amendments to Schedule 9 repeal the references in existing legislation to the recovery of costs and compensation which

31
are replaced by the provisions of the new Clause 32 and the new Schedule. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
3.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I suspect that I may not be the only noble Lord in this House who would rather like to read that on paper. It is an exceedingly involved matter. I know the purpose lying behind it, but I have to confess that I have not worked out all the details. What I understand to be the case is that there will still be power to commit to prison for failure to pay costs in criminal cases in any court, and that there will also be power to make an attachment of earnings order for them, as well as for costs in civil cases, for instance, at quarter sessions. I am not quite certain how that is so. But I can see the paragraph in Clause 7 which deals with the power to make an attachment of earnings order for what will now become costs enforceable as if they were payable as a fine on conviction. I expect it is there somewhere, but I am not altogether certain where. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord has the answer to that now, but if not, perhaps he would be so kind, as he often is, to write to me about it.
The other thing that arises, a much more general point, is that if one tries to look up how you enforce any order— for instance, as to costs at quarter sessions—one has to look at about 153 Acts spread over a period from about 1840 to the present day. To start with, the Long Title of this Bill does not give anybody any clue that we are altering the whole system whereby quarter sessions costs can be recovered, and I am wondering whether we ought not to do that. But one is still faced with the difficulty of the mass of legislation which governs the jurisdiction of quarter sessions—it is entirely statutory jurisdiction—and one has to go to and fro through the Acts. So perhaps this is a case for consolidation fairly soon. One must remember what is, at any rate to my mind, the anomaly—it may be an anomaly that Payne supports, but I do not know about that—that costs in a civil case at quarter sessions will still have to be recovered summarily as a
32
civil debt, because that is one of the exceptions under these provisions that we are now debating. I have no idea whether this is a good thing or not. The effect of it is that if the man does not pay you have to go back to the magistrates' court and get another order. The costs have already been awarded by quarter sessions, after hearing both sides if necessary, but you cannot do anything about them without going back to a different magistrates' court—because the magistrates knew nothing whatever about this—before you can actually get an order presumably to do any of the things provided for under this Bill, such as, for instance, an attachment of earnings.
Perhaps that is the only way it can be done; perhaps it is not right that quarter sessions should be entitled to deal with the matter in the first instance, but I would ask the noble and learned Lord to look at that point again. I cannot see why the magistrates should have to deal with what is really an extraneous civil matter and is nothing to do with them at all—an order made by quarter sessions. I do not know whether they are the right people to whom the matter should go, or whether, if we must have another court to look into it, it ought not to go, as with all the other civil matters, to the county court. It is a matter which I would ask the noble and learned Lord to look at again, but I do not wish to press it this afternoon, for obvious reasons. Otherwise—so long as I can understand it when I have reread it—it sounds to me as though it is a very good alteration to the Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I will certainly read what the noble Viscount has said. I think what he said, broadly speaking, was right, and if there is any point I will write to him about it. I quite agree with him that there is an urgent need for the consolidation of the Magistrates' Courts Acts in particular. Indeed the main object of one of the Amendments I shall be coming to later is simply to facilitate that consolidation.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 8 [Application for order and conditions of court's power to make it]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendments Nos. 11 and 12.
Page 7, line 46, leave out from beginning to ("required") in line 5 on page 8 and insert

33
("it must appear to the court that the debtor has failed to make one or more payments").
Page 8, line 14, leave out from ("then") to ("may") in line 15 and insert ("subject to subsection (4A) below, the court ")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, if no noble Lord objects may I move together Amendments Nos. 11 and 12, and refer also to Amendment No. 14? Clause 8(3)(a), as drafted, provides that if a court is to make an attachment of earnings order to secure maintenance payments on the application of the creditor, it must appear to it that the debtor has failed to make one or more payments under the maintenance order and that his failure is due to wilful refusal or culpable neglect. The onus is placed upon the applicant (who may be the woman beneficiary or, in a magistrates' court, the justices' clerk) to prove that the default is due to the debtor's wilful refusal or culpable neglect to pay. The default can be proved relatively easily by reference, for example, to the accounts of the collecting office, but the applicant would find it very difficult to prove anything about the reasons for the default. Accordingly Section 6(2) of the Maintenance Orders Act 1958, which is the parallel provision, placed the onus upon the debtor to prove that the default was not due to his wilful refusal or culpable neglect. It is not intended to alter this part of the 1958 Act procedure.
These Amendments therefore restore the onus of proof from applicant to debtor in a maintenance case and make a consequential amendment. Clause 8(3), as amended, gives the circumstances in which a court has power to make an attachment of earnings order on the application of the creditor in all types of case, and the new subsection (4A) limits this power in maintenance cases. The amendment of Clause 8(4) is consequential upon the replacement of Clause 8(3)(a) by the words in the first Amendment. I beg to move.
3.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE of CULROSS: Again, my Lords, I should have thought this was an improvement. There does not appear to have been anything wrong with the onus of proof under the 1958 Act; and, indeed, common sense suggests that that was the right way to do it. These Amendments, as I understand it, merely
34
restore the onus to where it was instead of making a change, as the Bill in its present form does. I would therefore support them.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 8, line 16, leave out ("related").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. The court which is enforcing payments under a maintenance order may make, as an alternative to imprisonment, an attachment of earnings order to secure payments under the order. The word "related" is unnecessary; the definite article indicates well enough that the order referred to is that mentioned earlier in the subsection. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 8, line 19, at end insert—
("(4A) The court shall not, except on the application of the debtor, make an attachment of earnings order to secure payments under a maintenance order if it appears to it that the debtor's failure to make payments in accordance with the maintenance order is not due to his wilful refusal or culpable neglect.")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that I dealt with this Amendment when moving Nos. 11 and 12. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 8, line 23, leave out ("Part I of").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships may remember that I mentioned this Amendment in dealing with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.57 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE of CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 9, line 6, at end insert—
("() Where an application is made to a county court for an attachment of earnings order to secure the payment of a judgment debt, and another attachment of earnings order has already been made in respect of the debtor, under any of the provisions of section 7 of this Act, and has not been discharged, the court shall consider whether it shall exercise its powers under subsection (8) above.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I make another attempt—and this time it seems to me to be the mildest of attempts that could possibly be made—to deal with the question of multiple attachment of earnings orders. I do not wish for a moment to reiterate all the arguments that went on at the Committee stage about the difficulties that could arise when there is more than one attachment of earnings order made against the same debtor. The difficulties are not only those of the employer of that debtor; they also affect the creditors, or the other people who are due money for one reason or another, in that their orders of precedence get changed from time to time under the provisions of Schedule 4 if somebody with priority gets a further attachment of earnings order after them.
The noble and learned Lord, in answer to one of my Amendments on the Committee stage, said that he thought it very likely, if there was more than one attachment of earnings order, that the county court would make an administration order. That, of course, has the great advantage of not only dealing with attachment of earnings orders which have already been made, but of collecting all the information about any other debts the man may have. It allows the registrar to administer any funds into which he comes by means of a single attachment of earnings order, which can follow it, to pay off the creditors and other persons pro rata and, I think, in priority if necessary. This is an admirable arrangement, and is one which I very much hope will come into force.
Under subsection (8) of Clause 8 the court is now given power to make an administration order of its own volition as it thinks fit. I thought that it was possibly worth going a little further with this, because I can well understand that there may be cases where the county court would not think it necessary to make an administration order for a case where there are just two attachment of earnings orders. But the moment there are more than that I should have thought they really ought to have the duty imposed upon them to consider this, and I think they probably ought to consider it even if there are only two, if the employer, in order to comply with the attachment of earnings order that has
36
already been made, and the one which is now being dealt with by the county court, is going to have to send money to different places.
One of the main things that appears in this Bill is that there are two sources of attachment of earnings orders. There will be the county court—and this will practically always be the same court, because as I understand it all these matters are going to"home"on the county court for the area in which the debtor lives. But there will also be magistrates' courts concerned, and these could be placed anywhere in England and Wales. I am not sure there could not be attachment of earnings orders from other parts of the British Isles as well, but I leave that aside for the moment. Any magistrates' court in England and Wales can make one of these orders, and the employer is then going to have to deal, not only with the home county court, but possibly with one or more magistrates' courts in other parts of the British Isles. This could affect, I suppose, fines or driving penalties and matters of that kind, if they are not paid.
There are particular people—and I make no disparaging references about them in general—whose jobs require them to move about. One thinks instantly of people in the building trades and of civil engineers, and those who work in that industry, of course, must go and do their work wherever the building job is to be found. If they get into trouble, then they will be fined or they will have orders made in the magistrates' court wherever it is they happen to be at the time. And still the employer, if he is going to comply with the attachment of earnings order, is going to have to send 5s. to Durham and 7s. 6d. to Cornwall and another 2s. 6d.—because that is all there is left above protected earnings—to Merioneth. After all that has been done, he is going to have to deal, under Schedule 4, with a county court attachment of earnings order for 7s. 6d. a week, or something of that sort. Without in any way wishing—and I do not—to protect the employers in difficulties over matters of this kind, I should have thought that these were cases of the kind where the county court ought to think of an administration order. Orders can be discharged, of course, the moment they no longer need to run.
I should have hoped that the noble and learned Lord would at any rate go so far to accept that what is really no more than advice should, as I propose, be given to the county court; that this is a useful process which is going to clear up debt, and not only debt within the jurisdiction of the county court but also other debts or costs or fines, or whatever they may be, before magistrates' courts and quarter session now; and that the courts ought to take advantage of their new jurisdiction to try to bring the whole matter together in the simplified form, where there can be no doubt that the registrar will get the priorities right and people will get their money paid in the proper order. And, incidentally, of course, anybody else who has not been bright enough to prove a judgment debt and get an attachment of earnings order on his own account will be brought in, too, and will not be deferred behind some less meritorious civil creditor.
If the noble and learned Lord does not like my drafting, this is nothing new and I am not particularly proud of it. I hope, however, that he will be able to say that he will look at this matter with some favour. If he does not want this provision in the Bill, perhaps he can deal with it administratively. But I hope he can reinforce what he said on the Committee stage about this administration order power, in order to simplify the whole procedure and the whole workability of this very important new change which we now have. My Lords, I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the object of this Amendment. One is anxious to lessen, so far as possible, the burden on employers of orders of this kind, and I hope that where there are more than one, and certainly where there are a number of debts, an administration order will be made. I agree with the noble Viscount. Of course it is unusual, where a court has a power, to put into an Act of Parliament a direction that it must consider in every case using that power. But this power to make administration orders has been little used, and we want to encourage its use. I think that in the circumstances of the case it is justified.
38
Therefore, I would accept the proposal, subject only to this: that I think there must be some redrafting of the Amendment because one cannot literally do it in every case. There are very few exceptions; but, for example, where the first debt is a maintenance and the second is an ordinary debt, maintenance is not provable as a debt; it does not constitute a provable debt for the purposes of the administration order. So a case of that kind would have to be excluded. But I agree with the Amendment in principle, and if the noble Viscount in prepared to withdraw his Amendment at this stage I hope to produce or to discuss with him a privilege draft for the Third Reading. I have no doubt it can be done, and that in principle it is right.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to the noble and learned Lord. This is a most pleasant surprise, and I hope this proposal is something which really will be as useful as I think both he and I believe it will be. I understand entirely about the drafting, and if a maintenance order cannot be included—it is of course a running matter and it will go on for as long as the wife remains unmarried or some other reason crops up for it to be stopped—let us at any rate (I do not know whether this is possible) ensure that magistrates' courts' fines and things of that kind are brought in. I believe that there are futher merits in dealing with the matter in this way: the county courts will have to be told by the magistrates' courts what are the fines imposed if an attachment of earnings order has followed nonpayment of them. So we shall add to the reliability of the register that the county court is keeping. I see no reason why those priority debts should not be included in the administration order, unless of course the County Courts Act does not allow it. At any rate, I hope this will be something which brings progress in this matter. I am delighted to beg leave to withdraw this Amendment now, and I look forward to discussions with the noble and learned Lord upon it between now and the Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Effect and contents of order]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, Clause 9(7) designates who shall be the collecting officer in the various

39
courts for the purposes of an attachment of earnings order. It may be that after the order has been made it would be more convenient—because, for example, the beneficiary has moved to a different area—for the collecting officer to be the clerk of the magistrates' court in that area. For the avoidance of doubt this Amendment makes it clear that the initial nomination of a collecting officer can be changed and that the general power to vary an attachment of earnings order under Clause 12 extends to a variation of the order in this respect. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 9, at end insert ("(subject to later variation of the order under section 12 of this Act)")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendments Nos. 18 and 19:
Page 10, line 16, at end insert ("the clerk either of that court or of another magistrates' court specified in the order").
Page 10, leave out lines 17 to 21.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, if no noble Lord objects, I will move Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 together. These are linked and drafting Amendments. It is intended that when a magistrates' court makes an attachment of earnings order the collecting officer should either be the clerk of the court making the order or the clerk of another magistrates' court. The court will specify the clerk of another court where, for example, payments under a maintenance order are already being paid to the clerk of another court by virtue of an order under Section 52(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952. In such a case the first part of subsection (7)(c), as drafted, would not achieve this object, because payment is required to be made to another court, not by the relevant adjudication (that is, the maintenance order), but by the order under Section 52(1) of the 1952 Act. These Amendments remove this difficulty and at the same time simplify the subsection. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 10 [Compliance with order by employer]:
4.9 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendments Nos. 20 and 21:
Page 10, line 38, at end insert ("or such other sum as may be prescribed by order made by the Lord Chancellor").
Page 10, line 45, at end insert—
("(5) An order of the Lord Chancellor under subsection (4)(a) above—

(a) may prescribe different sums in relation to different classes of cases;

(b) may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order made under that paragraph: and

(c) shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, if no noble Lord objects, I will move Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 together. The object of the first of these Amendments is to enable the Lord Chancellor to raise by order the sum of one shilling which, under Clause 10(4) of the Bill, the employer is entitled to retain for himself out of the balance of the debtor's earnings every time he makes a deduction in compliance with an attachment of earnings order. The sum of one shilling is intended as a payment towards the employer's clerical and administrative costs.
It has been suggested that it is insufficient to cover the expense which an employer may incur in making arrangements to start and continue the deductions in accordance with the order. Under section 13(3) of the Maintenance Orders Act 1958, however, the sum which an employer is entitled to retain when he makes a deduction from the debtor's wages is only sixpence. The Payne Committee did not recommend that there should be any change in this sum when attachment of earnings becomes available for the recovery of ordinary civil debts. They said, in paragraph 606 of their Report:
"In view of the fact that employers are already used to dealing with deductions for income tax and national insurance without payment, we have concluded on balance that the employer should continue to deduct 6d. from each payment as at least a contribution to postage and incidental expenses."
Nevertheless, the Bill takes account of the fall in the value of money since 1958 by doubling the sum of sixpence and allowing the employer to retain one shilling every time he makes a deduction from the debtor's wages, even if he is allowed, under Clause 9(1)(b), to pay the money into court at less frequent intervals.
The first Amendment recognises that in the event of a further fall in the value

41
of money or similar occurrence it may become desirable in the future to raise the sum of one shilling, and it enables the Lord Chancellor to do this from time to time by order. The second Amendment enables such an order to prescribe different sums in relation to different classes of cases. It might, for example, be thought appropriate to allow the employer to retain a larger sum where, so to speak, the traffic would bear it. If a judgment debt of, say, £100 fell to be satisfied by deduction of £4 a week from the debtor's wages, there might be sufficient justification for allowing the employer to retain more than in the case of a judgment debt of £10 to be satisfied by deductions of 10s. a week. The second Amendment also enables an order to be varied or revoked by a subsequent order and makes it subject to the Negative Resolution procedure.
My Lords, when I saw representatives of the Confederation of British Industry they said (and one can understand it) that they took a rather different view about assisting in the collection of tax for the Government, charging only something very nominal, and on the other hand doing work for creditors in collecting their debts. Secondly, they said something which I myself have always thought; and that is that, with the changes in the value of money, I believe that nearly every sum of money mentioned in an Act of Parliament ought to be capable of being varied by order. Otherwise, the years go on and on; some sum of money becomes quite inappropriate, and there are difficulties in finding legislative time for a change. The C.B.I. representatives also pointed out—I think fairly enough— that until this started it was rather difficult for them to provide costings showing what work this provision did impose on them financially. For all those reasons this seemed to be a sensible course to take, and I hope that your Lordships will approve of it. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I am extremely glad that the noble and learned Lord is proposing this change. In my view, it would not have been right—and indeed the Government have not sought to do so—to shelter behind paragraph 606 of the Payne Report: because one has only to look on the other side of the page, at paragraph
42
609, to see that the Committee are there saying that it would be intolerable for any employer to have to comply with more than one attachment of earnings order for any particular employee, and that their scheme, taken as a whole, involves the enforcement office consolidating all these things so that no employer ever has to deal with more than one. Now it is plain, for reasons which we have argued at least once, if not twice, that there is at any rate a risk of an employer having to deal with more than one order, and of course there are all these other points which the noble and learned Lord has made and with which I entirely agree.
The only footnote I would add to what he has said is to consider whether the cases in which the noble and learned Lord is taking power to change the amount of one shilling, which at the present moment is in the Bill, might not include cases where there are multiple orders being paid at the same time. It may be all right if the employer knows that the complete amount of unprotected earnings that he is going to deduct in the course of a week has to be set on some priority, and an old attachment of earnings order for a civil debt simply goes into suspense until the magistrates' fine, or whatever it is, is paid off. But where the employer has to do little bits to one and little bits to another, then I think he is entitled to a larger sum and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will in fact introduce words to bring this into effect from the very beginning.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 11 [Interrelation with alternative remedies open to creditor]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 22.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 16, leave out (" (c) or id) ") and insert (" or (c)")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Power of court to determine whether particular payments are earnings.]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 14, line 35, leave out from ("secure") to end of line 39 and insert ("payments under a magistrates' court maintenance order, the collecting officer")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. The clerk of a magistrates' court who is specified as the collecting officer with respect to an attachment of earnings order made to secure maintenance payments will be able, on the request of the beneficiary under the related order, to apply for the court to decide whether particular payments are earnings. Where an attachment of earnings has been made, the clerk specified in an order under Section 52(1) of the 1952 Act or Section 19(2) of the Maintenance Orders Act 1950 to receive payments under the related maintenance order will, by virtue of Clause 9(7)(c) of the Bill, be the collecting officer for the attachment of earnings order. It is simpler to refer to him as such, as the Amendment does. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Enforcement provisions.]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is put down simply to correct a drafting error. Clause 18(2)(b) makes it an offence for a person served with an attachment of earnings order to fail to give notice to the court if the debtor is not in his employment or subsequently ceases to be in his employment. Clause 18(4)(b) provides that it shall be a defence for the person charged with such an offence to prove that he did not know, and could not reasonably be expected to know—and I quote from the clause as it is now— "that the debtor was in his employment". Obviously the Bill ought to read "was not in his employment", and the Amendment accordingly provides for the insertion of the word "not". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 4, after ("was") insert ("not").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.18 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 25:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
Power of Court to restrain or avoid transactions intended to defeat certain claims
".—(1) Where—

(a) the High Court or a county court is empowered by this Part of this Act to
44
make an attachment of earnings order and it appears to the court that the debtor has no or insufficient earnings to secure the payment required by the relevant adjudication; or

(b) a county court has jurisdiction under section 5(6) of this Act to commit to prison a person who makes default in payment of a debt or instalment of a debt; and

(c) in either case it appears to the court that the debtor or person is or has been in possession or the owner of any property,

the court may, without prejudice to its power to make any other order in addition under any other enactment or under law, make an order under subsection (2) below.
(2)—(a) If it is satisfied that the debtor or person, with the intention of defeating the claim before the court, is about to make any disposition of or transfer out of the jurisdiction or otherwise deal with any such property, make such order as it thinks fit restraining him from so doing or otherwise for protecting the claim; or
(b) if it is satisfied that the debtor or person, with the intention aforesaid, has made a disposition to which this paragraph applies make an order setting aside the disposition and give such consequential directions as it thinks fit.
(3) An application for an order under subsection (2) above may be made in the proceedings for the relevant adjudication or for the enforcement of the debt or at any other time—

(a) in the circumstances described in subsection (l)(a) above after the relevant adjudication; and

(b) in the circumstances described in subsection (1)(b) above after the person makes default in payment of the debt or any instalment of the debt.

