Lords Sitting of 22 January 1970

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

HERRING FISHING IN THE NORTH SEA
3.7 p.m.
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 they have any further statement to make about the international conference dealing with herring fishing in the North Sea.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, at its meeting in The Hague last week the North Sea Herring Study Group, which was set up by the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission last year, examined possible measures to restore the herring stocks of the North Sea. In the light of this examination the Group decided to concentrate its attention on proposals to close the various main herring grounds for certain times of the year and on the possibility of combining this with a minimum size for herring. It was agreed that these possibilities should be examined urgently by Government, with a view to further consideration by the Group before the annual meeting of the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission in May.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his reply, which is very satisfactory so far as it goes. I am glad that things are moving. Will the noble Lord be very kind and in due course, when there is further information, perhaps give me a hint?
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords. I shall be glad to keep the noble Lord informed.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, arising out of that Answer, does the noble Lord realise that there has been a great deal
222
of delay in reaching any conclusion at all in this matter, and will he impress on the Group the necessity for reaching some conclusion not later than May?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I know that there has been some delay, but of course it is a matter of getting a solution which is not only fair to other countries, but which is accepted by them as being fair, since unless there is agreement somebody is going to steal a march on the rest. For myself I hope that there will be an agreement in May along the lines I have indicated.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether Russia would be part of this agreement—because they have depot ships and trawlers fishing for days and days on end and carrying the herring away. Herring stocks are getting smaller every year because the sea is being overfished.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, my noble friend has caught me out on one point with which I am not acquainted. I am not sure whether the Soviet Union is a member of the Group, but I will let him know.

DECIMAL CURRENCY AND UNDERGROUND FARES
3.9 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: 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 are aware of the views of the London Transport Executive on fares on the Underground being based on multiples of one shilling, and whether, in view of the serious inflationary implications, they will reconsider their decision to do away with the sixpence.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, there are several factors which may affect the level and structure of fares, and I understand that the London Transport Executive would in any case see merit in a fare structure in shilling steps on the Underground for reasons unconnected with the disappearance of the sixpence. Their fare structure is a matter for the Executive and the Greater London Council. Nevertheless, the Government,

223
in a statement made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport, have made it clear that decimalisation cannot of itself be a justification for price increases; that it would be inconsistent with Government policy for it to be used as a pretext for unnecessary prices increases, and that the Executive and the Council are expected to consider their intentions closely in the light of the Government's policy.
The sixpenny coin will remain legal tender until the end of the change-over period. At present there is no fixed date for this change-over, but the Treasury will be able to bring the period to an end at any time, subject to the approval of Parliament, as soon as the country is ready to work in decimal currency.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for his reply, I must say that the uncertainty about the sixpence is surely extremely unsatisfactory. First of all, the London Transport Executive said that they would have to make a change which would cost £1 million, which in itself is inflationary. Then, taking another aspect of transport—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Speech!
THE EARL OF PERTH: — the public authorities throughout the country, is it not true that they will have to change their parking meters because the sixpences are going to disappear? That will involve—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl? I realise that noble Lords frequently wish to back up their questions and make them more intelligible by argument, but I wonder whether the noble Earl could come to his actual question?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, my second question, after the first one on the inflationary impact of the London Transport Executive's having to change their machines, is a similar one with regard to local authorities' parking meters, which will mean a 100 per cent. increase owing to the uncertainty.
LORD BESWICK: No. my Lords. I do not fellow the noble Earl in his argument about the uncertainty. I invited
224
this House to come to a certain conclusion on the Bill in order to end the uncertainty, and we agreed that the sixpence should be phased out. There is no uncertainty about that. It is for the different authorities, organisations, bodies and individuals who use the various machines to decide their own policy and either to convert to the new coinage or, as in certain cases, such as parking meters, to concentrate on a shilling for twice the amount of time given for sixpence. This is entirely a matter for the different organisations concerned, although one hopes that they will keep within the Government's pricing policy.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, does this mean that, whenever there is to be an increase in fares, they must go up by a shilling, instead of by sixpence as they normally have done; and is that not a most serious position for the whole of the travelling public?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, this is not an argument about the pricing policy of the London Transport Executive. The noble Earl is under a misapprehension. Other coins as well as the shilling are involved in the new decimal structure, and it would be quite possible for the London Transport Executive so to arrange their fare structure that other coins are used.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, do the Government appreciate that if they had accepted the advice so often given to them to have a 10s. pound, then this useful and economical coin, worth six old pence, the disappearance of which will raise the cost of living in so many ways, would have been a permanent part of our currency?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, one of the noble Earl's most endearing qualities is his readiness to look backwards. We have made a decision. It is now for us to use the decimal coinage which we as a Parliament have agreed upon.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, could someone explain to the London Transport Executive that instead of changing their machines they might change their tickets—divide the ticket down the middle and supply two for the shilling?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I will bring the noble Lord's suggestion to the

225
attention of the London Transport Executive. I have no doubt that in view of the political complexion of the Greater London Council they will pay particular heed to it.