(4) Paragraph (b) of subsection (2) above applies to any disposition made by the debtor or person up to one year before the date of the order made under that paragraph, not being a disposition made for valuable consideration (other than marriage) to a person who, at the time of the disposition, acted in relation to it in good faith and without notice of any such intention as aforesaid on the part of the debtor or person making the disposition.
(5) Rules of court may make provision for—

(a) the making of applications under this section;

(b) ensuring that the court may compel the attendance of the debtor or person at the court before the order is made against him;

(c) giving power to the court to discharge any order made under this section.

(6) In this section—

(a) "the relevant adjudication "and" the debtor" have the meanings assigned to them by section 7(5) of this Act; and

(b)"disposition" does not include any provision contained in a will or codicil but, with that exception, includes any conveyance, assurance or gift of property of any description whether made by instrument or otherwise."

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it is, at any rate, some comfort to me to know that the noble and learned Lord has not a monopoly of complicated new clauses. I apologise for this one. The difference, of course, between our new clauses is that those proposed by the noble and learned Lord are always correctly drafted, whereas mine are invariably full of major drafting howlers. At any rate, I hope that the purport of what I have put down may be clear to those who have thought fit to read it.
Noble Lords may remember that on the Committee stage of the Bill I raised a point on the Question, Whether the clause should stand part of the Bill, about the self-employed and those to whom attachment of earnings orders cannot be applied because they do not have any earnings as set out and defined in Clause 19. Some of my friends who are self-employed came to me afterwards and said that that was a very anti-social thing to do. Nevertheless, I think it is a matter that Parliament ought to attend to, and the noble and learned Lord admitted, in answer to that point, that there was not anything that could be done—I think he meant under this Bill as it is drafted— about the self-employed. Of course there are things which can be done about them, and my new clause is a suggestion about powers that one might think it right to give the court. I do not in any way claim that this is the right way to do it, but I think it is essential that one should put forward something constructive, rather than merely complain that the Bill does nothing about the self-employed.
The situation is that inevitably there will be people who run up debts and do not pay them, and who have not got any earnings. One has to look at the armoury that the courts have at the present moment to deal with these people, and the remedies available to the creditors. There are two matters which seem to me to be worthy of consideration. One of them arises in the Payne Report itself, in the recommendations summarised in paragraph 1260. It has to do with the prevention of debtors from disposing of the object of the debt after in order has been made, without the court's having any power to prevent them from doing it. For example, a person may buy jewellery but does not pay. He then buys an airline ticket to some faraway place,
46
and there is the very strong supposition that the jewellery is in his pocket. The court has little power to deal with it.
Moreover, I think that there must be cases, and indeed paragraph 677 really recognises this fact, where when it comes to execution and the bailiffs arrive and say, "We will take that sideboard and this set of chairs"—it being the husband's debt—the wife says, "You cannot do that. They are mine". As I understand it, the bailiffs cannot go further; if a claim is made by a wife or daughter or son, execution cannot be levied on those goods. I have no doubt that on occasion the claim is completely bogus. The Payne Committee Report agree that spurious but superficially unimpeachable claims are made by somebody who lives in the house, other than the debtor, to the goods intended to be seized. It occurred to me that if one combined, the recommendations of the Payne Committee in paragraph 1260—or some of them; some could be dealt with by rules of court, as I have suggested in the Amendment— with the type of provision which is found in the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Bill, and indeed it occurs in bankruptcy, too, whereby the court can set aside what is plainly almost a fraudulent disposition of the property made in order specifically to avoid paying the debt, then we should have gone some way to deal with these difficulties.
There are garnishee proceedings, but they are difficult and complicated. I do not know whether those might be better, but when I looked at them I found they were so complicated that I did not think I could draft Amendments on them at all. This, I thought, was something that I could just tackle, and I have used bits of the machinery of the Bill we have just sent to another place; but I have left some of those provisions out, because it seems to me that, for instance, one ought not to make the presumption, as occurs under that Bill, that a disposition has been made fraudulently; one should make the creditor prove it before the court would avoid the disposition.
Nevertheless, whether the noble and learned Lord likes this or not, this seems to me to be an opportunity when I could ask him to tell us a little more about how the Government's mind is moving on those parts of the Payne Committee Report which make recommendations to deal with people who are not going to be

47
caught by attachment of earnings. I shall not leave the Chamber in floods of tears if this Amendment is not accepted or if neither of the suggestions in it is pursued at all, but I do believe that with a change of this importance, when the final sanction of imprisonment is being taken away and nothing put in its place for those people not in receipt of earnings, except the old matters of execution, which have their difficulties, and garnishee proceedings which are not being simplified, we must, as a responsible House of Parliament, consider a little further whether we are not leaving a large loophole in the law.
I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord has any ideas, whether anything can be done under this Bill or under administrative procedures or rules or anything else, whereby we can make things less easy for those not caught by attachment of earnings orders to get away with it, now that there is no longer a threat of imprisonment. There may not be very many; nevertheless, there is the reprieve from the existing threat and nothing put in its place. I do not put the matter any more seriously than that; but I have set out a possible scheme whereby something could be done. I should like to know the noble and learned Lord's reactions, but much more whether he has his own constructive suggestions to accompany this Bill and make it a more complete system. I beg to move.
4.25 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy with the noble Viscount's views. We both agreed at an earlier stage of the Bill that the abolition of imprisonment for debt and substitution of attachment of earnings was probably going to be less effective in relation to the self employed. We had in mind, I think, a particular kind of self employed, because as one who has been self employed nearly all his life I hope it will not be thought that because people are self employed they are necessarily dishonest. All we meant, I think, is that type of self employed person whose dealings are nearly all in cash and it is very difficult to find out what his earnings are and what he has done with his money. I do not feel that effective steps can be taken, or that this proposed Amendment is really right, or that we are likely to be able to do more
48
until we get the enforcement office. There are some five reasons for this, the first of which is that the Payne Committee's recommendations were not directed specifically to self-employed debtors. There is no grounds for supposing that self-employed debtors are more prone than other debtors to make dispositions of their property with intent to defeat their creditors, or that the proposed powers would provide an effective method of recovering judgment debts from self-employed persons. The main difficulty really is that they trade on a cash basis.
Secondly, while Clause 16 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Bill provides for disposition in certain cases being annulled, it is not a true analogy. A wife has a prima facie right to be maintained by her husband, and her husband should not be able to defeat this right by disposing of his property. An ordinary civil creditor is in a different position. Although he has obtained judgment for his debt he may have a less meritorious claim than a person to whom the debtor has disposed, or is about to dispose, of his property. He may, for example, have put pressure on the debtor to buy goods which he could not really afford. It is true that the making of an order would be discretionary, but the court might have difficulty in refusing an order where the conditions specified in the new clause were satisfied.
Thirdly, the new clause goes beyond the recommendations of the Payne Committee, since they did not propose that there should be any power to set aside a disposition already made. Such a power already exists in Section 172 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (re-enacting the old Statute of Elizabeth I) which provides that every voluntary conveyance of property made with intent to defraud creditors shall be voidable at the instance of any person thereby prejudiced, and also in various sections of the Bankruptcy Act 1914 dealing with the avoidance of voluntary dispositions. The Payne Committee did not propose that there should be any additional power, for example, to levy execution against a husband on goods claimed by his wife (paragraph 677 of the Report).
Fourthly, the Payne Committee clearly envisaged that the power to restrain the debtor from disposing of his property or

49
otherwise to control his assets should be exercised under the auspices of the enforcement office. Thus, although an order might be obtained on the application of an individual creditor, the benefit would ensue to all creditors seeking to obtain, through the enforcement office, satisfaction of their judgments against the debtor. It would be premature, therefore, to introduce a clause on the lines of that proposed at the present stage of the Implementation of the Payne Committee's recommendation;.
Lastly, there are already several ways in which a judgment creditor may effectively prevent the debtor from disposing of his assets with intent to defeat the creditor's claim. If the assets consist of land or stocks and shares, the creditor may obtain a charge on them, whether he obtained his judgment in the High Court or a county court. If the assets consist of chattels, he can issue execution against the debtor's goods and then the writ or warrant will bind the property in the goods of the debtor as from the time when the writ or warrant is delivered to the sheriff or bailiff—that is, pursuant to Section 26 of the Sale of Goods Act 1893. If a third party claims any of the goods, the issue can be determined by interpleader proceedings. The Payne Committee recommended (in paragraph 705) that, to help in reducing the number of spurious claims, a claimant should be required to support his claim by affidavit. This recommendation can be carried out by rule without legislation. Where the debtor has debts owing to him, they can be attached by garnishee proceedings. Some minor changes in procedure recommended by the Payne Committee in this connection (paragraph 727) could also be carried out by rule.
It seems clear, therefore, that the Amendment would do little to provide an effective new remedy against the self-employed debtor. Any proposal to impose further controls on the assets of debtors generally ought, I suggest, to be deferred until a later stage in the implementation of the Payne Committee's recommendations. The nature of the powers to be conferred on the court will require much closer consideration than has been possible since the publication of the Committee's Report. In particular, account will have to be taken of their impact on the law of bankruptcy,
50
especially as in many cases bankruptcy may afford a more effective remedy than piecemeal control of the debtor's assets. Therefore, while I sympathise with the noble Viscount's intention in putting down this Amendment, I hope that he will not press it to a Division for the reasons which I have ventured to give.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: No, my Lords, of course I shall not press it to a Division, because it was intended to be a probing matter. The noble and learned Lord mentioned two of the Payne Committee's recommendations, I think Nos. 707 and 727, which can be carried out administratively. I cannot remember the first reference, but at any rate it was in regard to the necessity for an affidavit for a third party to claim the goods upon which execution is sought to be raised in interpleader actions. Then, of course, one has the changes in garnishee procedure. On the face of them, these are tied up with the enforcement office. Is the noble and learned Lord saying that he will be able to introduce these changes in rules as soon as we get this Bill into force of law, or shall we have to wait even for Recommendation 727 before we have any rules made? Are we going to have to wait for the enforcement office before we have any rules under Recommendation No. 727? I hope that we can at least have these two rule-making matters dealt with, even if we do not have an enforcement office. I think it is useful to have set out the list of remedies that the creditor has in these cases. I expect that all practitioners know about them except me. At any rate, it is enlightening for me to know the range of remedies. Could the noble and learned Lord tell me whether he propones or intends to make these rules?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, there are a good many recommendations which could be carried out by rule, but I have not come to any conclusion about that yet. I have not considered them because this Bill will have to become law first. I have not yet considered how far they will be dependent on the enforcement office.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, before withdrawing this Amendment all I ask is that the noble

51
and learned Lord will give special consideration to the making of these rules which are going to make it a little less complicated and difficult for people to get back their just debts from people who cannot be attached in regard to their earnings. This, I think, is the whole point of the discussion which has taken place on this Amendment. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will give special consideration to that matter. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 [Other provisions for interpretation of Part II]:
4.34 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 20, line 8, at end insert—
("(5) This Part of this Act, so far as it relates to magistrates' courts, and Part III of the Act of 1952 shall be construed as if this Part were contained in that Part.")
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a technical Amendment. Part III of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 relates to the enforcement of sums adjudged to be paid by magistrates' courts, and the Amendment will enable the attachment of earnings provisions to operate in the case of fines, the enforcement of which has been transferred from one court to another under the provisions set out in Part III of the 1952 Act.
Without for a moment criticising anybody, this is not my favourite Amendment. In the form in which it is, it reads:
"This Part of this Act, so far as it relates to magistrates' courts, and Part III of the Act of 1952 shall be construed as if this Part were contained in that Part."
I am told that it is in that form because it will facilitate the consolidation of the Magistrates' Courts Acts, which is needed and which I know the noble Viscount has already referred to.
Before I move this Amendment formally, as this is the last Amendment to Part II may I give notice of a further Amendment to be moved on Third Reading of the Bill. In relation to Part II, my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead wanted at some stage in the Bill to include a provision against harass-
52
ment as generally recommended by the Payne Committee. We know that this is a real evil, and I have said that if a practical Amendment could be worked out I should be happy to support it. Steps have been taken in this regard and there are in existence drafts. We are not yet satisfied with them but I hope to have one with which I may be satisfied by the Third Reading. I thought I should say that before leaving this Part of the Bill on the Report stage. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 [County court to have exclusive jurisdiction to hear action by mortgagee for possession of dwelling-house in certain cases]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 24, line 3, at end insert—
("(3) Nothing in this section shall be taken as affecting the jurisdiction of any court to hear and determine an action which is pending in that court at the date on which this section comes into force.")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Clause 29 gives the county court exclusive jurisdiction to hear an action by a mortgagee for possession of a dwelling-house where the property is situated outside Greater London and the action is within the jurisdiction of the county court; that is, where the net annual value of the property for rating does not exceed £400. The Amendment merely provides that this conferment of exclusive jurisdiction shall not affect the jurisdiction of any court to continue to hear a case pending at the date on which the section comes into force. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 32 [Procedure for recovery of criminal costs]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 28:
Leave out Clause 32 and insert the following new clause:
Recovery of costs and compensation awarded by magistrates, assizes, quarter sessions, etc.
".—(1) In the cases specified in Part I of Schedule (Enforcement of orders for costs, compensation, etc.) to this Act (being cases where, in criminal proceedings, a court makes an order against the accused for the payment of costs, compensation, etc.) any sum

53
required to be paid by such an order as is there mentioned shall be treated, for the purposes of collection and enforcement, as if it had been adjudged to be paid on a conviction by a magistrates' court, being—

(a)where the order is made by a magisstrates' court, that court; and

(b)in any other case, such magistrates' court as may be specified in the order.

(2) In the cases specified in Part II of the said Schedule (being cases where a court makes an order against the prosecutor in criminal proceedings, and certain eases where an order for costs arises out of an appeal to quarter sessions in proceedings which are not criminal) any sum required to be paid by such an order as is there mentioned shall be enforceable as a sum adjudged to be paid summarily as a civil debt.
(3) Without prejudice to the foregoing subsections, but subject to subsection (4) below, in the casts specified in Schedule (Enforcement of orders for costs, compensation, etc.) to this Act any sum required to be paid by such an order as is there mentioned shall be enforceable by the High Court or a county court (otherwise than by issue of a writ of fieri facias or other process against goods or by imprisonment or attachment of earnings) as if the sum were due in pursuance of a judgment or order of the High Court or county court, as the case may be.
(4) Subsection (3) above shall not authorize the enforcement by a county court of payment of any sum exceeding the limit for the time being in force under section 40 of the County Courts Act 1959 on the amount of any penalty recoverable by statute in a county court.
(5) In the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952—

(a)in section 72(1) (transfer of fine order in England and Wales) and in section 72A(1)(the same as between England and Scotland), for the words from the beginning to "the offender" there shall be substituted in each case the words "Where a magistrates' court has, or is treated by any enactment as having, adjudged a person by a conviction to pay a sum and it appears to the court that the person"; and

(b) in section 72(2) (enforcement functions or transfer of fine in England and Wales), for the words "the convicting court" there shall be substituted the words"the court which made the order ".