THE CONTRACEPTIVE PILL
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: 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 instructions will be given to withdraw all contraceptive pills from the market having regard to the withdrawal in the United States of America of the pill Normenal, which is oestrogen free.]
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware of the decision taken by the Food and Drug Administration in the United States to suspend further clinical studies with oral contraceptives containing only chlormadinone acetate. Our Committee on Safety of Drugs has asked for full details of the evidence upon which the American decision was based. It has already received some details, which it is actively considering at this moment. The Committee is in touch with the manufacturers here of such contraceptives, and they also have the matter under urgent consideration. Her Majesty's Government see no justification for withdrawing all oral contraceptives from the market.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, how can my noble friend reconcile that Answer with the position? Does she recall that last month the women of this country were told that 21 of the oral contraceptives on the market were dangerous because they had a high oestrogen content and that this pill was safe because it did not have a high oestrogen content? The United States Food and Drug Administration now say that although it has no oestrogen at all it is dangerous. Should we not therefore be guided by the Food and Drug Administration and withdraw it, even while further consideration is being given to it?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I entirely understand and sympathise, as indeed will the whole House, with my noble friend's concern in these matters, but I think it is absolutely right that our highly qualified professional and technical experts should investigate these findings; and that is precisely what they are doing.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, arising out of the Question, may I ask the following supplementary question? Would not the Minister agree that my noble friend is lacking in a sense of proportion when asking the Government for the withdrawal of all contraceptive pills, particularly as it is well known that the dangers of cigarette smoking far outweigh any minimal dangers attaching to the pill? A recent poll showed that 41 per cent. of women are smokers and that though there are 18 million—
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give way? I am sorry, but I feel, in fairness, that the noble Baroness is also developing a debate; and I am not sure that a question whether one of our noble friends is lacking a sense of proportion is an entirely appropriate matter for the Government to answer.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I just conclude? I apologise if I have offended my noble friend, but would not the Minister agree that there are 18 million women around the world taking the pill, 8½ million of them in America, and that there is still no hard evidence that there are any alarming dangers attached to the pill?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I should not like to confirm my noble friend's figures—I have not got them in front of me—and still less would I take on such a dangerous operation as she asked me previously. But I would point out that the great difference between England and the United States is that in the United States these oral contraceptives are obtainable from slot machines, whereas in this country they can be obtained only on the prescription of the woman's own doctor. That is a very great difference.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend one

227
more supplementary? Does she realise, in relation to these 21 pills which last month the women of this country were told not to take, that last year and the year before that our women were told that they were quite safe? Therefore, how can we have any confidence that the people who are advising her now are advising correctly? The other question I should like to ask concerning the Food and Drug Administration of the United States is: does my noble friend recall that it was the Food and Drug Administration who refused to allow thalidomide to be distributed in the United States? We ignored their advice then, with the result that we had many deformed children.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, in answer to the first part of my noble friend's supplementary question, the point about the oral contraceptives which the Drugs Safety Committee advised against in December last is that they contained oestrogens. That raised a different issue from the one in the case of "Normenon", which is concerned with the results of research in the United States and experiments with dogs. So far as can be seen at present, there is no link with humans, and no experiments have taken place. It is important to keep this in mind. Nevertheless, the Drugs Safety Committee is investigating, as a matter of urgency, whether there might be any such adverse effect as has been found in America. That brings me to the second part of the supplementary question. There is a great difference with regard to the situation in the case of thalidomide, because in the days of the thalidomide tragedy there was no Drugs Safety Committee in this country; and there now is.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that with half a million women in this country "on the pill" and about 20 deaths a year from side effects, if the Government were panicked into withdrawing all contraceptive pills the increase in deaths arising from pregnancy or abortions would be greater, and that to take this action would be not only unwise but actually fatal? Would the Minister also agree that the
228
answer surely is to put more money into research, so as to find a safer pill?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I agree with a great deal of what my noble friend has said. Her experience as Chairman of the Health Education Committee is relevant in this matter. A great deal of money is being spent on research. The Medical Research Council, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the best medical brains, are engaged in this constantly. I think that the principle which underlies all this is that women should have the freedom to choose, on the advice of their medical practitioners, the form of contraception they feel suits them best.

NIGERIA
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, at a convenient moment after half past three my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on Nigeria.

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ESTATES BILL [H.L.]
LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to repeal Section 1(3) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 and to make provision for facilitating proceedings against the estates of deceased persons. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a —(Lord Lloyd of Hampstead.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

DEPUTY CHAIRMEN OF COMMITTEES
3.23 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg leave to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Stonham be added to the panel of Lords appointed to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session.—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

VALUATION FOR RATING (SCOTLAND) BILL
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOT-TISH OFFICE (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to enable my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to give intensive agricultural units the same measure of relief from rates as is given to industry. The background is that court decisions on the interpretation of Section 7 of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 have established that intensive livestock buildings are liable for rates, unlike other agricultural buildings.
This development caused the National Farmers' Union of Scotland great concern, and they asked the Government to amend the law so as to extend full de-rating to all buildings used for agricultural purposes. These representations were very carefully considered by the Government. We concluded, however, that it would be right to consider the position of agriculture in the general review of local government finance following the Reports of the two Royal Commissions on Local Government, and consequently that it would be wrong and prejudicial to the outcome of the review to follow the line of action advocated by the farming interests. But my right honourable friend the Secretary of State felt that there was considerable force in the argument that intensive agriculture in Scotland tan take advantage neither of 50 per cent. industrial derating nor of full agricultural derating. He therefore accepted that, without prejudice to the outcome of the review, intensive agricultural buildings in Scotland should be derated to the same extent as industry; and on July 24 of last year he announced his intention to introduce legislation enabling him to put that decision into practical effect. That then is the background to this measure. Let me now proceed to the Bill itself.
Clause 1 contains the main provisions of the Bill. Subsection (1) would enable the Secretary of State to make by Statutory Instrument an order reducing the rateable value of lands and heritages entered in the valuation roll and consisting of one or more buildings (as later defined) used solely for the purpose of
230
breeding or keeping livestock. In adopting this method of derating the Bill follows closely the pattern of the analogous provisions for derating industry which are contained in Section 10 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1963.
Dwelling-houses are explicitly excluded from the scope of the reduction in rateable value, in case it should be argued that a bothy or cottage occupied along with an intensive unit was used solely for the purpose of livestock keeping and so should be derated. This would run counter to the general provision that dwelling-houses are liable for rates. In addition, subject to important provisions in subsections (4) and (6) which I shall explain a little later, a building must be used only for livestock keeping or breeding and for no other purpose, such as research or trading, if it is to qualify for derating; hence the qualification that it must be used "solely" for the purpose of the keeping or breeding of livestock. Here I might point out an important feature of this clause, on which there may have been some misunderstanding. The clause refers only to lands and heritages which are entered in the valuation roll. These words make it clear that there is no alteration in the position of those livestock units which qualify for full agricultural derating under the present law. Only those which do not qualify for this full derating are affected by the Bill, which creates no new liabilities to rates.
An order made under subsection (1) could be effective from at earliest the year 1970–71, and would remain in force until revoked or superseded by a new order as provided under subsection (3). A new order will not be needed each year. The order-making power will not lapse after first being used, and it would be possible for the Secretary of State to make an order to be effective from any specified year subsequent to 1970–71. Subsection (2) provides that an order made by the Secretary of State in exercise of the power provided by Clause 1(1) is to be subject to Affirmative Resolution procedure in the House of Commons.
Subsection (4) of Clause 1 provides for cases where intensive livestock keeping or breeding is carried on in a part of lands and heritages, the whole of which