(6) In section 32(2) of the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act 1968 (enforcement of order for costs against unsuccessful appellant or applicant for leave to appeal to that court) for paragraph (a) there shall be substituted the following: —
"(a) in the same manner as an order for costs made by the criminal division of the Court of Appeal under section 25 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968; or"."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I dealt with this Amendment when speaking to Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
Clause 37 [Deputy county court registrar not to act as such in certain circumstances]:
4.38 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendments Nos. 29 and 30:
Page 28, line 34, leave out ("29(1)") and insert ("29").
Page 28, line 38, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 44 and insert (" have effect, and be deemed always to have had effect, as if after subsection (1) thereof there were inserted—
"(1A) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to a deputy registrar, but a deputy registrar shall not act as such in relation to any proceedings in which he is, either by himself or his partner, directly or indirectly engaged as a solicitor or agent for any party." ")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, may I move these two Amendments together. Their object is to make Clause 37 retrospective. Section 29(1) of the County Courts Act provides that no officer of a county court shall be engaged as a solicitor or agent for any party to any proceedings in that court. Subsection (2) makes contravention of the section punishable on summary conviction, with a fine not exceeding £50.
Clause 37(1) of the Bill provides that Section 29(1) shall cease to apply to a deputy registrar, but prohibits the deputy registrar from acting as such in relation to proceedings in which he is engaged as a solicitor for any party to the proceedings. Subsection (2) makes contravention of this new provision punishable like an offence under Section 29(1), with a fine not exceeding £50. Deputy registrars are appointed to act in the unavoidable absence (through illness or otherwise) of county court registrars. They are normally appointed by the registrar for whom they are to act, with the approval of the judge of the court, and must be solicitors of at least seven years' standing.
A deputy registrar may sit as such only occasionally, and for obvious reasons it is very difficult to find solicitors with suitable experience who are prepared to give up all county court work for themselves and their firms, as appears to be required by the section as it now stands. For many years, therefore, it has been found impossible strictly to enforce Section 29(1). Clause 37 brings the law into line with the prevailing practice,

55
which is to prevent deputy county court registrars, like deputy district registrars, from carrying out their official duties in relation to cases in which they or their partners have been engaged as solicitors. The publication of the Bill has, however, drawn attention to the width of the prohibition contained in Section 29(1). There is a danger that a disgruntled litigant may try to prosecute a deputy registrar for having contravened the section even though the deputy registrar has never acted as such in proceedings in which he has been engaged as a solicitor. In these circumstances solicitors may be reluctant to act as deputy registrars until the Bill becomes law. This could lead to much inconvenience and delay at times when the registrar is unavoidably absent.
The draft Amendments accordingly provide that Section 29 shall have effect "and be deemed always to have had effect" as if there were inserted in it a subsection making a deputy registrar liable only if he has acted as such in relation to any proceedings in which he is engaged as a solicitor or agent for any party. The penalty for contravention of this prohibition will be that set out in Section 29(2), and accordingly the reference in the first line of the clause to Section 29(1) is replaced by a reference to the whole of Section 29. Thus the Amendments do no more than ensure that no adverse effect is produced by bringing the law into line with the prevailing practice. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I think that Parliament should look very carefully when giving indemnities, particularly indemnities in respect of criminal proceedings, for something that may already have happened. I listened very carefully to what the noble and learned Lord said, but I do not know whether there are known to him, or to his Department, any specific cases to which this indemnity would apply, or whether this is just a precaution because attention has been drawn to the situation by the proposals in the Bill. If there are any known cases which would be covered by this indemnity, then I think that Parliament ought to know about them before we pass a clause in a Bill which would take away criminal liability for something that has already been done. Can the noble and learned Lord tell us about this?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I believe that there is one disgruntled litigant who is threatening proceedings against a deputy registrar. On the other hand, there would be actually nothing to stop him, because until this Bill receives Royal Assent the law will remain unchanged. So he can take his proceedings now.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
4.44 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 31:
After Clause 37, insert the following new Clause:
Extension of power to make rules, etc. for purposes of Rent Act 1968
". Section 106 of the Rent Act 1968 (which empowers the Lord Chancellor or, when the Great Seal is in commission, any Lord Commissioner to make rules and give directions for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of that Act specified in subsection (3) of that section) shall be amended as follows:

(a) in subsection (1), the words 'Subject to subsection (3) below ' shall be inserted at the beginning and the words ' specified in subsection (3) below' shall be omitted;

(b) for subsection (3) there shall be substituted—

(3) The power conferred by subsection (1) above shall not be exercisable in relation to the provisions of Part IV or VI of this Act other than section 51(2)'."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, before moving Amendment No. 31, and also speaking, if I may, to Amendment No. 49, I should say that I believe there is a mistake in the printing of Amendment No. 31, in that the reference to "the Rent Act" should be to "the Rent Act 1968".
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Yes.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the first Amendment enlarges the powers conferred on the Lord Chancellor by Section 106 of the Rent Act 1968 to make rules for the purposes of giving effect to the provisions of that Act. The Amendment to the Long Title is consequential. The rule-making powers are at present confined to the provisions of the 1968 Act listed in subsection (3) of Section 106 and the Amendments will widen them to cover the whole of the Act except for two Parts which do not contain anything that can give rise to proceedings in the courts.

57
Section 106 is intended to enable the Lord Chancellor to make rules regulating any proceedings in the courts brought under or in connection with the 1968 Act. Although the language used—"for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this Act"—is very general, the powers have been used only to regulate court procedure, and it is intended to continue 1o do so. Proceedings may be brought under, or in connection with, a large number of provisions in Parts I to III, V, and VII to IX. Part IV, which concerns registration of rents under regulated tenancies, cannot give rise to any court proceedings except for a reference to rates apportioned by the county court in Section 51. Apart from Section 51 (which is expressly mentioned in the amended section), Part IV is accordingly excluded from the rulemaking powers; and so is Part VI which relates to furnished lettings. Jurisdiction over these lettings is vested in rent tribunals whose procedure is governed by regulations made by the Minister of Housing under Section 83.
It is clearly convenient that one set of rules should govern all court proceedings under the Act. At present this cannot be achieved because Section 106 applies only to some of the proceedings. The Act of 1968 consolidated the earlier Rent Acts, which did not follow a logical pattern in conferring rulemaking powers on the Lord Chancellor. Such powers were first conferred by Section 17 of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act 1920, supplemented by Section 6 of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act 1939 and attracted by Section 19 of the Rent Act 1957. Broadly speaking, they concern what are now controlled tenancies and all matters relating to them. Corresponding powers were not, however, conferred by the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Act 1933 and the Rent Act 1965. In the latter case there was some reason to think that they had been conferred by the provisions of Section 1 which generally attracted the earlier Rent Acts to all tenancies brought into regulation by the 1965 Act, but a close examination of the terms of this section undertaken in the course of the 1968 consolidation has revealed that the words used do not have the effect of attracting the rulemaking powers.
58
The practical consequences of this partial coverage of Rent Act proceedings by Section 106 are unsatisfactory and confusing. Rules can be made concerning most, though not all, matters concerning controlled tenancies; they cannot be made concerning any matters affecting regulated tenancies. Controlled tenancies are those of premise having a rateable value not exceeding £40 in London, or £30 elsewhere, which have subsisted since 1957, while regulated tenancies are all other residential tenancies of properties having a rateable value of up to £400, in London, or £200 elsewhere. The codes governing the continuation, termination and renewal of these two types of tenancies are largely identical except for the level of rents payable and the methods of ascertaining them. For example, in relation to controlled tenancies questions on apportionment of rates or rateable values, on amounts due for services or furniture, and on succession to protection on the death of a tenant are covered by Section 106; identical issues arising on regulated tenancies are not. Apart from the distinction between controlled and regulated tenancies there are also other shortcomings—for example, the recovery of overpaid rent under Sections 33 and 62 of the 1968 Act falls within Section 106, while, under Section 91, proceedings for the recovery of rent paid unlawfully in advance do not. The Amendment will remedy all these defects and enable rules to be made regulating all court proceedings under the 1968 Act.
Rules made under powers conferred by the sections which Section 106 consolidates are still in force, preserved by transitional provisions in the 1968 Act. They are the Rent Restriction Rules 1957. The Rules are now out of date and need to be updated, but it would not be satisfactory to make further rules covering only part of the Rent Act proceedings. The result would be most confusing for the courts and for the legal professions. A revision of the rules must therefore await enactment of the new clause. It is intended to bring these up to date, with adaptations and references appropriate to the 1968 Act, as soon as the new clause comes into force. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am sorry to be asking so many questions, but the Rent Act 1968

59
was of course a consolidation measure— and about time, too—and nobody could possibly be blamed for having failed to spot anomalies in the mass of legislation which it put together and cleared up. I imagine that this is almost something that could have been done by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills had it been produced by the noble and learned Lord's Department as one of the changes to be made under the relevant Statute; but it was not. The only thing that worries me is who is this very curious person who is allowed to make the rules, as well as the noble and learned Lord himself. Who is the Lord Commissioner "when the Great Seal is in commission", and what sort of rules does he make? Does he do it with the rule-making Committee and the noble and learned Lord together, or does he go away and make some entirely separate rules? It seems to me possible that this is an out-of-date procedure which was retained simply because there was a Consolidation Bill producing the 1968 Rent Act, and that this is something which, if we are going to amend the Act, we ought to bring up to date. I certainly do not understand the procedure. It is ignorance on my part, but as we have a chance of changing this I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord can justify continuation of this odd and unusual power.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sorry to say that this is something which I do not know and I shall have to write to the noble Viscount. As he knows, I cannot go abroad and take the Great Seal with me and I cannot leave it here unless it can be applied. Therefore, whenever I go out of the country Lords Commissioners have to be appointed as Commissioners of the Great Seal. I took it that this was one of the Lords Commissioners, but what provision this came from, I am not sure. I should be interested myself to know, and I will certainly ascertain it and write to the noble Viscount.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Amendment of enactments consequential on Section 1]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendments Nos. 32 to 36:
Page 31, line 46, leave out ("senior") and insert ("principal")
Page 33, leave out line 5.
Page 34, line 43, leave out ("senior") and insert (" principal ")
Page 35, line 2, leave out from (" (1)") to (" and ") in line 5 and insert (" for the words from "senior" to"principal probate registrar ", where last occurring, substitute the words "principal registrar of the Family Division and, subject to the provisions of this section, if that registrar"")
Page 35, line 6, leave out ("senior") and insert ("principal").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships may remember that I spoke to Amendments Nos. 32 to 36 when dealing with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Debts subject to special enforcement provisions in Part II]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 36, leave out lines 35 to 43 and lines 1 to 17 on page 37.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships may remember that I spoke to this Amendment when moving Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Deductions by employer under attachment of earnings order]:
4.52 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 39, line 14, leave out from ("is") to end of line 16 and insert ("made to secure the payment of a judgment debt or payments under an administration order as if the earnings to which it relates were the residue of the debtor's earnings after the making of any deduction to comply with an order having priority by virtue of sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph; and
(c) if there are two or more orders to which subparagraph (b) of this paragraph applies, comply with paragraph 7 above in respect of those orders.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to make it clear how an employer is to deal with two attachment of earnings orders against the same debtor where one is to secure the payment of maintenance (or some other liability which has priority) and the other is to secure payment of a judgment debt or payments

61
under an administration order. As it stands, paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 provides that the employer shall deal first with the order in respect of maintenance and deal thereafter with the order in respect of a judgment debt. If the orders specified different protected earnings rates and normal deduction rates, there might be some doubt as to what was meant by the words "deal there-after" with the order in respect of a judgment debt. The effect of the Amendment is to require the employer to deal with this order as if the earnings to which it relates were the residue of the debtors earnings after making any deduction to comply with the order in respect of maintenance. This is the way in which an employer would be required to deal with the second of two orders if they were both in respect of maintenance or both in respect of judgment debts. The Amendment does not, therefore, introduce any new principle to complicate the employer's task. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I still think it is going to be very difficult, even with that clarification. But noble Lords know my views about Schedule 4, and I hope that it will never be used.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendments Nos. 39 and 40:
After Schedule 7, insert the following new schedule.

ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS FOR COSTS, COMPENSATION ETC.
  PART I

    CASES WHERE PAYMENT RECOVERABLE AS ON SUMMARY CONVICTION
    Costs awarded by magistrates
    1. Where a magistrates' court, on the summary trial of an information, makes an order as to costs to be paid by the accused to the prosecutor.
    2. Where an appellant to quarter sessions against conviction or sentence by a magistrates' court abandons his appeal and the magistrates' court orders him to pay costs to the other party to the appeal.
    Costs awarded by assizes and quarter sessions
    3. Where a person appeals to quarter sessions against conviction or sentence by a magistrates' court, and quarter sessions makes an order as to costs to be paid by him.
    (4) Where a person is prosecuted or tried on indictment or inquisition before a court of assize or quarter sessions and is convicted, and the court orders him to pay the whole or part of the costs incurred in or about the prosecution and conviction.
    (5) Where the accused is ordered by quarter sessions to pay costs, under powers exercisable by virtue of section 14 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1952 (committal to quarter sessions for sentence and other purposes; appeal under Vagrancy Act 1824).
    Costs awarded by Court of Appeal (criminal division) or House of Lords
    (6) Where the criminal division of the Court of Appeal dismisses an appeal or application for leave to appeal and orders the appellant or applicant to pay the whole or part of the costs of the appeal or application.
    (7) Where the criminal division of the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords dismisses an application for leave to appeal to that House (being an application made by the person who was the appellant before the criminal division) and orders him to pay the whole or part of the costs of the application.
    Criminal costs awarded by High Court
    8. Where a person is tiled at bar in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court and is convicted, and the High Court orders him to pay the whole or part of the costs incurred in or about the prosecution and conviction.
    Miscellaneous orders for costs, compensation, damages etc.
    9. Where a court makes an order for the payment of costs by an offender and does so under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1952 as applied by section 31(1) or (2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (proceedings in which a person is dealt with for a further offence after being put on probation, conditionally discharged, bound over or given a suspended sentence).
    10. Where under section 4 of the Forfeiture Act 1870 or section 34 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 a court awards a sum of money by way of satisfaction or compensation for damage to, or loss of, property suffered through or by means of an indictable offence.
    11. Where under section 11(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1948 a court, on making a probation order or an order for conditional discharge, or on discharging an offender absolutely, orders the offender to pay damages for injury or compensation for loss.
    11. Where under section 55 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 a court orders any fine, damages, compensation or costs, or any sum awarded by way of satisfaction or compensation to be paid by the parent or guardian of a child or young person.

PART II

  CASES WHERE COSTS RECOVERABLE SUMMARILY AS CIVIL DEBT
  Costs awarded by magistrates
  13. Where a magistrates' court, on the summary trial of an information, makes an order

  63
  as to costs to be paid by the prosecutor to the accused.
  14. Where an appellant to quarter sessions from a magistrates' court (otherwise than against conviction or sentence) abandons his appeal and the magistrates' court orders him to pay costs to the other party to the appeal.
  15. Where examining justices determine not to commit a person for trial and order the prosecutor to pay the whole or part of the costs incurred in or about the defence.
  Costs awarded by assizes and quarter sessions
  16. Where a person appeals to quarter sessions from a magistrates' court (otherwise than against conviction or sentence) and quarter sessions makes an order as to costs to be paid by the appellant or respondent.
  17.Where a person is prosecuted or tried on indictment or inquisition before a court of assize or quarter sessions and is acquitted, and the court orders the prosecutor to pay the whole or part of the costs incurred in or about the defence.
  18. Where a person is committed for trial and is not ultimately tried, and the court to which he is committed orders the prosecutor to pay to him the whole or part of the costs incurred in or about the defence.
  19.Where the prosecutor is ordered by quarter sessions to pay costs, under powers exercisble by virtue of section 14(2) or (3) of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1952 (committal or appeal to quarter sessions under Vagrancy Act 1824).
  Criminal costs awarded by High Court
  20. Where a person is tried at bar in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court and is acquitted, and the High Court orders the prosecutor to pay the whole or part of the costs incurred in or about the defence.
  Schedule 9, page 46, line 20, at end insert:

  (" 33 & 34 Vict.c.23.

  The Forfeiture Act 1870.

  In section 4, the words from 'and the amount' onwards.")

  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, may I take Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 together. Your Lordships may remember that I spoke to these Amendments in dealing with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendments Nos. 41 and 42:
  Page 46, line 21, column 3, at beginning insert—
  ("In section 6, the words" in any division thereof".")
  Page 46, line 24, column 3, leave out from ("words") to ("to") in line 26 and insert (" before a judge of the Chancery Division" and the words from "and, subject to any" ")
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, if I may take Amendments Nos. 41 and 42, these two related Amendments are purely to correct minor drafting slips in the repeals Schedule. Although I shall explain anything which the House desires to be explained, I am hoping that the House may at this hour accept the fact that they are merely minor drafting slips which these two Amendments would correct.
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendments Nos. 43 to 46:
  Page 46, line 39, at end insert—

  ("23 & 24 Geo. 5. c.12.

  The Children and young Persons Act 1933.

  Section 55(4).

  23 & 24 Geo. 5. c.38.

  The Summary Jurisdiction (Appeals) Act 1933.

  Section 5(2).

  11 & 12 Geo. 6. c. 58.

  The Criminal Justice Act 1948.

  Section 11 (3).")

  Page 46, line 40, column 3, leave out (" and (2) ") and insert (" to (3) ")
  Page 46, line 44, column 3, at beginning insert—
  (" In section 34, the words from"and any sum" onwards.")
  Page 46, line 46, column 3, at end insert—
  ("Section 85(3).")
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, if I may move Amendments Nos. 44, 45 and 46 with Amendment No. 43, your Lordships may remember that I dealt with these when speaking to Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 47:
  Page 47, line 20, at end insert—

  ("1966 c. 31.

  The Criminal Appeal Act 1966.

  Section 1(4) and (6)(b)

  Section 2(2).")

  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the repeals effected by this Amendment are consequential on the new Clause 4A. Section 1(4) of the 1966 Act empowers a judge of the Queen's Bench Division to exercise the powers exercisable (under the old law) by a judge of the Court of Criminal Appeal or (under the new law) by a judge of the Court of Appeal. This provision,in so

  65
  far as it is not already spent, is superseded by Clause 4A(3). Section 2(2) of the 1966 Act provides for the constitution of a Court of the Criminal Division. It is superseded by Clause 4A(1) and (2). I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 48:
  Page 47, line 32, at end insert—

  ("1969 c. 54.

  The Children and Young Persons Act 1969.

  In section 3(6), the word 'and' at the end of paragraph (b), and paragraph (c).")

  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships may remember that I dealt with this Amendment in speaking to Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
  VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, it is very sad that that part of the Children and Young Persons Act should have died so young. May I say, as we finish this Report stage—although I know that the noble and learned Lord has a formal Amendment to the title— that I am very grateful for the explanations that he has given on this Bill, for he has helped by explaining some of his propositions and some of his thoughts about administrative action to bring it into force. I also know that the debates which we have had—at any rate in the Committee stage, and I hope the same will apply to-day—have helped many other people to understand the practical application of this Bill; and I understand that a number of them are considerably happier than they were before. I do not know whether that applies to everybody, but I believe that in his explanations the noble and learned Lord really has gone a long way to help some members of the public who found it very difficult to understand.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 49:
  Line 4, after ("liabilities") insert ("to amend section 106 of the Rent Act 1968").
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, before moving this Amendment, perhaps I may say that I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for what he has said, and for the evident work which he himself has done on this Bill. I am
  66
  afraid that it is all of a somewhat technical character. It is bad enough for lawyers and not of great interest to those who are not. Of course, the abolition of imprisonment for debt and the substitution of attachment of earnings will affect a great many people, as will, of course, those clauses which we have not had to discuss a great deal on the Report stage but which will afford some measure of protection to those mortgagors who might otherwise have lost their homes. The constitution for the first time of a Family Division in our High Court of Justice is also a rather technical matter.
  My Lords, the last Amendment, Amendment No. 49, which is to the Title, I dealt with in moving Amendment No. 31, and accordingly I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

FOOD AND DRUGS (MILK) BILL
5.2 p.m.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill is necessary to bring our legislation up to dale with the march of technology. At the moment, under Section 32 of the Food and Drugs Act 1955, which applies to England and Wales, and under Section 17 of the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956, it is illegal to add water to milk in any circumstances whatever. On the face of it this seems a very reasonable prohibition. But since that time a new method, known as the ultra-heat treatment, has been devised by which milk can be made sterile by the most efficient way yet known.
A designation order authorising the treatment of milk by ultra-heat was made in 1965, but the method then authorised was an indirect method, whereby dry surfaces were heated to a great heat and the milk was exposed to them; and it did not include the most modern way of doing this, which is to inject high-temperature steam into the milk very rapidly. The ultra-heat treatment of milk produces milk which will last, not days but weeks or months, without going sour. The purpose of his Bill is to make the injection of steam into milk, which must of course temporarily add water to it, exempt from the prohibitions in the 1955 and 1956 Acts.