231
is considered as a unit for valuation purposes. Again, as in subsection (1) it is made clear that the subsection has effect only in relation to lands and heritages which are already rateable in terms of the present law. The Bill provides that such a part of lands and heritages should be separated out from the rest of the unit of valuation, and treated as if it were itself a separate unit of valuation subject to the Valuation Acts. As such it would be eligible for derating under subsection (1). The remainder of the lands and heritages left over once the livestock production part has been separated off would also be dealt with as if it were a distinct entity for valuation and rating purposes. This means that a building or buildings used for livestock production purposes, and even a part of a building so used, will not lose the benefit of the derating because it is normally valued along with other parts of the building, and other buildings, used for different purposes.
Subsection (5) provides for the definition of the term "livestock production part" as it is used in the provisions of the previous subsection. Taken together, these two subsections allow for apportionment between rateable and non-rateable uses where a building can be physically divided into parts. Within the scope of the definition in subsection (5) would be a part of a building, a single building, a number of buildings, parts of several buildings, or a combination of some of these. But in order to qualify the part referred to must be used solely for the keeping or breeding of livestock. The sixth subsection of Clause 1 expands the sense in which a building, or part of a building, is to be considered as being used solely for livestock production purposes. The subsection provides that if a building used for breeding or keeping livestock is also used to some extent, or from time to time, for purposes which would qualify it for full agricultural derating under the 1956 Act were it used wholly for these purposes, then it will still be eligible for partial derating under the Bill. As is indicated by the opening words of the subsection, this provision in no way undermines the instruction given in Clause 1(4) to cover cases where the building can be physically split into rateable and non-rateable parts.
232
To simplify this still further, it will obviously be in the interests of the farmer, where he can, to divide the building physically, because one part will be completely derated and the other part will be derated to the extent of 50 per cent. But there will be cases where physical separation is neither possible nor desirable, and if the building is used for part of the year for intensive breeding purposes it will receive partial derating over the whole period of the year. The Bill deals with those cases where either the whole building is used for intensive livestock or other agricultural purposes but cannot be physically divided according to the uses, or the whole building is used sometimes for intensive livestock and sometimes for other agricultural activities.
The seventh and last subsection of the clause provides that lands and heritages derated under subsection (1) are to be identified on the valuation roll by some means such as a distinguishing mark.
Clause 2 defines some key terms used in the Bill. Subsection (1) deals with the meanings of some technical terms commonly used in the valuation code, and it follows closely the precedents of past legislation in defining the Valuation Acts, the valuation roll, and the year for valuation purposes. The rest of the clause contains the principal definitions which mark out the scope of the Bill and ensure that it is read in an agricultural context. Subsection (2) defines the keeping and breeding of livestock through reference to the definition of "agriculture" in Section 86(3) of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948. In that section "livestock" is defined as including any creature kept for the production of food, wool, skins or fur, or for the purpose of its use in the farming of land. The definition of "agriculture" in the 1948 Act is the one used for general purposes of agricultural administration in Scotland. It has worn extremely well during all these years; it has given rise to few difficulties of interpretation. I am assured that it will admit for derating all premises used in the pursuit of agricultural activities but nevertheless entered in the roll, while excluding premises—like fish farms or dog kennels—used for operations which are outwith agriculture.
My Lords, I said earlier that Clause 1(1) of the Bill provides that the lands and heritages which are to be derated

233
shall consist of one or more buildings. Clause 2(3) provides that a reference to a building is to be taken as including a reference to "any pertinent" of it. Practical examples of pertinents in the context of livestock production are such pieces of fixed plant as grain silos, gas cylinders, generators and the like. In the fourth and last subsection of Clause 2 provision is made to take within the ambit of the Bill buildings and land which are occupied together with, and used solely in connection with, buildings used solely for the purpose of the keeping or breeding of livestock. This provision ensures that ancillary buildings, such as the granary holding the grain fed to intensively reared pigs, will be derated by the order made under the Bill.
It may be helpful if I now set out for your Lordships briefly, in plainer language, just what classes of buildings will be derated by the Bill. They fall into three broad groups; buildings and parts of buildings used solely for housing livestock; buildings and parts of buildings used solely in connection with the use of the buildings which house livestock—for example, grain stores, tool sheds and so on; and, lastly, buildings and parts of buildings which are used, whether concurrently or successively, for the purpose of livestock production and for other forms of agricultural activity.
I now come to an important point. Your Lordships will no doubt have noticed that the Bill does not contain a specific figure indicating the percentage of derating which is to be granted. As Clause 1(1) makes clear, this percentage is to be specified in the order made by the Secretary of State under the Bill. I can assure your Lordships that my right honourable friend intends to introduce an order specifying 50 per cent. derating as soon as this Bill is enacted. This order would be effective from the local authority financial year 1970–71. The practical effect of the introduction of this order will be that intensive livestock farmers throughout Scotland will have their next rate demand reduced by an aggregate sum of around £125,000; and, of course, the benefit will continue in succeeding years so long as the order is in force. While a sum of £125,000 may not seem considerable against the background of a total Scottish annual rating bill of £164 million, the savings to individual farmers
234
will be substantial. In some cases it may mean the vigorous continuation of an intensive enterprise which might otherwise have gone into decline. For this reason the Bill has been welcomed by the farmers—though they would not have been farmers had they not preferred 100 per cent. derating. They are, however, accepting it on the basis of the old maxim that "Half a loaf is better than no bread ". My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Hughes.)
3.39 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for his commendably clear and short explanation of the Bill. He referred to the Act of 1956, out of which the trouble has arisen; but as we all know, in Scotland, and in England, agriculture has been derated since 1928. Under the 1928 Act it was thought a good plan, and one which would save an enormous amount of trouble, that a fixed proportion of farm rentals should be deemed to be the value of the dwelling-houses upon that farm. It was thought that, on the whole, the average proportion of farm rentals which might fairly be allocated to the dwelling-houses was one-eighth; and that basis was adopted for 28 years in Scotland. It saved a vast amount of trouble—of that there is no doubt. If the rent of the farm was £200 then, automatically, the rateable value for the dwelling-house was £25.
In 1956, this basis was changed. It was considered right that the recommendations of the Sorn Committee, appointed to consider the whole question of rating —and a very good Report they made, too!—should be adopted in regard to agriculture. They proposed that agricultural land and buildings should be wholly derated and that all dwellings upon farms should be valued and rated individually and separately.
Some of your Lordships may regret that the simplicity of the 1928 Act was superseded by the relative complexity of the 1956 Act. It now appears that the 1956 Act was not only complicated in the procedure which it required but also not as clear as it ought to have been in its expression. I do not think that anyone who read the Sorn Report, or who took part in Parliament in passing the 1956