67
There are a number of safeguards, of which the most important is incorporated in the Bill, and I shall be happy to discuss them in detail with any noble Lord wishing to ask questions. But the principle of the Bill is, I think, quite clear: it is to bring within the scope of our present legislation the most modern and efficient way of sterilising milk, which at the moment is outside it. I have all the details in my hands, and I am prepared to discuss any part of this Bill which noble Lords wish to question. It was guided through the other place by my honourable friend Mr. Alfred Morris, and passed through all its stages without criticism—in fact, without comment of any kind whatever. The Milk Distributive Council is pressing for it; the Milk Marketing Board approves it; the N.F.U. has no objection to it; and the industry which makes milk sterilising machinery is anxious for it.
If I may refer briefly to the Bill itself, it is very short and very simple. Clause 1(1) lays down, in relation to England and Wales, that treating milk by the application of steam shall not be construed as adding water, in the terms of the Food and Drugs Acts, provided that certain conditions are fulfilled. The main one of these is that the percentage of fat and solids other than fat should be the same at the end as at the beginning of the process. This means that any water that is put in must be taken out again. Clause 1(2) makes similar provisions for Scotland; and Clause 2 gives the Short Title. No legislation is necessary for Northern Ireland because Northern Ireland is not handicapped, or helped, as the case may be, by a corresponding Food and Drugs Act.
It seems to me possible that your Lordships will accept the main principle and will not require me to go into further details, though I am prepared to do so in summing-up, if noble Lords wish to ask questions. In the hope that I am correct in taking this view of what the House may think, I ask your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, on his persuasive introduction of this
68
small Bill, and on the lucid manner in which he has explained to us the various features of it? He has not quite equalled the record in another place, where, as he says, the Bill went through without comment at any stage; but he has run it very close. I had noted down 13 questions to ask him about what would be the effect of this process, and I am bound to say that he has already answered almost every one. However, I will see if I can find the odd one to ask him.
In winding-up, would the noble Lord give us the assurance that we should all like to have: that neither the flavour nor the consistency of the milk will be changed by this process? The noble Lord has dealt with all the vital questions of nutrition, the extraction of the water, temperature and so on. Perhaps he could also tell us whether the commercial dairies generally intend to apply this process when this Bill is on the Statute Book. Obviously, this is something which will be of great benefit to all concerned, and I join with other noble Lords in welcoming it.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, my noble friend has brought before us a small Bill but an important one, and a useful one. I should also like to congratulate him and to applaud his readiness to pilot the Bill through this House. I wish him every success, for the Government welcome the measure and we hope that it will get on to the Statute Book. My noble friend has told us so clearly the purpose of the Bill that there is nothing more for me to say on that, but I might add that among the advantages which should follow from this Bill is the fact that there should be an export potential of the machinery used in the process which he has described. In addition to that, I understand that it will now be more of a possibility to export liquid milk—indeed, I believe that one dairy in Wales already has a contract for the supply to Saudi Arabia of liquid milk treated by ultra-heat. I should also say that the regulations that Will be required if the Bill gets on to the Statute Book are already in draft form, and I hope it will be agreed in this House that we should do all we can to ensure that the Bill's progress on to the Statute Book is as speedy as possible.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, this is a very small Bill, and it is full of provisos to ensure that the condition of the milk after this process is exactly the same as is was before. It would be very interesting to the non-technical if the noble Lord could tell us, roughly speaking, how one applies steam to milk without in any way contaminating the milk with the condensed steam, which would be the water.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he can tell us what happens to the fat globule under the process which is envisaged in this Bill? Will the fat globule be broken up, and will the fat be emulsified in the milk?
5.10 p.m.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome which has been given this Bill. I think I can answer all questions except perhaps one, on which I am a little uncertain. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, asked about flavour and consistency. There has been some research done on flavour. I cannot completely understand the very technical terms in which the results have been expressed, but I have asked one or two people and I think that there is a slight difference in taste. As regards consistency, the treated milk is just like homogenised milk. It is homogenised before it is processed. As regards colour, it is paler.
If noble Lords are interested in the nutritive effect, I can say that a good deal of experimentation has been done on this, and I can give a list of experiments, with scientific quotations, all of which show that the nutritive effect of this milk on rats is similar to that of normal milk. I find this very hard to believe. I should have thought that the nutritive qualities of "live" milk would be somewhat different from those of pasteurised or U.H.T. milk. Most of the milk drunk in this country to-day is pasteurised. I think this is an academic question. Dairies generally—the commercial manufacturers—are already selling U.H.T. milk within the terms of a regulation made under the 1955 Act. They are selling, I think, up to something like 3 per cent. of their turnover, and this is expected to grow. It is almost
70
certain that if this Bill is passed, if the more efficient method of heating the milk violently at 270 degrees for half a second or one second with steam is allowed, the commercial manufacturers will go over to this method. At the moment they are using the clumsier indirect method.
My noble friend Lord Beswick spoke of the export potential. The machinery manufacturers are particularly anxious to be able to work on this, with both the export market and the home market in view. Lord Balerno asked me about the actual effect of the process on the globules. My information as to how the steam passes through, though detailed, does not extend to the globules. From this I assume that the globules remain globules and are sterilised, as it were, on the outside. If the noble Lord wants further information I shall be happy to make inquiries and to write to him. I will also show him the detailed explanation of the process. There is no mention of the breakdown of globules; it seems to me that the globules are probably not broken down. I hope I have answered all the questions that have been put and that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
LORD SALTER: My Lords, there seems to be an extraordinary reticence about this matter, both in another place and in your Lordships' House. I wonder whether the Government would consider publishing a White Paper on the subject, so that those who want to know rather more than has been disclosed either here or in another place will have a chance to learn something of what has not been openly discussed.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, it would be easy to give more information. If the House wishes, I will do so. I can give the detailed process. But I thought that noble Lords might wish to get on with the possibly more contentious matter which is before the House.
LORD SALTER: My Lords, having regard to the reasons the noble Lord has given, I do not think that this debate is a suitable occasion for a detailed description of the process; but I think it would be a good thing for people who are interested in the details (which have

71
not been given either in another place or in this Chamber) that there should be some publication, such as a White Paper to which they could refer.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend can see that that is done.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord has answered my question. He might prefer to wait until the Committee stage. Clause 1(2) of the Bill proposes to add a new subsection to Section 17 of the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956, which says:
"… The treatment of milk by the application of steam shall not be treated for the purposes of this section as the making of an addition of water to that milk …"
I cannot see the necessity for these words unless the steam actually comes into contact with the milk, in which case one wonders why it does not dilute the milk. The noble Lord may like to explain the process.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, the steam does come into contact with the milk. It is evaporated. The steam is put through at a temperature of 270 degrees and takes a second to go through. It remains in the milk for about one second. It passes through a holding tube and the diluted milk then passes through a throttle into an expansion chamber where the pressure is maintained below atmospheric pressure by means of a vacuum pump. This sudden change of pressure causes immediate re-evaporation of water from the diluted milk, cooling it in the process. I think that is the answer. There will be regulations to ensure that the water with which it is treated is of a certain standard of purity. I hope that I have answered all the questions that have been raised.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, as I am the only person who has tasted this milk, perhaps I may be allowed to say something. It has a slightly caramelised taste which is not objectionable. It is very much better than the sterilised milks of different kinds that we have had in the past. I hope that it will have a great market overseas in tropical countries.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I think there is some misunderstanding here. Milk
72
has been subjected to these temperatures for some time now; this is merely a different method of doing it. I think that the principal advantage in the long run is not in exports but in the rationalisation of milk distribution. As a nation we probably spend more on milk distribution than any other nation in the world. Once we get milk with the keeping qualities of sterilised but with a taste which is more like that of pasteurised, then we shall be able to deliver it in an entirely different way from that used in the past. Much more milk will be sold in the shops; there will be less and less need for daily deliveries; milk will be bought in greater quantities. Consequently, in the long run the main effect is going to be a considerable rationalisation of milk distribution which now represents far too high a proportion of the price of milk paid by the consumer.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I thank the last two speakers for their support. I am not entirely in agreement with my noble friend Lord Jacques. I am not sure that the public are going to buy this for their daily milk, but I think many manufacturing firms will do so, as will a lot of people who have a special use for it, such as picnics. But nobody will be obliged to buy it. We want the most efficient method to be available to our industry so that the maximum amount can be sold and the most efficient machinery can be made. On that note, I would ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BRUCELLOSIS: PREVENTION AND CONTROL
5.18 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL BARONESS SUMMERSKILL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government when they propose to take effective action to stop the spread of brucellosis. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, my object in raising this question again is to instil into the Government a sense of urgency with regard to the eradication of brucellosis. This disease is preventable. There, I think, is something which should appeal to everybody who recognises that there

73
are so many diseases in the land which are only curable: this is a disease which is preventable if we use the right methods. It is the only disease of any significance which can be transmitted from animal to man.
My Lords, it will be recalled, because many of your Lordships were here on that occasion, that I raised this matter on an Unstarred Question in 1966 when we had a similar debate. I was then led to believe that the Department seriously proposed to take effective action. I say after very careful consideration that I was gravely misled. The fact is that now, four years later, brucellosis is spreading.
As I look at the pictures of the militant farmers in this country, I think that if they devoted one of their protests against the prevalence of brucellosis they would be fully justified. Unfortunately, there is no more effective deterrent to protests than ill-health. The symptoms which distinguish brucellosis vary from recurrent fever, muscular and arthritic pains, skin rashes and gastritis to mental symptoms of every kind and degree. In fact, sometimes the victim becomes psychotic. These symptoms drain the victim of the energy required for active protest and that is one reason why so many people who have experienced the disease themselves seem fatalistic about it.
While the amount of human suffering and disability cannot be accurately assessed, the loss to agriculture through abortion, reduced milk yield and infertility, and to the export trade, must be very considerable. But although this loss is recognised by farmers, nobody has been able to assess it in terms of pounds, shillings and pence. While officialdom— I chose that word very carefully, because I know of the power of officials and of those officials who are determined that there shall be some reform—in this country has dragged its feel, other countries, smaller than ours, have successfully eradicated the disease. The position was summed up in the British Medical Journal on November 29, 1969, under the title, "Brucellosis still spreading". It stated:
"Though brucellosis is a preventable disease insufficient effort is being made to prevent it in Britain. In the United Kingdom only Northern Ireland has a satisfactory scheme of eradication and the result is that over 97 per cent. of the eligible herds there has been certified as free of brucellosis. In Great Britain up to the end of October, 1969, only 6 per cent. of the herds had been registered
74
as accredited. The figure for Scotland is 7 per cent. The Scandinavian countries have wiped out brucellosis. Western Germany and Bulgaria are virtually clean. Switzerland, the United States of America, and Canada are making sound progress. Northern Ireland is ahead of schedule and Eire is doing very well."
My Lords, our country has always been looked upon by the rest of the world as being one in which the farming industry is preeminent. Yet here we are, lagging behind all these little countries and failing to prevent this disease. That eminent authority on public health, Dr. John Boycott, writing in the Lancet in 1969, maintained that half a million people had contracted the organism; while missed and undiagnosed cases were very common. As is well known, brucellosis is chiefly occupational. It is found among farm workers, meat packing employees, laboratory personnel and veterinary surgeons. The poor veterinary surgeon is a martyr to the disease. Dr. Boycott estimated that 63 per cent. of the practising veterinary surgeons have serological evidence of infection.
There are also 3 million people, for the most part ignorant of the hazards to health, who drink raw milk and are consequently at risk. Of course, the difficulties of eradication are not due only to the apathy of officialdom; they are due also to the immoral behaviour of those farmers who knowingly pass on infected animals to healthy herds. And "immoral", my Lords, is not an overstatement. The argument that the public is protected because 97 per cent. of the milk supplies is heat treated is no longer valid, as more and more families visit the country for holidays and are at risk, together with the static rural population.
May I give the House an example? Anglesey, the constituency of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, is a delightful holiday resort which no doubt many of us have visited in the past. But even there, Mr. H. H. Thomas, Chief Inspector of the Consumer Protection Department of the County Council, has said that more cattle have been found to be infected during the three summer months of 1969 than throughout the whole of 1968. After that report, my Lords, nothing would induce me to drink a glass of milk in Anglesey, or even to drink a cup of tea with milk from a local farm. That is how those of us who know the seriousness of this complaint

75
treat such reports. Unfortunately, most people who go to these country districts and drink untreated milk are utterly ignorant of the potential danger of drinking that milk.
I know that I am speaking to a House in which there are experts, and I am trying to touch on the various parts of the country in order that it will be quite clear that this matter has been given the most careful consideration by men who spend their lives in the farming world. The Border Rural Council's medical officer of health, Dr. Claude Bentley, says:
"It is much more widespread among the population than appears on the surface. The known cases in Cumberland are high, due to the fact that a great deal of untreated milk is drunk."
My Lords, it is not surprising that abortion storms are raging in places like Cheshire where veterinary surgeons suggest that twice as many herds are suffering the effects of clinical abortion to-day as before the foot and mouth epidemic. A further tragedy is that while it is permitted secretly to dispose of an infected animal, farmers are not prepared to admit that they are in trouble. In consequence, the sources of infection are not always disclosed. I noted that, according to the Farmers' Weekly of July 11, 1969, Mr. A. C. Stewart said at the Scottish Milk Marketing Board Council last year that all brucellosis reactors should be marked with a star in the ear; and those who objected to this scheme could only be rogues who spread the disease by selling reactors through the auction rings. A Mr. Crossett, who replied, had the moral courage to reveal that he had sold his infected cows on the open market to recoup his losses. He added:
"I am very sorry to have spread this brucella to other herds, but the owners of these are the fools for buying on the open market."
My Lords, surely it is the first duty of the Government, whether in relation to farming or elsewhere, to control the activities of the rogue and to protect the innocent fool. But in the sale of cattle infected with brucellosis it appears that the rogue can ruin the fool if he so desires by selling him cattle which will infect the whole of his accredited herd.
Last year the Cheshire County Health Committee expressed concern at the slow rate of progress of the brucellosis scheme. It recommended that the accredited scheme should now be applied compulsorily to all producer retailers, with slaughter of animals who are positive reactors and payment of compensation. I should like to see immediate steps taken to pasteurize all milk for human consumption and brucellosis made notifiable. I have known of diseases which in the past have not been notifiable, and heard those who objected to notification saying how difficult it was to diagnose and that it would be better not to take this step. But when a disease is made notifiable, doctors and others are alerted to the problem. They are much more anxious to observe symptoms and come to a conclusion. While we leave this disease brucellosis unnotifiable, we are not going to instil the sense of urgency into the medical profession and the farming community.
Furthermore, vaccination should be made compulsory. I am well aware of the difference of opinion that exists in the farming community on this subject. Most farmers feel that giving strain 19 to calves is desirable, but I shall listen with great interest to noble Lords who have different views on the efficacy of vaccination. I believe that stronger measures should be taken immediately to prevent the transmission of infection. Farmers with non-designated herds should be compelled to protect neighbours who have accredited herds, by the use of double fencing and by dealing efficiently with effluent disposal in order to prevent contamination of water supplies. Furthermore, fox hunting should be banned on accredited farms, to prevent a fox from carrying off the afterbirth and aborted fœtus and so contaminating a herd. I say these things because I have been impressed by the number of noble Lords who have come to me and said that, after building up an accredited herd, somehow, from somewhere, infection came and their cattle were struck down. I do not feel that we have examined carefully enough the sources of infection or that, if we have examined them, we have taken enough trouble to prohibit the guilty men from continuing the practices which affect a neighbour's herd.
There are many speakers, but I hope I have succeeded in convincing the House that brucellosis is a serious menace to both man and beast. In another place at the end of the year the Minister stated that eradication would be started in 1971, but I am advised by veterinary surgeons that this further delay is unnecessary. There are no sound technical reasons why the scheme should be delayed for what can be another two years. This matter is one of extreme urgency and an undertaking should now be given that without fail the scheme will be put into operation at the end of this year.
5.33 p.m.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, I should like to say to the noble Baroness that with three-quarters, seven-eighths or or fifteen-sixteenths of what she has said I am in utter agreement. The one-sixteenth on which I disagree with her is when she accuses the farmers of backwardness. In 1962 the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers started to put the screw on the Ministry to get a brucellosis eradication scheme instituted at once, because of the danger that was growing day by day through lack of encouragement and help from the Ministry. In 1965 they gave up all hope of getting the Ministry to move and started a scheme of their own, which was conditioned under the auspices of the British Veterinary Association. We asked that we should be allowed to have testing carried out in Government laboratories. There was a flat refusal. We managed to overcome that.
Immediately we founded our scheme, the Government came in and said that they were going to take it over. A great many of our members had already travelled a long way along the road of brucellosis eradication and in all essentials our scheme was exactly the same as the one the Government started in 1967. We were not allowed to transfer to the Ministry's scheme those who had qualified under our operations. It has been not only a disappointment but a subject of hopeless despair to a large proportion of farmers in this country who are providing dairy products that there has been this neglect by the Government to protect those who have achieved attestation.
78
Your Lordships will remember that I raised this matter on the Animals Bill, when I tried to get protection for the man who, in many cases at great expense, had accredited his herd, from the man who allowed his cattle to stray on the roads and break into other farms. I was told by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that in a way it might be said that the man who had achieved accreditation had created a risk for himself. The other day I wrote to the Ministry of Agriculture in the following terms:
"My dear Minister, I wonder if it would be possible So appeal to the police not to turn straying cattle into the fields. With so many accredited herds and near-accredited, such action might well cause the closing of pastures and the withdrawal of accreditation certificates, with disastrous effects. Our own Chief Constable in Ayrshire has given orders that this must be avoided and the South West of Scotland Electricity Board have also warned their linesmen to use great care to see that gates are fully secured."
I received this reply from the Minister:
"Thank you for your letter about the movement of straying cattle on to fields occupied or used by cattle from herds in the Brucellosis Accredited Herd Scheme. While I do not wish to minimise the problems which could arise, I do not think that this is a matter which can be considered from the point of view of the Brucellosis Accredited Herd Scheme only. The first concern of the police must be the protection of life and property."
I did not suggest that it should be compulsory on the police. All I suggested was that the Minister should warn them of the danger they might cause. At the end were these words:
"I feel, too, we must consider the owner of the straying livestock, whether he owns accredited or non-accredited stock. He would, I am sure, like to feel that his animals were not put at additional risk by the land."
That is the sort of attitude we have struggled and struggled against. I my-self have been testing my herds regularly since 1932. Most of my tenants have already entered the scheme and a great many have achieved attestation. But every day they are subject to the risk of their livelihoods being taken away by some careless action on the part of some-body who does not know what he is doing.
What have the Government done? Under the Epizootic Abortion Order 1922, which is still the only legislation for the control of cattle—ordinary cattle not under the scheme—nothing further has been done. I should like to ask the