235
Act, ever dreamed for a moment that Parliament did not intend all agricultural buildings on a farm to be wholly derated. That was the intention of Parliament, and nobody suspected that it could be otherwise, until towards the end of 1963, when, in the case of Peddle v. The Rox-burgh Assessor, it was ruled by the court that some agricultural buildings, particularly those which house livestock, were liable for rates.
That decision, and decisions which have followed, have caused not only a certain amount of unforeseen liability but a certain amount of lack of confidence in the agricultural industry in Scotland. In some cases, I think that farmers have been discouraged from adopting the most modern and up-to-date methods, because they are afraid that if they have a new kind of cattle house, which may be regarded as too like a factory, it may be liable for enormous rates, which they can save by going on with the old building. I think that that rating decision has also discouraged amalgamation between small unviable holdings and that in some cases very small farmers who have been advised by the Department of Agriculture to adopt intensive methods for some special market garden market in their area may perhaps have found that by doing so they would unexpectedly incur liability for rates. No doubt many of your Lordships have read of the recent questionnaire which has been sent out to farmers in Moray and Nairn asking for an account of all their buildings used for housing cattle. It has created a certain amount of uncertainty and fear about the future.
In the discussions on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, of the year before last, 1968, some Members of both Houses, including my noble friend Lord Balerno, put down Amendments designed to rectify this position, but these were not persisted with because we were told that the Government were reviewing the whole question of agricultural rating and that this point should not be considered separately. That may have been the right thing to do, but farmers were naturally a little disappointed when they found that the Government, instead of rectifying this misinterpretation of the intentions of Parliament, were simply producing a Bill which removed their
236
rateable liability to the same extent as the rates imposed on industry in Scotland.
I am a bad Parliamentary draftsman and the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has just told me that I am too fond of looking back into the past. But I think that by looking back into the past one often learns lessons which are very useful when one looks forward to the future. I should have thought that if it is generally agreed that the intentions of Parliament have not been carried out—it may be owing to the bad wording of the Act or simply to the unavoidable impression of human language—we ought to do something to try to put the matter right. We all know how easy it is to commit this kind of mistake and how difficult it often is to rectify it, and that the time which is required to commit an error is not, as a rule, nearly so long as the time required to put it right.
I should have thought it not beyond human ingenuity to amend Section 7 of the 1956 Act in such a way as to allow complete 100 per cent. derating of all agricultural buildings which are part of a farm. What the Government have done is to bring in a Bill—a good Bill so far as it goes—which provides that if farmers are caught, owing to some decision of the courts, and find themselves subjected to rating of their buildings, at least they shall not pay more rates than are paid by other industrial undertakings in Scotland. That is an unexceptionably right and just proposal, which we gladly accept. I do not think that it would be possible through this Bill to cause any subject to be rated which would not otherwise be rated, or to cause any subject to be derated which would not otherwise be derated. I think that the whole nature of the Bill is to provide that when an agricultural building is, unfortunately, as some of us think, mistakenly rated it should be rated on the same basis as other undertakings in Scotland. This is the least that can be done. I am sure that the agricultural community will accept it as a small mercy.
3.47 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, it is always a happy event when a Minister of any Government is able to implement in some small measure a promise he has

237
given. When the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill was introduced, we on these Benches raised the question of some inequities in rating which had arisen from certain decisions of the valuers, who had found support on appeal. Resulting from these actions, several substantial livestock production units in Scotland have been put out of business and a continuation of that process would certainly force many more to go out of business.
This little Bill before your Lordships' House to-day is an excellent illustration of the virtue arising from necessity, even though it is only partial virtue from a big necessity. Of course, virtue is all the more virtuous when it is put over with such disarming charm as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, exerts over this House; but we must recognise that it is only by the equal exercise of this charm in another direction, that is, upon his right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that even what we have to-day has been made possible and that in part redress is being made of what is acknowledged on all sides in Scotland to be an injustice.
I would support my noble friend Lord Dundee in suggesting that this could have been better done by amending the 1956 Act. I would add that, if we must have it in this way, surely it could have been better done without all the circumlocution that envelops the Bill. I wonder how many of your Lordships who have been able to study the Bill have understood what it is all about. It is a most confusing little Bill, and possibly the more confusing because it is a little one. Could not the fame end have been achieved simply by omitting the word "solely" in subsection (1) of Clause 1 of the Bill? This would have made the Bill much easier to interpret.
We farmers are by no means ungrateful to the Government, on the basis as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said, of half a loaf being better than no bread— and his right honourable friend is promising 50 per cent. We on these Benches have taken note of the fact that there are powers in the Bill which enable his right honourable friend to make it a 90 per cent. loaf. Therefore, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, once again to exercise his charm upon his right hon-
238
ourable friend to try to persuade him to increase the 50 per cent.
3.52 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like to say a word or two before the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, replies. I do not think that anybody who heard the noble Lord explain this Bill in the charming language that he used would realise that he was referring to a Bill which most of us find it almost impossible to understand. The Government are trying to do something quite simple. Is it not possible to put this Bill into language which can be moderately understood?
The Lord Advocate is in his place. I wonder whether he is absolutely sure how the courts are going to interpret what my noble friend Lord Balerno has called "circumlocution", and which I note in the other place the Government referred to as "gobbledegook". None of us is certain how this will be interpreted. One mistake has already been made. Have we any assurance that another mistake will not be made? Even so, however it is interpreted, the Bill by itself achieves absolutely nothing until the Secretary of State intervenes and decides what the percentage will be. Would it not have been much simpler to have derated farming as such? The simplicity of this makes a great appeal to me, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, explained, the amounts concerned are not enormous. I feel that the statutory law is becoming so complex that it is a real danger.

NIGERIA: RELIEF NEEDS
3.54 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships, perhaps I may intervene to repeat a Statement made in reply to a Question put to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"Lord Hunt, who as the House knows went to Nigeria at my request to see how we could best help the Nigerian authorities in the problems of relief which faced them, returned yesterday and spent over an hour with me late last night giving me a very full oral account of what he had discovered both in his talks in Lagos and his two day visit to the forward areas. With

239
him last night was Sir Colin Thornley, Director General of the British Save the Children Fund, who was a member of Lord Hunt's mission, and had visited a number of other acutely affected areas. Mr. Brian Hodgson, Deputy Director General of the British Red Cross, who visited a number of areas with Sir Colin Thornley, stayed on an extra day for further discussions, in particular on the Red Cross side. He will be returning to-day and I shall then be informed further on what he has seen and learnt.
"We have seen lengthy and detailed accounts in the British Press and also on British television, and many of the individual instances described or screened naturally fill everyone with deep concern.
"The picture which emerges from my meetings last night, and later information received to-day, substantially confirms the report I gave to the House on Monday.
"There is no question that what some had feared, namely, reprisals and victimisation, massacres involving the death of many innocent people, have not taken place. There were inevitably some individual cases where shots were fired, particularly in the period before the call to lay down their arms and the clear order to that effect given by Colonel Effiong. It is clear that there have been serious individual instances of indiscipline, but there is evidence that in cases that came to the attention of senior officers stern disciplinary action was taken.
"Concern will remain about such individual cases until the completion of the Nigerian Government order to withdraw the troops from the areas concerned, and to leave the civilian police in charge of maintaining law and order.
"As I indicated on Monday, the greatest concern must still be about relief, both as regards food—and particularly getting it to where it is most urgently needed—and medical supplies and treatment.
"I am in no doubt that the Nigerian Government and the Nigerian Red Cross are coming to grips with the situation, and this is the view which
240
has been taken by Lord Hunt and his colleagues and by, for example, Mr. Henrik Beer, Secretary General of the League of Red Cross Societies, in his public statement.
"The movement of food supplies to the distressed areas, first by the Army and increasingly by civilian teams, is a top priority. Not enough even now is where it is most urgently needed. While the reports I have are that the situation is changing hour by hour, the movement is gathering momentum. The condition of the roads is generally good, bridges have in most cases been repaired already and the distances involved are not great.
"A good deal of movement on the roads is accounted for by refugees returning from the enclave to their homes outside the enclave, where there is plenty of locally grown food. The members of the Mission reported seeing in many cases such refugees with —indeed carrying—their cassava with them.
"But there is still acute concern in some of the bigger towns, notably Owerri, Orlu, Uli, Aba and Ikot Ekpene, some of which were acutely disturbed by the ebb and flow of the fighting almost to the last days.
"The problem of relief is serious, locally severe, but at nothing like the scale which some outside estimates have suggested. For example, figures were being quoted of four, and five, and six million. The estimates I have been given, and they are as authoritative as possible in the circumstances, are that the total numbers who were being fed, in part or wholly, by local and imported relief supplies shortly before the military collapse cannot have exceeded 1½ to 2 million people. All the evidence so far is that the numbers in respect of whom there is immediate anxiety are, of course, a small proportion of this, though the human suffering and distress, as the House has already been told, is serious. It was of course serious for weeks before the fighting ended, hence the urgency with which we and the International Red Cross and others sought to secure agreement to daylight flights, in default of the more productive methods of sending in supplies, namely