79
Government how many prosecutions have taken place under that Order in recent years. Yet that is open to them, when they can bring evidence against people who have knowingly sold cattle in the market within two months of an abortion. It is a small thing to ask, I admit. But that Order has been there all the time, and it has not been acted upon by the Government.
When the Survey of Animals Disease (Survey No. 4, 1964) was carried out no more than 2 per cent. of cattle were found to be infected, and, in addition, 12 per cent. were suffering from vaccinal reactions of S19. Why is this the case? It is because the Government did not give a sufficient lead or sufficient instructions to the people who in all good faith vaccinated their cattle at 15 or 18 months up to perhaps four or five years old. The S19 at that time was a perfectly satisfactory vaccination provided it was given in the early days of calfhood; but there was no real effort by the Government to ensure that that proviso was agreed to. A large proportion of farmers to-day have only wakened up to the fact that what they thought was a protection has turned out to be a danger.
When the Government scheme was produced it was said that it was based on good management, good boundaries and on the keeping of good records. What have the Government done? They postponed the evil day by providing the starting point for the testing of animals with the milk ring test at intervals of three months, and at the end of that they would be given a clear bill of health; they were to be tested by the blood test, and finally the farmer was to receive accreditation certificates and compensation for lost animals. Did the Government not know that within the early post-colostral stages and drying off stages a large percentage of cows were likely to react? I myself had one at the very end. I was not given any compensation for it; I was not given any credit for it. I put her straight away into the market —not the dairy market, but the meat market—and she was found to have no signs of reaction in her organs.
Later on they refused to allow animals under suspicion to be slaughtered and disposed of. The animals had to be kept
80
during a period while the confirmatory test was pending. It is not every farm in the country—and this is true of a great many of the best farms—that has suitable accommodation for isolating cattle over long periods. Sometimes the period was for over a month. I had a case of a cow in a Galloway herd, where within 12 days of being tested with the blood test she lost her calf. It was obviously what is called mechanical abortion—one caused by an injury. There was no putrefaction in the fœtus, and no signs of anything wrong with any of the organs, so far as one could see. She was tested, and no brucella was found. At the end of another two weeks she was tested again, and no brucella was found. At the end of another two weeks, no brucella was found.
They said: "Well, if it is not brucella it must be vibro". They could find no vibro. They tested her again, and found no vibro. All this time the bull was waiting for 27 heifers, and the heifers were trying to get at the bull, but they were on separate farms and therefore could not be married. Ten weeks in the life of a calf that is going to be sold later as a suckled calf is a long time. It probably meant a loss of £10 to £15 a head. At last I was allowed, provided that one of the professors from the Glasgow Veterinary College should be present at the slaughterhouse in person, to have her slaughtered. Again there was no sign of anything. That was a delay which cost me not only the cost of the cow, but also the cost of the disturbance to farming.
This is going on to-day. I know one farm where for more than a year there has been one cow or another which has failed the milk ring test. The farmer cannot get any further. He is having to carry it out at his own expense, and he is doing it because he wishes to achieve the status of accreditation. But what happens when that takes place? The farmer's land may be infected from over the march—and, by the way, there are far more stray dogs than there are foxes, and they probably do far more harm. He is at constant risk, and having spent a lot of money on achieving near accreditation he has been held back and cannot yet be paid any compensation for animals which react.

81
The trouble is not all on the livestock farmers' side. In fact, I should say that, on the whole, dairy farmers, if they have the slightest opportunity, are a great deal more enthusiastic. But who can imagine that there is any urgency on the part of the Government when such things are allowed to occur; a Government who say that they will put it off until possibly the end of 1971—and certainly not in the early stages unless we get a great change of heart.
We care very little for the modern methods of vaccination and diagnosis. All these delays might have been avoided if we had heard a little about what is known as the Rose Bengal test. I saw a reference to it in one paper, and nothing has appeared since. I have been unable to get any information about it. I was told that it was able to differentiate vaccinal reaction from the disease reaction. I do not know, and I cannot find out. But what I do know is that it is an almost instant diagnostic, and can be carried out on the spot. Those animals which are doubtful, or fail to pass, can be got rid of before they have had an opportunity of spreading the disease in other quarters.
Milk ring tests, when they were carried on to the blood sampling, showed 39 per cent. of failures, and most of those were to S.19. The complement fixation test was a diagnostic which we heard about in the early days. We never hear about it now. In 31 months, 4 per cent. of cows (and I am glad to hear the noble Lady's rise to 6 per cent.) had reached accreditation. But 21·4 per cent. of herds which had reached that standard failed, and 2,410 farmers had fallen out because they were sickened by the delays, and by the disturbance to the ordinary work of their farms, their livelihood, and thought it not worth while. Both the S.19 and the 45/20 have proved themselves failures in some cases, even when they have been used together, in avoiding infection. In most of these cases the costs are still being carried by the men themselves, and I believe that if one thing has been made clear by the militant fanners it is that they cannot afford to pay that for very long from the 5d. a pint— and less—which they receive for their milk.
The open markets are still freely allowed to take in animals from unknown
82
origin. I believe it is the case that no dealer, however reputable he may be, is allowed to make one or more of his accommodation farms accredited so that he can carry on his normal business. Area eradication by the end of 1971, or possibly further on after that—we have heard this before. Even if only a gesture were made, it would be some consolation: we should know that somebody was alive. New vaccines are required to take the place of the old, which are losing their potency. Quicker diagnosis is needed—and Rose Bengal has been used in the States for years. There are manpower deficiencies. Yet we know that the practising vets are not being used to anything like the full extent.
There must be information: farmers must know what they are expected to do. They must be told what to avoid, and what to follow, so that they do not make the mistakes they made in the case of S.19, and so that they do not believe it is safe if they use what was allowed by Government, without any effort to stop it: brucellosis-testing. More herds have been infected by those simple words than have ever managed to reach accredited standard. Cheshire provided a great opportunity, following the foot-and-mouth disaster. Farmers there were allowed, without anybody warning them, to stock their byres and their fields with brucellosis-tested herds. Twenty-five per cent. of herds in Cheshire nowadays are reputed to be infected with the disease.
My Lords, in this whole matter of eradicating brucellosis the farmers are doing their part. Let us ask the Government to take an interest in what they are doing and to help them, rather than hinder them.
5.55 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, on raising this very interesting and important topic this evening, and doing so with her customary force and lucidity. The noble Baroness was followed by Lord Rowallan, who made a powerful speech. It occurred to me that the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, must feel that this is likely to be a one-way traffic this evening, and that there is something rather virulent about brucellosis. But I hope he will be able to sustain the load

83
and give us a satisfactory answer at the end of the debate.
I am bound to say that my remarks will also be largely critical. The noble Baroness rested her complaint on danger to human health as well as danger to animal health. For the sake of the record, I looked to see what the incidence of brucellosis in human beings was so far as is known. The Henderson Survey, with which I expect the noble Baroness is familiar, concluded in 1967 that for the years 1962 to 1966 there were some 97 to 169 humans infected each year with brucellosis. But these are, of course, only the reported cases, and undoubtedly there are many hundreds more which are not reported. These are to be found particularly—as has already been said—among farmworkers, veterinary surgeons and others occupationally in the environment of animals. Henderson's Survey showed positive sera at very high levels among personnel working in these circumstances, especially veterinary officers. None of us would say that this is a satisfactory position; it is highly damaging to human health and that alone is sufficient reason to ask that urgent action should be taken.
The danger to animal health has been referred to and I should like to support what has been said. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food carried out a survey in 1964 which showed that infection was present in about 30 per cent. of herds in this country. That is a fairly high level. This survey was carried out in dairy herds, but I should think that the level is probably about the same in beef herds. The brucella infection is peculiarly damaging to cows because it causes abortion and has serious financial consequences to the herd. The noble Baroness said that no estimate had been made, and I agree with her. I think it is probably impossible to make an estimate, but undoubtedly the financial loss is heavy. I also agree most warmly with the noble Baroness that we are undoubtedly falling behind our European neighbours in our progress with eradication. They are making good progress; some of them have completed eradication. Apart from our sense of anxiety that we are falling behind others in this field, we should bear in mind that the day is approaching, as
84
most of us hope, when we shall be entering the European Economic Market, and we shall find it a grave embarrassment if the state of our herds in this respect is seriously behind that of the Six. Therefore, on grounds of human health and of animal health there is really a very weighty case for urgent action.
The Government's scheme has already been dealt with most trenchantly by the noble Baroness. It has been running for nearly three years now, and there is no doubt that there is mounting criticism as to its adequacy. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave us an interesting progress report on the Report stage of the Animals Bill, when he told us that some 62,250 herds are now accredited, and some 7,150 herds are taking qualifying tests. He also told us that applications for entry to the scheme were now running at the rate of 150 a week. And at the same time, as has already been said, he told us that the Minister of Agriculture intends to set up eradication areas in 1971. That picture does not sound too bad on the face of it, but already it has been considerably knocked about and I feel that I must add a word of criticism as well.
The noble Baroness called our attention to the fact that only some 6 per cent. of all our herds are so far attested. But there are two further points I want to deal with, and one of them the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, has already referred to. The first point is: how many herds are pulling out of the scheme? The noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, gave us a figure of 2,410, and I would guess that now something like the same number of herds are pulling out of the scheme as are actually in. We must bear in mind the second point I want to make: that the early entrants to the scheme are of course the enthusiasts like the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, and others, and breeders who for one reason or another have a specific financial interest in becoming accredited. For instance, the Hereford Society have mounted an admirable campaign to free their herds of brucellosis in the interests of their export markets.
But we soon reach an end of the herds which have a specific financial interest in becoming accredited. Then we reach the ordinary commercial herds, dairy

85
herds and beef herds, which have no particular financial incentive. They are faced with a scheme which has been most graphically described by the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, which is both expensive and very troublesome. If this scheme stays as it is, we shall find that the number entering will drop off very rapidly simply because there is no financial incentive for the bulk of herds to go into it.
The noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, referred to this ever-present danger of the re-infection of an attested herd. Of course, this is probably the worst feature of all. I have already referred to the widespread infection round about the countryside and it is inevitable that all owners of herds, dairy herds and beef herds, have neighbours somewhere who have infected animals. I should think that virtually no progress is being made now with the national herd because the infected animals leave the farms where they have been found as infected animals, and most of them, as the noble Baroness has already said, go off into the markets and are sold to somebody else and there is simply a higher level of infection there.
I am afraid I cannot go along with the noble Baroness in agreeing that the farmers who sell their infected animals are immoral. I agree that, it is most regrettable that they should do so, but for many of the smaller men this is a matter of survival and they simply could not afford to do anything else. The trouble is that the scheme is at fault. What is needed is a scheme of compensation and slaughter, and then we shall begin to clean the national herd up.
The noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, gave us a very powerful critique of the general weaknesses of the scheme and the frightful difficulties the farmer has to cope with. I say that, both in fairness to the farmers who have gone to great trouble and expense to become attested and in the interests of making the scheme viable, the Ministry of Agriculture really should now make up their minds to start eradication areas this year. Let them choose the most promising areas in the country to start this scheme.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, when he answers, is going to say that there are still left-
86
overs from the old S.19 vaccination— the live vaccine—and if eradication areas are started some of these will still appear and the animals will therefore have to be slaughtered because they will react; this will make the introduction of the scheme unnecessarily expensive, and will also run the risk of the slaughtering of animals which are potentially healthy. Well, there is that risk, I will grant the noble Lord. But that risk must be diminishing now, and I should have thought it possible to find at any rate some selected areas where enough is known about the individual herds and their records of vaccination for a start to be made. But this is the proposition that the noble Lord and his right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture must face: that there is a danger that the S.19 leftovers may have an influence. But that must be matched against the shrinking confidence in the effectiveness of this scheme at all.
It is the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture to ensure that his scheme commands the general confidence of the agricultural world. I do not think he is going to do that if he waits another year or eighteen months before he starts eradication areas. I think this is the burden of the message that all noble Lords from all sides of the House are going to give to the Government this evening: they really must make a start this year, just as soon as possible, at any rate in some selected localities, with these eradication areas.
When the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, comes to reply, I hope he will tell us something about the estimated cost of total eradication, with the cost of slaughter and compensation. I hope he will be able to reassure us that the rumours one hears that the Government are being restrained from starting on this project because of the heavy cost are not true. They ought not to be true. I hope the noble Lord will be able to reassure us that that is not so. Also, I hope he will be able to assure us that there is sufficient laboratory capacity to cope with the volume of applications that will begin to flow in when compensation and slaughter get properly under way. We want to see this project moving. It will take some years anyway, but now is the time to get on with it. Much valuable work has been done, but if it is left

87
now much of that work will be wasted because farmers, as I have said and as the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, has said, are fast pulling out of a scheme in which they are beginning to lose confidence. It is up to the Minister to take action to restore confidence in a scheme we all want, and in which we all want to have confidence.
6.8 p.m.
LORD COLLISON: My Lords, I am sure that a number of your Lordships would wish to join me in thanking my noble friend Lady Summerskill for putting this Question down and giving us an opportunity to discuss this urgent and important matter once again. As I am sure your Lordships know, the workers in the agricultural industry, through their union and indeed through the Trades Union Congress, have been pressing the Government to take measures in two directions: first, and I think most important, to deal with the question of brucellosis infection in our herds; and secondly (and the point has not yet been made this evening), to accept that brucellosis is in fact an industrial disease entitling agricultural workers who contract brucellosis to receive compensation under the Act. The efforts of my old union (I am no longer there, as your Lordships know), and the efforts of the T.U.C., have been supported by a number of important organisations, including the British Veterinary Association, the Unilever Advisory Service, the National Federation of Women's Institutes, and now USDAW and the people looking after the slaughterhouse workers.
As is known—and this matter has been discussed at length—the Ministry's accredited herd scheme began officially with the acceptance of applications on April 21, 1967. That is a long time ago. But both then and since then it has always been emphasised that the scheme is not in itself an eradication scheme but only the prelude to future measures which might be taken, and its primary aim is to identify those herds which are already free from brucellosis so that surplus stock may be available as replacements to other herds from which the disease has been eradicated. Therefore it seems to me that the Ministry is proceeding along the same lines as in the old tuberculosis eradication scheme, whereby eradication
88
was effected by areas, commencing with the district in which the greatest progress had been shown to have been made already under the voluntary scheme.
It has already been said that the size of the problem is probably really appreciated only by people in the agriculture industry and by medical men and women. It is a fact, as has already been said, that a number of farmers are carrying out their own eradication procedure. Therefore one cannot feel happy at the slowness with which this project is being undertaken. During the last few days I have been in touch, on this matter, with my old union and their position—and it is mine—is that while they welcome and have noted the declared intention of my right honourable friend Mr. Cledwyn Hughes, who in December, as noble Lords will remember, told Members in another place that eradication in specially selected areas would begin in 1971 (we now know that it will be towards the end of 1971), they do not think that this scheme and the progress made is in any sense of the word satisfactory, and they take this view deliberately, knowing all about the problems involved and all about the cost of a more rapid eradication programme.
As is shown this evening in your Lord-ships' House, there is a great interest in the livestock industry in the scheme and in the development of the scheme, and I know that the Animal Health Division of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has indicated that farmers are joining the scheme at a rate which is acceptable, and indeed pleasing, to the Ministry. However, I also know that within the veterinary profession there is a grave disquiet at the position at the present time. It is felt that the policy of building up herds which are accredited within the scheme on a random geographical basis may bring, and indeed is bringing, the scheme under considerable criticism. There are cases where the fact of reactors causing breakdowns in accredited herds is acting as a disincentive for new entrants to join the scheme.
And may I underline the point which has already been made? My noble friend Lady Summerskill has said that the selling of stock known to be affected is a moral offence. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has said that there are reasons for this, and I think both points have been brought out

89
extremely clearly. I should like to quote from the British Medical Journal dated November 29, in an article entitled"Cause for Concern", dealing with brucella affected cattle. They quote a number of cases where farmers, some of them young, aspiring, ambitious, and men who should be welcomed in our industry, are suffering severe loss—in fact killing loss—by the abortion which takes place on their farms because of the introduction of affected cattle. A number of cases of that type are quoted, and a number are quoted where farmers have knowingly sold infected cattle in the open market. I would just mention two of them. First, a farmer, when he was asked what he was going to do with the infected animals, replied that he would try to get them in calf and sell them to the best advantage. He was adamant about this although fully aware of the possible danger to other herds. He thought that his losses and expenses up to that time justified his action. That is the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. If there is a rogue, they are living in a rogues' kitchen.
The point is made again and brought out clearly in the quotation I will give of another case. This was the farmer's wife who had an attack of undulant fever in March, 1967. This was the first indication that brucellosis was present. The herd was examined and found to be infected. When these people were questioned about what they were going to do, the"flying herd system"was stoutly defended as a legitimate and long-established way of making a living. In fact, it was claimed that dairy farming could not continue if this type of dealing was abolished. The possibility of spreading infection was regretted, but it was maintained that matters would not improve until the Ministry ordered the slaughter of infected animals and paid compensation. There we have both sides of the meal argument put. I think this action is immoral; but, on the other hand, there is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent.
I was speaking about the veterinarians. They recognise full well that the scheme is to operate within certain financial limits, but they strongly take the view that the following facts should be considered most carefully. The first is that clinical outbreaks of brucella abortis actually appeared to be more frequent
90
since the institution of the Brucellosis (Accredited Herds) Scheme. I do not know about this personally: this is what I have been told by the veterinarians. Secondly, the policy of placing reactor animals or non-acc-edited herds on the open market—a point that has so ably been made by my noble friend Lady Summerskill—is, quite apart from what I have said, prolonging the effort to bring the disease under control and ultimate eradication. Thirdly, they say that the absence of positive steps towards eradication is causing grave disquiet among live-stock owners and veterinarians. So there is clearly a need not only to take action in order to remove the threat of brucellosis in farming, but to do this quickly to restore confidence: in the industry and among those people who are servicing the industry.
May I now turn to the question of the incidence of brucellosis among agricultural workers and farmers? It is a fact that we cannot get entirely clear of brucellosis in humans until eradication has been completed. As I have indicated, I am anxious that urgent measures should be taken to achieve this end. In the meantime, and while we are doing that, I am concerned with the position of those agricultural workers who contract the disease. Again if I may just tell your Lordships what my own union think, it is as follows. They told me that one of their primary concerns had been on the question whether or not the disease should be prescribed under the Act, and they pointed out that for a number of years both they and the T.U.C. have been pressing the Government in this respect, but so far they have not been met at all in this matter because the Government are of the opinion that brucellosis is a disease which is endemic in rural areas and results from consuming untreated milk straight from the cow. Therefore it is not a disease (they say) which is peculiar to farm workers. They argue that the disease must be identified with a particular occupation only and that it must be shown that the population in general are not subject to that particular hazard—the hazard of catching the disease.
It has also been argued that where the disease has been contracted by a farm worker claims are accepted under the accident provision of the Industrial Injuries Act. One cannot agree that the

91
type of case I have in mind is covered in that way. We cannot agree, and I cannot agree, with the suggestion that there is no need for prescription; because there have been numerous cases where there has been serious dispute between the claimant and the Ministry as to whether or not infection has resulted from contact with stock. One of our prime difficulties has been in obtaining evidence. It is unfortunately a fact that some employers have proved uncooperative, and on most occasions the veterinary authorities have been unwilling to lay such evidence, since in most cases they are also concerned with the farmers' needs: they are concerned in providing services to the farmer, and are therefore reluctant to break what they conceive to be a point of professional etiquette.
One can understand and, perhaps, honour that point of view. However, it causes problems for my union in trying to help the people concerned. The union has been pressing my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture to lay regulations requiring those farmers with infected herds to notify the authorities of the incidence of the disease on their farm, not only for the purpose of eradication but also for the purpose of enabling us to establish that a farm-worker who has the disease contracted it through contact with stock.
From the point of view of qualifying under the Industrial Injuries Act, it should be stressed as another difficulty that the diagnosis of undulant fever is extremely difficult. A fairly recent paper, entitled"Some observations on Bovine Brucellosis, its Eradication and its Relation to Undulant Fever", by J. Tarala, which appeared in a recent edition of the State Veterinary Journal, and which I found to be a useful and comprehensive article, included this statement:
"It was Marston who provided the first accurate description of undulant fever in man. This has been little improved upon since those times. Patients with undulant fever will present a number of general complaints, which can be enumerated: weakness, chills, sweat, anorexia, generalised aches, headaches, nervousness "—
and the noble Baroness has pointed out that this can become a question of mental distress and illness—
"backache, joint pain, insomnia, depression, pain at back of neck, cough, abdominal pain,
92
constipation, diarrhoea, visual disturbances, nausea and vomiting, neuritic pain.
"When undulant fever gives rise to these complaints, examination of the patient reveals very little in the way of physical signs… Probably such cases, it mild in nature, are diagnosed as influenza or some such common complaint."
So it must be patent that many cases of brucellosis go undetected, and therefore it is impossible to claim under the accident provisions of the Industrial Injuries Act.
In referring to the occupational nature of the disease the author of the article says:
"From earlier work, it has been thought that infected milk represented the principal mode of infection in overt human cases of undulant fever. However, Spink says that 198, or 81 per cent. of his clinical cases, presented evidence of contact with infected material— most of these patients were meat-packing employees, farmers, dairymen, livestock producers, laboratory personnel, and so on. Another survey, among 1,255 cases in England and Wales, also confirms that the disease has a distribution predominantly among certain occupations. Boycott, in an intensive and well-documented survey in West Somerset, showed that out of 38 patients with undulant fever, 23 had a history of habitual contact with cattle."
"A recent survey has shown that 63 per cent. of practising veterinary surgeons in the United Kingdom show evidence of infection with brucella organisms, and 27 per cent. were either active cases or cases which had just recovered. A survey amongst slaughterhouse employees is currently in progress."
Since that time the survey has gone on and we now know that slaughterhouse employees do contract the disease. The article finishes with these words:
"In conclusion, brucellosis in humans in Great Britain appears to be an occupational disease affecting those connected with bovines. However, a certain percentage of cases appear to be caused by ingestion of unpasteurised cows' milk. Pasteurisation of all milk will diminish the incidence of undulant fever in man but only complete eradication of brucellosis in cattle will cause its disappearance."
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question? Is the figure he gave for infection of veterinary surgeons for vets as a whole, or for rural vets only?
LORD COLLISON: My Lords, it relates to the vets dealing with cases of brucellosis in cattle; and, as I understand it, it is confined to the vets doing the job in the rural areas.
My Lords, if I have been speaking for rather a long time I apologise, but I am deeply concerned about this matter.

93
I should have thought that if there ever was an occupational disease that disease is brucellosis, and I really cannot understand why the Government find it so difficult to put the disease on the prescribed list. Having said all this, I must repeat again that the final solution to this problem of brucellosis, in agriculture and in humans, can only be eradication. I realise all the difficulties the Government are facing; I know what is being done. But I greatly hope, as do many of my colleagues, that urgent steps will soon be taken to get on with the work.
6.28 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I completely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Collison, has said, that eradication is the only and final way of getting this disease under control. The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, has laid great emphasis on the fact that this is a preventable disease. It has been a preventable disease for 20, 30 or 40 years. We have had the knowledge of it; we have the technology to prevent it, and we have not done so. It is a preventable disease and I should like to underline what the noble Baroness said on that point. I think she was a bit hard on foxes, and also on farmers. But she is a doctor, and we know that doctors see the patients, and we can understand her bitterness.
For forty years, for nearly as long as the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, I have been battling with this disease of contagious abortion in cattle, keeping isolated two self-contained herds; battling because my neighbours were unclean, and trespassers, not foxhunters, would leave gates open; battling because, in the early days at any rate, little was known about the accuracy of the tests and we could take no risks. On this account, looking back, I can see that we sent many a cow or heifer "down the road" on unproven suspicion, hard on the cow or heifer, though just as hard on the farmer's pocket. There was little profit in progressive dairy farming. It is seldom that the pioneer in agriculture makes money. From Bakewell onwards most have trodden the verge of bankruptcy, and it looks as though they are doing it again. But battling, too, because all the time we were aware that this contagious abortion in cows could be communicated to man as undulant
94
fever—and we were selling fresh milk and still do. However slight may be the risk of causing such an infection through milk which comes from herds which are not clear, we refused to take it; and so, with satisfaction, we battled, though it cost a lot in hard cash.
The risk of contracting undulant fever from drinking milk from brucellosis infected cows is a relatively small one, but it is an important one—I do not deny that. As Lord Collison has pointed out, a much bigger risk comes to those who work among cattle, particularly to the veterinary surgeons. The noble Baroness also made the point that 63 per cent. of veterinary practitioners go down with brucellosis. As Lord Collison has said, it is an occupational disease, and I would submit that with any other profession or occupation, steps would long ago have been taken to remove this risk. As usual, agriculture is the Cinderella of the industries. If the number of those humans actually diagnosed to be suffering from this disease could be analysed, I am pretty sure that the majority are those who, in some way or another, have worked with cows—veterinary surgeons and farm workers. Apart from this, I do not decry what the noble Baroness has said, that the disease in humans is more extensive and produces more chronic disability than was previously recognised. I admit that freely.
Turning now to bovine brucellosis, I think it is clear that the launching of the scheme in 1967 brought out into the open a state of affairs of which we were ignorant or which we did not want to know about. Added to this, there have been difficulties caused by the S.19 vaccine failing to give protection, by the agglutination test failing to be sufficiently reliable as a diagnostic agent, and by the fact that chronic carriers frequently fail to react. However, the alternative tests are becoming more effective and, as the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, has pointed out, the new tests that are being used in other parts of the world are regarded as fairly sound, and there seems to be no reason why we should not be moving on to these new diagnostic agents.
Regarding the scheme itself, I think that its relative failure must be attributed to the fact that a slaughter policy for the reactors was not adopted at the earliest stages of testing. The result of

95
this has almost certainly been to spread rather than to contain the disease. As the slaughtered animals can be sold for beef, any compensation payable by the State is so much less than in the case of foot-and-mouth disease. And I question whether it would be necessary to go above good commercial value.
I would support my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford in advocating the slaughter policy and, as he has pointed out, if it leads to too great a flood of applications, then it should be controlled by limiting it, in the first instance, to certain areas as indeed has been done almost completely successfully in Northern Ireland. I wonder whether the Minister realises how successful the slaughter policy has been in other countries. The noble Baroness mentioned how successful it has been in Scandinavia. I wonder whether the Minister realises that Norway has been clear of the disease since 1949. Five more European countries other than the Scandinavian countries of Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark, have adopted the slaughter policy. The result is that in Germany, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Switzerland and Northern Ireland the disease is almost eradicated. In Canada, by the slaughter policy, large areas have been already cleaned up; while in the United States, by the slaughter policy, with good diagnostic tests the disease has been eradicated completely in 14 States and, for what it is worth, in the Virgin Islands. But overall in the United States, 94 per cent. of all the counties are either certified free or modified certified, and 99·4 per cent. of the counties in the United States are in the eradication programme. I believe that there are something like 3,000 counties in the United States of America.
Among the European countries which are making little progress is Belgium, where there is compulsory testing but no slaughter policy. In France, only a modified incidence is reported, but there is a partial slaughter policy. In Spain and Portugal, the disease is low in incidence. As has been pointed out, in Eire, where they started in 1966, they are making good progress towards eradication.
As we have heard in this debate, we started the Brucellosis Accredited Herds Scheme in 1967. We have now got
96
6,000 accredited herds, with another 7,000 coming into the scheme. After 31 months, the scheme has enrolled about 4 per cent. of the herds of the country. Add to this figure the herds in the pipeline, and the figure rises to about 6 per cent. It has already been mentioned that on the qualifying blood test some 20 per cent. of the herds fail. If this is correct it shows how wide is the incidence. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Nugent has said, it is to be doubted whether we are making any progress at all. The sale of the reactors from the herds which are coming into the scheme is in fact spreading the disease. There are those who believe that there are now more infected cows in the country than there were when the scheme started in 1967. This view was cogently put forward at the Oxford Fanning Conference.
I would remind the Government that their policy for milk is causing many farmers to give up milk production, and their cows, too, some of them spreading the disease, are flooding into the markets. The financial advantages of a quick clearance of the disease are considerable. Continuation of the present policy will, in the long run, undoubtedly cost much more money. I wonder whether I am in order in asking this particular question; namely, whether the present lukewarm policy was recommended to the Government by their professional advisers, or whether it was the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which thought this up; or is it the result of a compromise with the Treasury?
It is no light matter for a farmer to embark on the eradication of brucellosis in his herd. The testing of his stock may well cause postponement of his mating arrangements, these having been so graphically described by my noble friend Lord Rowallan. Especially in beef herds on the hills the expense of double fencing can be quite considerable. I would make a plea for as generous treatment as possible by the powers-that-be to help farmers to become accredited, and that action should not be taken which would make their financial position worse on account of their putting the interests of the public before their own immediate concern and pocket.
In conclusion, my Lords, it seems clear to me that we shall not, effectively and in a reasonable time, eradicate bovine

97
brucellosis unless the Treasury provide much more finance. For efficiency in the farming industry, for the welfare of the human beings in this country, it is imperative that we go ahead. I will give your Lordships one further reason; that is, with things as they are it is almost certain that Britain will be the last major country in Europe to get rid of this disease—and when I say Europe, I mean both sides of the Iron Curtain. The difficulties facing Denmark, Germany and the United States were not any less than those which facie us to-day in Great Britain. Other countries have shown us that where there is a will there is a way; we, in Britain, seem to lack the will.
6.41 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I should like to join with all other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, for raising this subject this evening. It is surely one of tremendous importance, not only to the agricultural industry but to the whole nation.
I should like to speak for a few moments on one of the agricultural aspects of the question. During December of last year, as the noble Baroness said, the Minister of Agriculture made a statement regarding the Brucellosis Eradication Scheme in which he stated that he did not wish to make an early start with area eradication owing to the large numbers of cattle that would be vaccinal reactors. One can recognise some logic in this argument, and I agree that many of these animals will be culled from the herds over the next three years or so. General adult vaccination, I believe, ceased several years ago. although I understand that it was continued in certain cases until 1967, but not 1 think in sufficient numbers to affect seriously the situation in a few years' time.
The Minister went on to say that in 1971 some 15,000 to 20,000 accredited herds should be available to supply replacements when a compulsory scheme is introduced. My Lords, in this instance I would, with respect, suggest that he is being extremely optimistic. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor told us, there are approximately 6,250 herds already registered as accredited, and a further 7,000-odd herds are undergoing
98
qualifying tests—though I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, that many of these are pulling out. To illustrate this may I relate to your Lord-ships the experiences of a friend of mine, the owner of one of the herds in the 7,000 category?
First, a ring milk test on individual cows was carried out, entirely at his own expense, on his herd. That test proved to be 100 per cent. clear. He was then admitted into the scheme, and another milk ring test was carried out, which again showed 100 per cent. clear. Three months later the next ring test was made, and one bottle from three cows was found to contain a possible reactor. A blood test was taken of these three cows and one was proved to be a possible reactor. This cow was probably a vaccinal reactor, but nevertheless it was slaughtered immediately, involving the farmer in a considerable financial loss as the cow was in full milk and the slaughter value minimal compared to the live value of the animal. This farmer was then told that a complete blood test on all his animals would have to be carried out, at his expense, before further ring tests could be started all over again under the scheme. My Lords, you can imagine his reactions! While appreciating the necessity of the stringent measures, he concluded that there was absolutely nothing in it for him except a lot of work, worry, and expense which he just could not afford. Consequently he decided against bothering any more until a compulsory scheme came into being.
Exactly the same thing happened to a near neighbour of his, and he also has opted out of the scheme. That is just two cases of farmers who are not going ahead; and there will undoubtedly be hundreds more similar instances. Farmers are bearing an appreciable amount of the costs involved and there is no incentive whatever for them to become accredited. The noble Baroness has talked about the rogues selling in the open market, but I suggest that economic necessity overrides all, and it is unfortunate that these reactors are being sold in the open market, which makes an absolute mockery of the whole voluntary scheme. I am certain that it is the opinion of the majority of people in the agricultural industry that, hard as farmers are trying, the voluntary scheme is not

99
making any headway, and that the necessary herd replacements will not be forth-coming in the near future.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to a proposal by the Norfolk County branch of the National Farmers' Union. I am not sure whether or not I ought to declare an interest, as I am a member of the National Farmers' Union. The executive committee proposed that Norfolk should be designated as a pilot area for complete brucellosis eradication, with a full slaughter and compensation scheme evolved. Norfolk could give a lead, and such a scheme would not take long to complete, for geographically the county is ideally situated, with the sea on two sides and the vast arable area of the Fens on another. The herds also are relatively isolated, one from another, compared with those in other parts of the country. Farmers such as myself, buying in young stock to rear and fatten, would undoubtedly experience considerable difficulties in acquiring cattle, but these difficulties would not be insuperable within the short period of time envisaged. With other areas similarly following on, enough accredited herds would be assured to supply the required replacements, thereby enabling the commencement, and ensuring the success, of a more comprehensive scheme within the next two or three years.
My Lords, I would commend these proposals to the Government as being worthy of further full and urgent consideration, in order that a start may be made now in the struggle to remove this hazard to the health of the nation.
6.47 p.m.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, I know we are all grateful to my noble friend Lady Summerskill for putting down this very important question to-day. Having listened to the noble Lords who have already spoken, I do not see how anyone can avoid the conclusion that really serious steps must be taken now, or in the immediate future, to tackle this damnable disease. Of course some steps have already been taken; there is the free calf vaccination scheme. The first suggestion I want to make has already been proposed by my noble friend, and it is that this scheme should at once be made compulsory—in any event in the case of heifers it is intended to retain for breed-
100
ing purposes. In other words, all heifer calves should be vaccinated between the ages of three and six months with Strain 19, and I do not see why that step should not be taken immediately. Furthermore, adult cattle should compulsorily be vaccinated with Strain 45/20, which is a dead vaccine and therefore does not mean that the cow is going to react for the rest of her life but it would be only for a year. This would not be possible in the case of those herd owners who intended to enter the accredited herd scheme within the following twelve months.
The accredited herd scheme itself has, of course, also achieved something, but with this scheme there is the problem, to which many noble Lords have referred, of the disposal of the initial reactors until accredited status has been achieved. My noble friend Lady Summerskill referred also to this matter, and I agree with her. I do not think her language was too strong when she spoke about the immorality of selling in the open market, to be retained in another man's herd and milked, a cow which has reacted to a test and is infected with this disease.
My next proposal is what she herself suggested, and is that when a cow reacts positively to the blood test she should automatically and by law be marked with a conspicuous star or symbol of some kind in the ear, so that it would be known thereafter, if she appeared in the open market, that she was a reactor. I know that this will cost the farmer money and that instead of getting £100 or £110 for that cow as a milker he is going to get £50 or £60 from the factory or from the butcher; but that is something which has to be faced, and if the farmer does not like to take that risk then I think that he will not have his cattle tested until, as I hope will happen, a compulsory eradication scheme is introduced. As many noble Lords have said, that is the only way of tackling the problem. There is also the difficulty of the vaccinal reactor, to which I hope to refer in a few moments.
As I mentioned briefly on the Report stage of the Animals Bill, I am in the position of being able to give some idea to your Lordships from my personal experience of what happens when such a programme of compulsory eradication is introduced, because I am farming in