241
by road and river. Very many of those showing distress and the symptoms of malnutrition owe their condition to the weeks and months before January 10 rather than to the days since then. Alongside the pictures of those in greatest distress there are of course very many more people in those areas in no acute danger of starvation.
"The most urgent need is for transport, where we and other countries, and the international agencies are giving all the help physically possible as soon as we get the day-to-day requisitions from the relief organisation.
"The main anxiety as I indicated on Monday relates to medical treatment. Emergency supplies and teams have been rushed into the areas affected, and hospitals some distance from the most recent area of fighting are accepting many who can be moved—including the British Children's Medical Care Unit at Enugu who have also made supplies available to the forward areas.
"Patients in the scattered hospitals and dispensaries of the former enclave will now be concentrated in seven large hospital centres to make the best use of medical and nursing staff available. Within a short time the Nigerian Red Cross hope to have 50 doctors and between 100 and 200 nurses employed in these.
"The main problems, as the House was told on Monday, are among the war wounded and children, particularly those in institutions where the previous Ibo doctors and nurses have fled. Many of these are returning day by day and working side by side with other Nigerians. Doctors and nurses flown in from Britain are going forward.
"It is encouraging that Sir Louis Mbanefo, the President of the former Biafran Red Cross, and Mr. Moses Iloh, its administrator, have returned to the enclave to mobilise the former Biafran Red Cross workers and medical teams to work in full co-operation with the Nigerian Red Cross. It is encouraging too that there is co-operation between Federal and former"Biafran"officers, especially at senior levels. Lord Hunt, in fact, travelled for a good part of Saturday, in the company, indeed in the car of a former Biafran
242
colonel: all this with the full agreement of the Federal military authorities.
"To sum up, there is still a great deal of confusion and mobility, particularly on the roads and near the big towns. But more and more people are getting to their homes. And the reception centres and refugee camps are emptying as the former refugees make for home. Food supplies in the forward areas are increasing and the urgent need is for transport, and better local distribution facilities. As I said, the greatest tragedy and the need for greatest urgency is among the wounded and among children, especially those previously in institutions.
"Lord Hunt and his colleagues have given me most detailed accounts of what they have seen and their assessment of the position, on which they have expressed their views both to those concerned with relief—and to the military—in the forward areas and at the highest level to the authorities in Lagos.
"I hope to have more information on Mr. Hodgson's return and, of course, over the next few days. I will ensure that the House are kept as fully informed as possible and as frequently as may be for the convenience of the House next week and subsequently. There is reason for anxiety, especially over the next few days. But there is reason for hope, especially as area after area, group after group of individuals, return to their homes or are otherwise ministered to."
4.5 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, for having repeated that Statement. The House will and ought to be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for having gone on this trip, as he did on the one previously. Those of us who know him know that the report that he brings back is the report of an honest, honourable and sensible man.
I wonder whether I could make just two general comments. Everyone in the House must be very relieved that there have been no massacres and no reprisals, and I think it is generally agreed that there have not been any. It is very satisfactory that General Gowon was

243
able to honour his word, as he said he could and as he said he would. That must be of great satisfaction to everybody in your Lordships' House. As for relief, there is obviously a very big problem in terms of numbers, even if one discounts some of the inflated numbers that have been given and to which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, referred. Any organisation, and any country, would have difficulty with the problems which face the Nigerians—and they are really faced with very big problems. If I may say so, it is very easy to be critical; it is very easy to be critical when one is sitting in this country and not having to cope with some of the problems that the Nigerian Government have to cope with. To be over-critical is not, if I may say so, necessarily to be very helpful. Some-times it has exactly the opposite effect to that which those who are critical wish to achieve.
Surely what we ought to do is to help the Federal Government and the Nigerian Red Cross in every way we possibly can. For example, when I was in Enugu a month ago I visited a hospital which was partly staffed by British doctors and nurses, but which had only three wards out of about twelve open—I do not know the exact number—because there was a shortage of nurses and a shortage of doctors. Are we providing the doctors and nurses that the Nigerian Government are asking for? Are we seeing that the Nigerian Red Cross has the money that it needs? When I was in Lagos a little over a month ago now, although the Nigerian Red Cross had quite a number of very good plans they were indeed very short of money. They needed money and transport to achieve those plans. It seems to me that these things are the kind that we ought to be worrying about, and we ought to be doing what we can to help rather than being critical at this particular time.
4.8 p.m.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I should like to thank the Leader of the House for keeping us informed of the efforts which are being made to alleviate the human suffering and distress in Nigeria. I want to put only one point to him. Our reports indicate that the major need at the moment is a regular supply of drugs and medical supplies, particularly at
244
hospitals which are rather difficult to get at. May I ask him whether there is any possibility that the Nigerian authorities will be able to organise some form of air drop, particularly to the isolated areas which are at the moment inaccessible by road transport?
4.9 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I appreciate very much what the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Byers, have said. I should like to echo the tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and to pay a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who, I know, carried out a very difficult and uncomfortable journey, and did so in his characteristically modest and effective way. It would be easy, of course, to pay many tributes, but I think I ought to mention the High Commissioner, Sir Leslie Glass, and his staff, who have worked indefatigably and have played a crucial part in this matter.
I very much take the point as to the rôle that we can all play in this situation. I think it is apparent that Government, and the agencies through which Government is working, are bringing the maximum possible energy to bear. I say this not in any boasting sense at all, because we all share in this particular tragedy. I was asked one particular point by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on the amount of medical help we can give. We have been asked for 15 doctors and 20 nurses altogether. By to-night, 14 doctors and 13 nurses will have left, and the rest will be following within a few days. We have flown out all 50 of the Land Rovers for which we were asked, and 18 4-ton lorries—it has been agreed with the Nigerian authorities that 4-ton lorries are more suited to local conditions. We therefore decided to increase our total supply of 4-ton lorries to 110, instead of sending some 10-tonners. We have had a supplementary request for the equipment for two mobile field hospitals as well as a number of tents, both for hospital use and for use by soldiers and others, thus releasing accommodation for refugees and people returning from the bush.
We have also airlifted to Nigeria a total of 31 tons of medical supplies and some 5 tons of vehicle spare parts. We have been asked to suspend action on the request for a coastal vessel, but there is of course other support coming from