101
the five counties area, in the North of the Republic of Ireland, where such a programme was introduced in 1966. This area was chosen for two reasons. First, it is a predominantly beef-producing area and, with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, I think that the incidence is lower among beef cows and heifers than it is among dairy cows and heifers; and, secondly, in that area the use of S.19 is practically un-known and therefore the question of vaccinal reactors did not produce a problem.
Compulsory annual tests started in 1966 and 1967, under which any cows which reacted were bought at what was, and still is, a fair price of up to £100 for commercial cows and £200 for pedigree cows. These were then removed from the premises and slaughtered, and there was a subsequent series of tests after 60 days and after 30 days until brucellosis-free status had been achieved. It may interest your Lordships to know that the incidence found in those areas was extremely low. In County Donegal, of the cows and heifers above twelve months tested, there were only 0·74 per cent. reactors, and in the other four counties, including my own, the figure was only 1·2 per cent. Of course it was much higher in individual cases, and I know of individual fanners milking eight or ten cows and the whole lot. had the disease. But, generally, it is a very low and encouraging figure for an area of that kind, which is predominantly beef-producing and where there is not much intensive dairying. Those five counties will be declared a B-free area next month and six more counties adjacent to them will come into the scheme in the course of 1970.
I want to mention my own experiences, because they show the great difficulty of eradication even where such a scheme is introduced. I briefly mentioned this earlier, but as from this morning I can carry the tragedy a little further. I had my first annual test in 1967 and tested 65 cows and heifers and they were completely free. I had my second annual test in 1968, and again the herd was completely free. As I mentioned earlier, I do not buy cattle and have a completely self-contained herd; in fact, I have not bought any cattle of any kind for five years. I am completely surrounded by
102
brucellosis-free herds, except to the South where there is a wide, strong river with B-free herds on the other side. I have my own bull and I use him only on my own cows, so there is no risk of bringing in the infection in that way.
Yet when the time came for the third test last October, which I faced with complete equanimity, I had 13 cows and heifers which reacted. No one has been able to give me an explanation of how this disease came into my herd and one of the disquieting aspects of the disease is that nobody knows whether it is carried by foxes, dogs or birds. Research has not been done and it is not known how the disease gets in. My 13 cows and heifers, including my best purebred Hereford and my best purebred Shorthorn, were removed and slaughtered and I was paid a fair price for them, although one would never sell good cows of that kind; they are worth far more than one would ever get for them in the market.
I then had to wait 60 days from the date of removal to have my second test. This was on Monday of last week, and of course I was hoping against hope that this time I should be clear, because I had a very good young bull which I wanted to sell at Ballsbridge next month. The blood test was taken last Monday and I rang up Sligo this morning and found that I have six cows and a maiden heifer which reacted to that test, as well as the bull which I was hoping to sell at fifteen months old. So although I am surrounded by B-free herds and am completely self-contained, I have lost 20 out of 65 cows and heifers which I have bred myself in the course of the last 20 years, and have lost the nucleus of my entire breeding stock for the future.
We know that the great difficulty of a compulsory eradication programme is the presence of an unknown number of vaccinal reactors. My noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack told us that it would be 1973 before the great majority of these vaccinal reactors would be culled. By then any vaccinal reactor would have to be seven years old or more. It is considered that there would then be a small and therefore acceptable percentage of all cows and heifers over twelve months. My noble and learned friend implied, I think, that there would therefore be no major scheme for eradication until then. The Minister has stated

103
in another place that it is hoped to introduce limited projects by the end of next year, and I should like to ask, as my noble friend Lady Summerskill, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and others have asked: is it not possible to make a start this year, if only in one eradication area of perhaps four or six adjacent counties, possibly in Scotland, Wales or the North of England, in an area which is predominantly beef-producing and where adult vaccination with Strain 19 has not been very generally used?
I do not want to go into the mathematics of this, because I do not want to take up your Lordships' time, but I have calculated that it should be possible to find such an area where the number of vaccinal reactors would be not more than 5 per cent. of the total number of cows and heifers over twelve months. In many cases, particularly of cows bred by the owner and of valuable pedigree cows, it would be possible for the vet in the area (who would be well acquainted with that herd's history and who would himself have vaccinated the cows) to give a certificate that this or that particular cow was vaccinated with Strain 19 after the age of 12 months.
I have not given notice of this point, and, of course, I do not expect an answer to-night, but I would put it to the Government that in cases where such a veterinary certificate can be given it would be accepted that a cow which reacts is a vaccinal reactor, and that the owner would therefore be allowed to retain her in his herd. If that was the case, I reckon that only 2 or 3 per cent. of the cows would be slaughtered because they were vaccinal reactors, and in fact perfectly healthy beasts. If one reckons the difference between the value of a milking cow and the value of that same beast as beef at something like £40, this would mean that the extra cost would be something in the neighbour-hood of £100 for 100 cows tested, or £1 a cow. I would end by asking whether that would be too high a price to pay in order to make a start this year in this country with an area, however small, though I hope it will be of a considerable size, where compulsory eradication with full compensation can be introduced.
7.2 p.m.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, when brucellosis was discussed by the Inverness County Council I received a note which said, "What is brucellosis?" After the eloquent introduction of this Question by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, and also the description given by the noble Lord, Lord Collison, I feel that it is unnecessary for me here to-night to elaborate to any extent on what it is. However, I have had very direct experience of this disease, both in humans and in cattle, for my wife has suffered from the disease and also I have had to renew a complete herd of beef cattle as a result of it. So far as it affects humans, we have heard the various symptoms, but what we have not heard, and what perhaps is more important than anything so far mentioned, is that if one has a weak organ in one's body—it may be a kidney or the liver—the disease is liable to attack that organ. In the case of my wife it was her eyes, and even though she is now cured her eyesight is still deteriorating.
The question arises as to what is the cure for this disease in humans. It appears that the doctors are not sure of the best procedure; therefore they give one a. crash course of a heavy concentration of antibiotics and sulphonamides. This, of course, is liable to kill all the antibodies in one's body and to open one up to catching any other bug which happens to be going. In the interim, one may also have succumbed to antibiotic poisoning, as happened to my wife. Eventually, in desperation, she heard of a homeopathic doctor who was able to cure the disease. The result was quite remarkable: a short course of pills, with no side effects, seemed to put her right after many months of illness under the medical profession. I hope this reference has not made the noble Baroness, with her medical training, wince too much, for I am sure we are all grateful to her for having raised this subject, which has sadly required Government attention in a mounting degree over the past number of years.
What, I wonder, is the incidence of this disease in human beings? Surely by now some statistics are available to the Government. I have managed to secure a figure which is so terrifying

105
that I hope it is not typical, but which the Minister could verify, if he chooses to check on it. It is difficult for me to be absolutely certain of this figure, because obviously it is a confidential one to the hospitals, but over a two-month period three or four years ago every patient entering a certain Scottish hospital was tested for brucellosis, and the number of reactors turned out to be 80 per cent. This was for all types of patient—broken legs, broken arms, everything. Everyone who went in was tested, and I am reliably informed that 80 per cent. of all those patients were reactors. I think this is most alarming, and can show what the position is throughout the country. However, whatever the figures are in other parts of the country, the cost in human suffering, in the loss of work and in National Health expenditure must amount to substantial figures every year.
As several noble Lords have said, there is no doubt that the urgent eradication of all cattle reacting to the disease is the only solution. To my mind, there is absolutely no point in playing about with heat treatment of our milk, as some medical officers seem to think. Indeed, I believe that in at least one area a vendetta is being carried out against dairy farmers who are not treating their milk. Even though the milk has no brucella infection in it, the farmers are still being victimised. I am sure that this is wrong. Indeed, it could be that certain imported cheeses, particularly the cream cheeses, are a much more dangerous source of infection. I do not think that any action has been taken to check these cheeses, particularly, I think, those from Italy. However, I am pleased to say that I believe all our own home-made cheeses are safe.
What I am most grateful for is the wonderful co-operation we have had from all parties in Inverness-shire. Much of it has been unofficial, and indeed some of it, I think, of questionable legality. The Milk Board, the sanitary inspectors, the medical officers, the advisory services and our hospitals have all been absolutely superb: so much so that should any brucella-infected milk go on the market untreated it would be detected in a matter of days. So if the noble Baroness is frightened of going to Anglesea perhaps she would like to come to the Highlands for her holidays; she will find it is quite
106
safe in Inverness-shire. It is known at once which dairy herds are dangerous, and as a result no less than 42 per cent. of the Inverness-shire dairy herds are now accredited. This shows up very well compared with the 6 per cent. national average; and I am quite sure that this is almost entirely due to the very good work done (unofficially, most of it) by the various bodies which I have mentioned.
We are, of course, far from satisfied with this, and I know of farmers with infected herds who are very worried men. Indeed, there are those of us who have clear herds who are also extremely worried. We could be re-infected from neighbouring beef herds at any time. I have two small farmers with infected herds right in the middle of me: they just cannot afford to become accredited. I have heard of one cow which infected no fewer than five herds. It is no use concentrating on the dairy herds; the beef herds must be done simultaneously. But it is a very expensive undertaking for the fanner. The dairy fanner is now virtually unable to buy replacements. I know one comparatively small farmer who reckons that to remain accredited is costing him no less than £2,000 each year; and another farmer has spent £4,000 on attempting to become accredited but has now had to abandon his efforts as he is finding it too costly.
The beef farmer can lose much hill cattle subsidy; and then, again, one has to wait and breed one's own replacements. When one's herd is reduced one has a reduction in calves and in calf subsidy. Indeed, if one has a storm, as happened to me, one has to clean out all the adult cattle and leave the premises free of stock for six months; and then, after that, one has to start rebuilding one's herd. So far as I am concerned, I did not know where to look for replacements, and I have had to build them up from my own calves and another herd which I was fortunate enough to have. But this has meant that I have had to keep all the heifers, some of which were obviously not sufficiently good and which I would not have wanted to keep; but the only way I have managed to get the numbers up is to keep them all.
One of the problems is that once a cow has aborted that cow may not abort again but she remains a dangerous carrier

107
for, I think, the rest of her life—certainly for a long time. This is one reason why farmers who have had a storm say, "We cannot afford to get rid of our cattle; they will not abort again; we will just carry on ". And there they are, sitting perhaps in a fairly clear area with a highly dangerous stock of cattle. I just cannot understand the Government's thinking in this matter, or why they have taken no action. The farmers have asked for what appear to be the most reasonable proposals, some of which could have cost the Government little or nothing. They have asked for certain disciplines to be imposed on themselves. In the North Scotland Milk Marketing Board we have imposed a penalty on any infected milk. That milk will, of course, be treated and therefore no risk will be involved. Even so, we have imposed a penalty among ourselves. I can only assume that Ministers with largely urban backgrounds are unaware of the situation; that they must have been receiving very bad advice. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, who mentioned this point. Indeed, I was going to say that it was criminal advice that they have been getting.
When questions are put to senior veterinary officers, the excuse is that there is no finance available. Then all I can say, my Lords, is that they must have made a very bad case for the Government. If, after what we have heard to-night, the Treasury still refuse to produce money, then something is very wrong. I will hazard a guess that the Minister has among his notes figures to show the steadily-increasing number of accredited herds. I should like to suggest that those figures are really quite valueless when every farmer knows that the incidence of the disease has increased, and at an alarming rate, in recent years. Only yesterday I was told by a veterinary surgeon that in his area alone there had been a five-fold increase of clinical out-breaks of the disease— this rules out any reactors through vaccination— in the last five years. This means that in his area the disease had increased at least five times compared with five years ago. And this increase is compound; so that in another year— my mathematics are not good enough: if it has increased five-fold in five years and is compound I am not
108
sure what it will be at the end of another year, but it will be quite a large figure.
I checked this point with another firm of veterinary surgeons and they confirmed that the figures in their area— a different area— were very much the same. It was mentioned earlier this evening, I think by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, that there had been a twofold increase from prior to the foot and mouth out-break. This would bear out pretty consistently the five times in five years in other areas. These are terrifying figures. If this happens from a very small source five years ago, I do not know what will be the position in a few years' time.
I hope that after this debate the Government will say that 1971 is far too late to make a decision and that we must set about preparing legislation now. If that is the case, what steps do we take? In the first place, let us make the disease notifiable, both with human beings and with cattle. Anyone having an animal which has aborted should be compelled immediately to notify his vet. I cannot see what objection the Government can have to making this compulsory. Why have they not done it already? Secondly, any animal known to be infected should be marked and its sale should be only for slaughter; it should not be allowed to go into the open market. Why do we not have that regulation either? The Government must have known that these sales were going on; they must have known that these animals were spreading throughout the countryside. Only a month ago I bought a bull at a sale, having been assured that the herd was not being broken up on account of brucellosis. I am afraid that the brute has reacted. This should not be permitted by law.
Selling infected cattle on the open market must be stopped at once. In another year's time the disease will have spread to such proportions that it will be very difficult to eradicate in any area. I believe that East Anglia is better than some— that has been mentioned this evening— but, even so, the disease is spreading at an alarming rate. Five years ago the Black Isle in Ross-shire would have made an ideal clearance area; but now it is absolutely riddled with infection and it is highly problematical whether I shall be able to keep my herds—and

109
I have fairly large areas there—free from the disease. If finance is the stumbling block, then what was a comparatively small problem is going to be a major financial headache in a few years' time. It could well be that it is going to be extremely difficult to clear the country, from the practical point of view, for replacements.
The third suggestion I make is that we can reduce the cost of becoming accredited. This is too expensive for the farmers at the moment. Because tuberculosis eradication was aided by double fencing there appears to have been an attempt to model brucellosis eradication on the same lines. I maintain that double fencing is quite useless. I had a whole plantation, let alone two fences, between me and the infected herd—and my herds broke down because the infection was carried through. Another of our best dairy farmers on the shores of the Moray Firth was more or less completely isolated. His herd broke down, too. He had a storm. I gather that he wracked his brains as to how this had happened and then he found on the shore the remains of a fœtus. It seems highly likely that this was an infected fœtus and had been thrown into the Firth somewhere else. When I was listening to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, I was wondering whether possibly a fœtus might have come down the river (since he mentioned that a river was one of his boundaries) and whether possibly that might be a solution of his problem. However, it shows that fencing is of no consequence and is only an unnecessary expense which might just as well be scrapped. As regards the carrying of infection, the noble Baroness mentioned foxes. I would rather have hunting on my ground than have my farm a sanctuary where there would be foxes harbouring who would be more liable to carry infection.
Then we have the vexed question of vaccination. Here I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. The noble Baroness is not here. but I think that, with her medical experience, she will bear me out in saying that if one has a high enough degree of infection almost any vaccination will break down. As bovine animals have the unattractive habit of eating the fœtus, the degree of infection they are liable to get from an
110
infected fœtus is high; and as vaccination can give a positive blood test we should question whether the expense and time is justified or whether vaccination should be prohibited and the time and expense devoted to eradication. Then, as we have heard from other noble Lords, we have a mass of fiddling administration and record-keeping to satisfy the Ministry. This is a further cost and disincentive to entering the scheme. I think the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, mentioned several instances of this. However, this problem I feel we could get over; we need not have as much trouble as this.
My fourth point is whether or not financial incentives should be given to farmers to become accredited—and, if so, what incentives. There is no doubt, particularly in the present economic state of the industry, that many farmers are financially unable to become accredited. There is, however, little doubt that the saving to the country in the future, both from the human and from the agricultural aspect, wan-ants a substantial and urgent injection of finance into the eradication of this disease.
My Lords, if by now the Minister is not pondering as to what on earth he can reply; if by now he is not convinced of the need for urgent Governmental action, would he not consider the setting up, as a matter of urgency, of a Committee of Inquiry—as was done by the establishment of the Northumberland Committee for foot-and-mouth? When I mentioned this before the debate it was suggested that I should be offering the Minister a lifeboat to save him this evening. However, a lifeboat is of no use unless it gets there very speedily. The greatest speed is required. If I have saved him in this way, we have at least achieved something if he sets up this Committee, because I am sure that he will get very rapidly the answers that we all want.
7.20 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I will not detain the House for more than a moment. I should like to support the noble Baroness in this debate. I think that one thing is absolutely certain in this debate: we are unanimous, on all sides of the House, on this problem. There never can have been, or could be, a more popular policy

111
for any Government to put forward than a policy to eradicate brucellosis. I recommend that to the Minister as something that he might well put in his pocket and produce at a General Election, since I cannot imagine anything that would rally the farmers more securely to support any Government than the fact that a scheme of this kind would form part of their agricultural policy.
My Lords, it is the duty of us all, on whichever side of the House we sit, to do something about this disease, if we are interested in this industry and in other aspects of the problem which have been brought out by the noble Baroness, including one to which I, too, can testify —the devastating effect on human beings. Only the other day I met my veterinary surgeon in the street of a market town. I know him very well; he is an extremely nice fellow. He looked so ill that I said to him, "What is the matter with you? "He looked as though he might fall down at any moment. He replied: "I have undulant fever. I have had it now for months and months as the result of having to handle a lot of herds where there is brucellosis."
I can add nothing to what has been said during the debate. Everyone has spoken in such an interesting manner and from experience. My heart went out to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, who had done everything possible to avoid this disease. There is no doubt that a great deal of research is needed and that much more study is required. My mind goes back to the very early days of the tuberculin-tested scheme for cattle. I think that my husband was the Minister at the time when that scheme was started, and I know that it was an extremely difficult thing to do. But he, and every-body concerned, persevered; and to-day we know that the result has been highly successful. All herds to-day are tuberculin-tested and the incidence of bovine tuberculosis has gone down enormously. I believe that the same thing could be done with this disease. It would require money, experience and research. But everybody wants it done, and nobody would be against the Government if they undertook this kind of scheme.
The question of the use of new vaccines, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, is very important. My cattle
112
are constantly being injected with Strain 19. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not; and many other people will tell you the same. We have to do something fresh about it, which means more research. I hope that the Minister will report to his right honourable friend at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that everyone who has anything to do with this industry and who cares that people should not get this disease —which is preventable—will be behind him if he undertakes a really radical scheme. But that must be done, or at any rate started, now. If it is not, the situation will get far worse. Eradication will become much more expensive in the long run and more difficult to achieve. If the Minister pays attention to all that has been said, he will know that we shall be behind him if he puts forward a good scheme based on the experience of other people.
7.24 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, before the Minister replies—and I apologise for being too late to put down my name to speak—I should like to add my word of thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, for initiating this debate. I am delighted at the way in which it has gone. I think there can be no doubt that from what has been said on both sides of the House, as well as from the medical and the farming points of view, the country is anxious to go faster towards a brucellosis-eradication scheme than the Government appear at the moment to be willing to go.
I have been keeping dairy cows in Somerset, in England, and as there have been many speeches from people from Ireland and Scotland, and from beef cattle owners, I thought that someone should speak up for the dairy cattle breeders. Brucellosis is a foul disease in dairy cattle, and we want to get rid of it. I am sure that the only way is by adopting a slaughter policy. To me it seems strange that in this country, where we have been so strongly wedded to the slaughter policy that has proved' so efficacious in respect of foot-and-mouth disease (and the second volume of the Northamberland Report is coming out now), we should have taken so long to come round to a thorough-going slaughter policy for brucellosis eradication.