245
other countries, particularly the United States. On the financial side. I would repeat what was previously said in the Commons: that the Government have promised to provide up to £5 million of aid, in addition to the £7½ million that they are providing under the regular aid arrangements.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, touched on this difficult issue, and I think he directed his remarks not so much to Uli Airport as to the possibility of airdropping into particular areas in the bush. I am certain that these matters have been considered. There is enough food stockpiled close to the areas of main need to meet immediate requirements, and this food can be taken easily by road as soon as the additional vehicles, which we and others are supplying, reach the area. I can only say that I have noted the noble Lord's point. Certainly these are the very matters that the Government are considering and which I am certain the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the others who were with him have themselves examined.
4.12 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Leader of the House give some indication of how he thinks the charitable organisations might best assist? I am sure he is aware that there are many societies that are keen to do all they can to help, but at, the same time they do not want to embarrass the Federal Government or the Government here. They are also well aware from previous national and international disasters, whether at Aberfan or Lynmouth, that charity or voluntary help can sometimes cause more embarrassment than help. Nevertheless, one is well aware of the numbers of organisations in this country which are very keen to help at the moment; and if they can obtain some guidance from the Government as to how that help can best be given they will be very grateful.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think the right reverend Prelate will be aware that one of the first things my right honourable friend the Prime Minister did was to call together representatives of the various relief agencies. It is very natural for all those involved in this matter to wish to move into action as
246
quickly as they can and give help. There is equally a great deal of evidence that the Nigerian Government, within the extraordinarily difficult conditions obtaining, are organising rather well; and tributes have been paid to them by people such as Mr. Henrik Beer. I am sure that, so far as lies within the power of Her Majesty's Government, and bearing in mind that Nigeria is a sovereign country, help as appropriate will be called on. But it is important to have the right kind of help. It is in relation to that that the various societies should assist. There was strong representation by the British Red Cross and the Save the Children Fund, who have actually been out in the field; and in the light of their report no doubt further help will be forthcoming as required.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in putting questions to the noble Lord, may I thank him for his Statement and, beyond him, thank the Prime Minister. It indicates the deep concern which the Government have in this matter. Is my noble friend aware that those of us who have been critical of the policy of the Government are deeply appreciative of the urgency and the extent of the aid which they have given; and that if there has been delay it has rot been the fault of the Government of this country? Is the noble Lord aware—I am putting my remarks in the form of questions, which I understand is necessary from the Back Benches—that I want to be completely constructive, and not critical, on this occasion? Is he aware that on the Island of Sāo Tomé, which is within 90 minutes of the most distressed areas in the Eastern Region, there are 6,000 tons of food, as well as great supplies of medicines, which are lying idle? Also, is he aware that there are pilots and 'planes there which are prepared to take those supplies to the distressed areas? Is the noble Lord aware that there is a network of organisations for distribution, which has great experience? Moreover, is he aware that those in charge of these operations are prepared to act completely under the Nigerian Red Cross? In view of these facts, are Her Majesty's Government prepared—I am aware of the sensitiveness of the Federal Government—at least to ask the Federal Government to consider whether this very nearby aid of food, medicines and personnel, with a distributive network, cannot be used to meet the

247
appalling hunger which exists to-day in such a large part of what was Biafra?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's opening remarks, and I acknowledge his great concern in this matter and the fact that he had it in mind, depending on the situation, to put down a Private Notice Question. He has touched on one of the most sensitive issues, on which any remarks that I can think of are not particularly calculated to help anyone. But I will give the noble Lord some information. First of all, at some stage it may be desirable for the stockpiles at Sāo Tomé and Cotonou to be transferred by the most convenient means to Nigeria for use in the areas of need; but that is not a pressing requirement, I am advised, so long as there is sufficient food and other stocks available in Nigeria.
Here, I will give the noble Lord some of the figures. The latest information is that there are stockpiles in Eastern Nigeria, at Enugu, Koko, Port Harcourt, Agbor, Uyo and Calabar, amounting to some 10,000 tons. About £100,000 worth of local food stocks have been purchased and are at Enugu. Vessels arriving during the next few days will be carrying another 10,000 tons, and this includes shipments due to-day—4,600 tons are due to arrive at Lagos by sea to-day—and arrangements are being made for this to be trans-shipped to Port Harcourt. Other arrangements have also been made for the shipment of rice and other supplies from Cotonou. These stockpiles are only some 50 to 70 miles from the heart of the worst hit areas, which are themselves about the size of Hampshire. Convoys have for some time been carrying food from the stockpile to these areas, and the Red Cross will be stepping up the flow with the new vehicles already on their way.
My Lords, I could go on at some length. I think perhaps I should make this further remark. The Nigerians have fought a long and terrible civil war, but however strong our compassion may be I am not sure whether we, as Europeans, are really in a position to tell the Nigerians how to behave after a war. I believe there can be few, if any, occasions in history to compare with almost the nobility of the approach of General
248
Gowon to these problems, and I feel that in these matters the wisest thing is to offer help, to encourage, to give such advice as is sought, and thereafter to assist the Nigerian relief organisation. There is evidence from people who have been there, like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that the officials and others who are engaged in this matter are showing great efficiency in their administration.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that many of us have the greatest appreciation of the spirit which General Gowon has shown at the conclusion of this war and of the way in which he is seeking the reconciliation of the Ibos? Those of us who have met him had no doubt that that would be his attitude. But, on the question of relief, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is not the case, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, found on his visit, that the particular area which is now suffering most from starvation is the area around Uli and Orlu? It is bad in Owerri, but not nearly so bad in Owerri as in those other areas. Is it not the case that relief can be brought most quickly to them from Sāo Tomé, where supplies are available and where those in charge are prepared to act under the Nigerian Red Cross? In those circumstances is it not possible for Her Majesty's Government, without in any sense dictating to the Federal Government, at least to ask that that proposal shall be considered?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I will only say that I hope the noble Lord, in the light of the tributes he has paid to Her Majesty's Government, will leave Her Majesty's Government to do what they regard as best in the interests of relief, with full consideration and full compassion.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, while welcoming very much indeed the relief which is being supplied by Her Majesty's Government, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether any approach has been made by Her Majesty's Government to the Nigerian Government with a view to ensuring the freedom of movement of the 80 journalists of various nationalities, including British, who are partly or entirely sequestrated under very trying conditions at Port Harcourt? And will

249
the noble Lord agree that some of them have in fact been molested by Nigerian forces?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I can only say that my heart bleeds for the journalists, but it bleeds more for the people of Nigeria.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether an exchange rate has been fixed between the Nigerian currency and the Biafran paper currency?—because that seems to me to be the most important consideration in providing relief.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I would not say that it is the most important part of the problem, but it is a matter which I am told is being considered. It is a point of significance, but the important thing is to get the food into the hands of the people who need it, without necessarily asking them to pay for it.