113
I remember so well the weary days we went through at the beginning of the T.T. eradication policy, and that it took a shamefully long time to eradicate bovine tuberculosis. When other countries had to start eradication, particularly Ireland, they were able to do it in half the time taken by the great United Kingdom. Do not let that happen again with this brucellosis problem. Finally, my Lords, I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, for his extremely interesting piece of information that contagious abortion is entirely absent in the Virgin Islands, as of course it should be.
7.26 p.m.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I do not wish to take up too much time, but I also would thank the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, for initiating this very interesting debate. I have listened to all the speeches. I do not propose to make a speech, but I am going to bring out one or two points. The first is that an eradication scheme must be started forthwith, not in 1971. The next point is that all reactors should be marked with a star, and they should not go through the marker except for slaughter. Compensation should be paid from the first test to make up the difference in the price of animals going for slaughter and the price of a milking cow.
I should like to ask the Government to institute an insurance scheme for attested herds. We should all be very willing to pay insurance if the Government would protect us against outside infection. I want veterinary notification of the first sign of brucellosis on a farm, and I should also like to see a requirement of medical notification of undulant fever in humans. I know that it is what is called in Scotland"not proven ", but abortions in women may quite possibly be the result of undulant fever. The noble Lord, Lord Burton, suggested that 80 per cent, of people there who went into hospital were reactors, and surely some may be aborters too. But that is not proven, because it is not notifiable. So I think that some medical research is essential. In conclusion, my Lords, I should like to thank all the speakers in this most interesting debate and to urge the Government to get on with the job.
7.29 p.m.
LORD HILTON of UPTON: My Lords, I am sure that we are all very grateful to my noble friend Lady Summerskill for raising this matter this afternoon. The fact that so many have stayed until the end of the debate proves how important the subject is. It was good of my noble friend to give us this opportunity to look more closely into the problem of this disease than was possible on the occasion when the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, moved his Amendment to the Animals Bill. We have had our attention drawn to the risk which brucellosis presents to human health, and I know that your Lordships will join with me in sympathising with the noble Lord, Lord Burton, on his personal tragedy, to which he referred.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, warned us that he was going to be critical; and he was true to form. I have rarely, if ever, heard him more critical. He went a time or two so far as to tell your Lordships what I was going to say in reply and said that he felt sorry for me because I would be ploughing a lone furrow. However, I do not feel sorry for myself.
I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. No time has been lost. All were very interesting speeches. However, I am bound to point out something which must be obvious. I will not be able to reply to all the points made, but I will see that the attention of my right honourable from the Minister of Agriculture is drawn to the whole of the debate and to the points which have been made.
I should like to make two general points before replying to particular questions which have been raised. My first point is that we must keep a balance and we must have priorities. If we are to multiply the time which our veterinary surgeons spend on brucellosis, then something else will have to give way and there will be no margin for new problems. We cannot simultaneously commit all our available professional resources into brucellosis and then respond to the next pressure, whatever it may be, even if it happens to concern diseases like salmonellosis, or Regulations like those for slaughterhouses, which involve human as well as animal health.

115
My second point is that there is a tendency, as we have heard to-day, to speak of tuberculosis eradication and brucellosis eradication in the same breath, and to relate the one to the other. This is not comparing like with like. Tuberculosis eradication started with a voluntary scheme in 1935 and it took 25 years to complete. So far, and allowing for the "stand-still" during the foot-and-mouth epidemic, the Brucellosis Scheme has been running for barely 25 months. Next, the two diseases them-selves have little in common. It is well-known that brucellosis is far more complex to diagnose and much more difficult to eradicate. Then again nobody would suggest that the British livestock industry has stood still in the 35 years since the the tuberculosis eradication campaign started. To-day we have far more live-stock, far higher stocking densities, new intensive systems, and large concentrations of cattle, often using common cubicles or the like. We owe much to these modern developments, but we would do well to remember that they create conditions in which animal diseases are spread more easily and are more difficult to control.
The point has repeatedly been made— and the Government fully accept it—that the only effective solution to brucellosis is to eradicate it, area by area. What is in question is not how to tackle that problem but when to start. This has been worrying noble Lords during their speeches to-night. Many noble Lords have said that 1971 will be too late and that we should start much sooner than this. But I repeat that the question is not how to tackle but when to tackle the problem.
Last month my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture made an important announcement in another place about brucellosis. Noble Lords were given the details by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor during our debate on the Report stage of the Animals Bill, and they have been mentioned again to-day. But I make no apology for recalling the principal points. My right honourable friend said that he aimed to start limited eradication projects in specially selected areas in 1971; and he made it quite clear why it would be wrong to make an immediate start on
116
a general compulsory eradication scheme. There are two reasons, and they are inter-related.
First, our national herd still contains large numbers of animals which, although perfectly healthy, react to tests for brucellosis because they were vaccinated with Strain 19 vaccine at an adult age. This practice of adult vaccination with Strain 19 ceased in 1967 so that, by the end of 1972, virtually all of these adult vaccinates should have been culled from the national herd. If we started compulsory eradication now we should have to slaughter all these healthy animals; we should be expected to pay compensation for them; and, above all, we should need replacements for them. The slaughter, the payment and the replacement would all represent a reckless waste of national resources.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, could the Minister give any idea of the number of cattle vaccinated in that way?
LORD HILTON of UPTON: I am sorry, my Lords, I cannot, but I shall see that the noble Lord is sent a reply to that question. It would be equally reckless to embark upon compulsory eradication without an adequate reservoir of replacements—and I must again point out that the reservoir must be larger, if we are to slaughter the vaccinal reactors as well. In the recent foot-and-mouth epidemic, we saw only too starkly what can happen if there is extensive slaughtering in a limited area and replacements are hard to come by. With foot-and-mouth we had no choice; with brucellosis we can phase our programme to avert any shortage and any resulting escalation of prices. Whatever the pressures, the Government are determined not to precipitate a market crisis by a premature programme of eradication. Indeed, those who clamour for eradication now would probably be the first to cry "halt", if we took them at their word.
Nor can I accept unreasonable criticism of the progress made towards building up this essential reservoir of disease-free stock. It will normally take repeated testing, over a period of at least a year, to establish the disease-free status of a herd. Yet in barely 25 effective months we already have 7 per cent, of the herds and 14 per cent, of the cattle in Great Britain within the Scheme. Then again,

117
if there was no confidence in the Scheme, as is widely alleged, you would expect a falling off in interest and applications. Instead, the level has been rising and is currently exceeding 150 a week. Those who know and understand this complex disease will, I am sure, accept the timetable for compulsory eradication and acknowledge the encouraging progress of the present voluntary scheme.
LORD NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt the Minister to ask him whether he would give, in addition to the number of entries, the number of drop-outs per week?
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I am sorry that I do not have this information in my notes but I will try to get it for the noble Lord. It remains for me to discuss some of the specific points which my noble friend Lady Summerskill and other noble Lords have raised to-day.
Let me say a few words about the market circulation of reactors. The most widespread call is for measures to be taken against the sale of reactors in the open market where, it is argued, their presence in increasing numbers is multiplying the spread of the disease. It seems to me that this theory does less than justice—I would go so far as to say it does a double injustice—to British farmers. First, it implies that large numbers of them are unscrupulously placing infected animals on the open market. Secondly, it implies that our farmers in equally large numbers are naively importing disease into their herds. Without both of these assumptions—and I know the British farmer better than to accept either of them— no significant trade in infected animals could be maintained.
This is not to say that some reactors may not find their way into the markets; and it is argued that the Government should prevent them from getting there. Noble Lords will be aware that it is already an offence, under the Epizootic Abortion Order of 1922, to put on the market an animal which has aborted in the previous two months. However, I recognise that we are here dealing not necessarily with animals that have aborted but with reactors; and of course there is no better illustration of the many technical complexities of brucellosis than the fact that a cow which is chronically
118
infected with the disease may well deliver a healthy calf after an apparently normal pregnancy. Equally, it is quite wrong to assume that every abortion is due to brucellosis; surveys indicate that only about 6 per cent, of all dairy cows do not carry their calves to full term and of these only about 1 in every 10 abort because of brucellosis.
Indeed, when noble Lords and others speak of "reactors in markets" we ought to be clear what is meant by that expression. Does it mean animals that have reacted to a blood test? Or does it mean animals that would react to a blood test? Both groups, let us remember, will include healthy vaccinates as well as infected animals. My impression is that most people tend to think, speak and write in terms of the first and smaller group of "known reactors"; but if we stopped there we should only be scraping the surface of the subject. To discuss the problem realistically I suggest we must address ourselves to all animals in markets—not just a select few that happen to have been tested.
Then again, those who call for Government measures to prevent the marketing of reactors tend to do so in very general terms without entering into the practical realities of what they are suggesting. So let us examine what would be involved.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, if the noble Lord will excuse me, is he implying that all animals, all cattle beef and all bovines going into the market, male and female, should be tested?
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: I am not saying that at all.
LORD BALERNO: Then I must have taken the wrong meaning from the noble Lord's words.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: If the noble Lord will read what I have said, I think he will find that I did not say that.
Most of the critics simply say that the Government should ban the sale of reactors in the markets—and leave it at that. But we cannot leave it at that. How, may I ask, are the Government to enforce a measure of that kind? Suppose we dispersed our precious veterinary manpower up and down the country seeking out reactors among the thousands of

119
animals which pass through hundreds of markets each week; and suppose we prosecuted the owners concerned. Unless it was a young animal we should have to acknowledge that it might not be infected at all, and that it could be an adult vaccinate. I doubt whether your Lord-ships would approve of any conviction on that kind of evidence.
Others argue that all reactors, presumably whether genuine or vaccinal, should be branded with a prominent earmark or the like. That would be very rough justice for the owners of the healthy vaccinates. Nevertheless, let us follow it through from its simple starting point. Who is going to identify and brand these reactors, and when will they do it? Certainly not the farmer or his stockman because they have no facilities for distinguishing and establishing the disease in particular animals.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, surely the answer to that question is that it should be a veterinary surgeon. When he has carried out blood tests on a cow, and the cow has reacted to the test, he should be under an obligation to mark the cow in such a way that it cannot fail to be noticed.
LORD HILTON of UPTON: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his help, but I am sure I do not have to remind him that we are short of veterinary surgeons.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, is the noble Lord trying to make us believe that there is no way of eradicating known diseased cattle, and that we have not enough vets? If we have not, we had better recruit some more.
LORD HILTON of UPTON: I would invite the noble Lord to read what I have said.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I certainly will. It is the most pessimistic speech that I have ever heard.
LORD HILTON of UPTON: My Lords, if the approach I was describing were to be more than a facade, every herd in the country would need a compulsory blood test at frequent intervals— because the presence of a single reactor foreshadows the possibility of other
120
animals in the herd quickly acquiring the disease. This might be feasible; but to find the necessary veterinary manpower we should first need to abandon the present accreditation scheme and with it any early prospect of area eradication. A continuous national branding exercise, like effective enforcement measures through our chain of markets, would simply postpone the methodical steps that are being taken to deal with this disease.
LORD BALERNO: If I may interrupt the noble Lord again, if there is this acute shortage of veterinary surgeons which is implied, may I ask whether the Minister has given consideration to the fact that we might employ lay testers to draw the required sample of blood? It is a simple operation and much simpler than the insemination that is done by laymen. We could get the samples in this way and thus put very little pressure upon the veterinary profession; and the manpower could be used for other things as well.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I suggested in my speech that some of the time might be saved by doing away with vaccination.
LORD HILTON of UPTON: My Lords, I will draw both those points to the attention of my right honourable friend. Your Lordships can take it from me that he is well aware of the shortage of vets.
Some argue that reactors would never find their way into our markets if only the Government would slaughter them and pay compensation. I do not doubt it. Nor do I doubt that if we set about brucellosis in that way the disease would still be with us in the 21st century. Is it seriously suggested that we should abandon any systematic approach so that we could free our veterinary surgeons to rush hither and thither testing (and if necessary arranging slaughter and valuation) of individual animals destined for the market? If so, then I am glad to affirm that the Government intend to eradicate brucellosis on a herd and an area basis, and have no intention of dissipating their own and the taxpayer's resources on any stratagems based upon particular reactors on particular farms or in particular markets.
My Lords, the solution of this emotional problem of market reactors is maddeningly simple. You cannot have

121
a market transaction without a willing buyer as well as a willing seller. Those who want to buy brucella-free animals do not need to go blindfold into the market. Already there are 75 markets having sections exclusively reserved for accredited stock—and the number of these markets is steadily rising; or if the buyer prefers to purchase direct from the seller he can insist upon a blood test. If there are any significant number of reactors in the ring, then disciplined and prudent buying should effectively deal with them. And if the noble Baroness has any doubts on this score or on other aspects of present Government policy for brucellosis. I hope she will have found reassurance in last week's article in the Lancet. I would commend all noble Lords to read this article.
Now a word on notifiable disease. The noble Baroness wanted brucellosis to be a notifiable disease in humans. While sympathising with the objective, here I pant company with the solution that is suggested. I hope the noble Baroness will agree that this would not prevent spread of the disease; nor could it serve its intended purpose, because brucellosis in man is notoriously difficult to diagnose, as few, if any, of its symptoms are specific and the lapse of time before diagnosis is made impedes the tracing of the source of infection.
In the Animals Bill debate on December 16 and again to-day my noble friend took us to task because, she argued, more progress had been made with brucellosis across the Irish Sea. In this instance, however, I am bound to remind her that the earlier requirement to notify human brucellosis was repealed in Northern Ireland because experience tended to show that notification was unlikely to be forwarded until laboratory confirmation was available. In fact, considerably more cases were reported by the laboratories than through the notification procedure. I agree that there are advantages in building up information about sources of infection by other means, notably by tests on raw milk.
In reply to my noble friend Lord Collison, and his suggestion about scheduling the disease under the Industrial Injuries Act, I would point out to him this was dealt with In another place as recently as December 15. What I have just said about the difficulty of
122
diagnosing brucellosis has a very real bearing on the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, who asked about the significance of the figure he quoted as representing the incidence of brucellosis in Aberdeen. I should perhaps say that this was in a personal note that the noble Lord., Lord Balerno, sent to me, and I am not sure that he raised this particular point during the discussion to-night.
LORD BALERNO: No, my Lords; 1 did not raise that particular point, though I rather think it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Burton.
LORD HILTON or UPTON: In fact this refers to persons who showed evidence in their blood of exposure—and this is the key point—at some time in their lives to infection with brucella organisms.
The noble Baroness who put the Question, and the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, contrasted our brucellosis measures with those that have been taken in other countries; and the noble Baroness specifically referred to the progress made in Scandinavia and Ireland. I would urge that comparisons of this kind should be made only when there is any semblance of comparing like with like. For instance, do these other countries feature the same densities of livestock population; the same intensive systems of livestock: farming; the same massive local movements of cattle which characterise our present marketing arrangements? And did they perforce have to use vaccines to the extent that we did? It may be that other countries which have tackled brucellosis were faced with some or all of these problems. None, I venture to assert, has been confronted with them to the same extent.
Taking my noble friend's specific example, while I should not wish to denigrate in any way what has been achieved in Northern Ireland during their six-year programme it would be fair to point out that, after less than three years, we already have more animals within our Scheme than the entire cattle population of Northern Ireland. Equally, I think it fair to say that the Republic, with its exporting tradition, has adopted a rather different approach to the disease. Their efforts have centred mainly on the less densely populated cattle areas. Perhaps

123
I may digress here to express my sympathy to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. I am sure that your Lordships were moved by the unfortunate personal experience which he recounted on an earlier occasion in your Lordships' House and again to-night, It is, if I may say so, a clear illustration of all the perplexities attending upon the control and eradication of this disease. There you had what is fairly held to be the panacea of a self-contained herd in the very heart of an eradication situation—and yet, as the noble Lord told us, 14 out of 60 animals suddenly reacted at their annual test.
Turning to the Scandinavian countries, I would acknowledge that their record has been impressive, but neither their problems nor their solutions were akin to our own. Thus, taking Denmark, which alone of the Scandinavian countries has a cattle population approaching that in Great Britain, I understand that their eradication effort was spread over eleven years, although the Danes were less troubled by the presence of adult vaccinates. Moreover, I see that their approach to eradication included penalty provisions where herd owners did not make swift progress. I doubt whether the noble Baroness is necessarily advocating anything of that kind—indeed, I believe that she subscribes firmly to the slaughter/ compensation approach. The Government are willing and anxious to benefit from eradication experience gained in other countries; but I cannot go along with those who put our own Scheme at a discount.
The noble Lord Rowallan referred to the problem of the owner of an accredited herd on to whose land non-accredited cattle stray. I have every sympathy for the owner in such a situation—and I understand that the noble Lord himself suffered in this way. But the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor covered this matter fully in the debate on the Report stage of the Animals Bill a short time ago. There is little that I can add. The rules of the Brucellosis (Accredited Herds) Scheme are clear on this question of the herd owner's responsibility: the owner of an accredited herd is under an obligation to maintain his boundaries and to ensure that his cattle cannot and do not come into contact with other cattle. It would therefore seem to
124
me to be wrong to create an additional risk for the owner of the straying animal when that risk arises out of the accredited owner's voluntary contract of which he is already in breach.
The noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, also referred to the related dangers to an accredited herd when the police turn straying cattle off the road into the nearest gate, and to his recent correspondence with my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture. There is very little that I can add to what has already been said on this difficult subject, except to say that this, too, seems an area where the accredited herd owner can best safeguard his own interests—in this case, I would suggest, by posting warning notices around his premises. Unless the occupier takes this simple precaution, it seems to me that, with the best will in the world, the man on the spot—who, after all, is faced with the immediate problem of confining the straying animals as soon as possible—would be unable to identify those fields which belonged to the accredited premises.
I repeat my thanks to the noble Baroness for the opportunity she has given us to look at this important disease and its impact upon human and animal health. Although I have necessarily dealt mainly with the agricultural side of the coin, because this is where the problem begins and ends, I can assure the noble Baroness that the human health factor enters very fully into the reckoning. Indeed, only last month senior officers of the Ministry of Agriculture had a far-ranging discussion exclusively on brucellosis with representatives from the County Councils Association, the Rural District Councils Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations, and the Department of Health and Social Security; and note was taken of various ways in which each side could help the other. These discussions concentrated specially on the problem of the producer/ retailer and here medical officers of health have a particular responsibility for regular testing of raw milk supplies.
Finally, the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Collison, can rest assured that I have not overlooked the other health hazard to which they referred—and in which I need scarcely declare my personal interest. As she has pointed out, it is not only those who

125
drink raw milk who may be at risk from brucellosis, but also all those in the rural community who handle cattle—farmers, their families, the veterinary profession, slaughtermen, and above all, if I may say so, agricultural workers. Most of my life, like Lord Collison's, has been spent endeavouring to further the interest of farm workers; and in particular to secure for them the standards of safety, health and welfare enjoyed by their fellow men in other industries. I feel it keenly that they are specially exposed to the distress of this grievous disease. it is because I am convinced that the Government are in earnest about brucellosis, and because I do not want to see their considered policy disrupted by unrewarding diversions, that I have replied to this debate in such forthright terms. My Lords, I will certainly ensure that all the points that various speakers have made are referred to my right honourable friends.