VALUATION FOR RATING (SCOTLAND) BILL
4.25 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome which was given by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, to this Bill and also for the remarks which were made by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. I was very pleased indeed to hear about the influence which the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, believe I have with members of the Cabinet. I should be even more pleased if I thought that they were right. But even if they are right, I would suggest to them that in these matters it is better not to strain your luck too far.
The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, and the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, both spoke of what they regarded as the needless complexity of the Bill, and I should like to tie up my reply to them with the remark made by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, who reminded your Lordships that my noble friend Lord Beswick had credited him with a delight in looking back. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, spent a certain amount of his time in looking back to the circumstances of the 1956 Act. I agree with the noble Earl that there are lessons
250
to be learned from looking back, and sometimes all of us would make even greater mistakes than we do if we did not from time to time look back and try to learn from the experience of the past. But, my Lords, it is simply because Her Majesty's Government have looked back to the 1956 Act that they are persuaded that it is necessary for this Bill to be a complex measure.
In 1956 the Government of the day adopted a simple solution to what seemed to them to be a simple problem. They decided that farmhouses would pay full rates and that all buildings used in connection with the land would be derated. That is simplifying still further the actual wording of the Act. Because of the very simplicity of the solution which was adopted in 1956, from 1963 to 1968 the courts decided that the simplicity of 1956 did not in fact cover what the legislators of 1956 thought they were doing. This was not because it was a Conservative Government and they were unduly simple (although that is a point which I would not lightly disregard), but simply because in 1956 intensive farming did not exist to the extent we know it now, and because of the way in which the courts interpreted the simple language of 1956.
We now have an exceedingly complex problem, and it has been decided that the right way to solve it is in the rather complicated language of this Bill. I am not offering to your Lordships any guarantee as to how the courts will necessarily interpret the Bill. What we have tried to do is to make it more difficult for the courts to say that what we mean is something other than what we are saying. I have the support of my noble friend the Lord Advocate, who says that he is not prepared to predict what the courts will do with any piece of legislation. All we can do is to try to make it as clear as possible to the lawyers that this is the way it should be done. Beyond that I cannot go.
The best offer which I think I can make in comfort to your Lordships is that the National Farmers' Union of Scotland have no doubt at all what this Bill will do for their members. I have not the slightest doubt that they will bring it to the notice of everyone who has been, or who may be, in danger of having to pay full rates on buildings, to make certain that they get the benefits of the new legislation. I

251
think the unkindest thing I could say about Scottish farmers would be to assume for one moment that they are incapable of extracting the last possible penny that this Bill will make available to them.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

GAME BILL [H.L.]
4.30 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. May I start my saying a word about the drafting? I should like first to thank the Table for the help they have given me with the drafting. We found when drafting this Bill that we were likely to get into less trouble from the legal point of view if we tried to amend the 1831 Game Act by reference back rather than by trying to re-write any part of the Game Act. But I am afraid this presented certain difficulties to your Lordships, because it appears that it is virtually impossible to get hold of a copy of the 1831 Act except in the bound volumes; and it is for that reason that I have put in a Preamble to the Bill and also had photostat copies of the two sections of the Act which I want to amend placed in the Printed Paper Office.
The Bill seeks to amend two sections of the 1831 Act. Both those sections have the same underlying principle; they are to protect certain game birds—or, as the Act rather pleasantly calls them,"birds of game "—during certain parts of the year, the parts of the year when they are mating, laying, hatching, rearing, and while the young birds are growing up. I in no way wish to alter that. I am quite certain your Lordships all agree that these birds must be protected during those periods. But there are, perhaps naturally after an Act has been in force 140 years, certain details which in modern times I think require altering.
Section 3 of the Act deals with three offences. I do not wish in this Bill in any way to alter the offences, but only the penalties for those offences. The first offence is killing or taking these birds on Christmas Day or Sunday. The
252
penalty provided in the Act is £5, and I am not suggesting an alteration there. The next offence under Section 3 of the Act is taking or killing birds out of season—that is, during the periods I have already described, the close season. The maximum penalty under the Act is £1, for each head of game so taken; and under Clause 1(1)(a) of this Bill I am suggesting that this penalty should in modern times be £5. May I say this? Your Lordships may feel that the penalties I am putting into the Bill are perhaps inadequate (they are, of course, maximum penalties), in view of the other penalties that were included in the Game Laws Amendment Act 1960—which deals with different matters but also with game— where the penalties were made much higher. If any of your Lordships wished at a later stage to suggest that the penalties should be higher, I should be very willing to listen; but as an initial step I have decided to ask your Lordships that the maximum penalties should be £5, instead of £1 for each head of game taken.
The third offence under Section 3, laying poison on the ground with a view to killing or taking specified game birds, is a very serious offence. It is obviously a serious offence because it not only may kill the game birds but may, and probably will, kill other birds; it may kill animals who pick up the dead birds. And I am advised that it may in certain circumstances certainly make a human being very ill, and possibly kill a person, depending on the poison used, if the birds are eaten. Even in 1831 the penalty for such an offence was very high for those days—it was £10. I am suggesting here that the maximum penalty for laying poison with a view to taking game birds should now be £20. So much for Section 3. As I say, the alterations I am proposing to this section come under Clause l(l)(a) of this Bill.
The real purpose of the Bill comes when we are dealing with Section 4 of the 1831 Act. Section 4 deals with two classes of person, licensed game dealers and other people, and it deals with two main offences. The first is that during the close season a game dealer, except during the first ten days of the close season, may not buy or sell game. Nobody else who is not a game dealer may buy

253
or sell game except during the first forty days of the close season—and when I say"game"I mean game birds; I am using"game"for short. I do not suggest that there should be any alteration in that except for a minor matter to which I will come later. But in so far as that offence is concerned I am suggesting that the maximum penalty under Clause l(l)(b) should be £5, instead of £1. Here again your Lordships may feel that the penalty is too small, but we can deal with that point at a later stage.
I now come to the other offences dealt with under this clause; and it is these that I wish to alter. Under the 1831 Act, neither a game dealer nor a private person may during the dose season, except for the ten days and the forty days to which I have referred, have in his shop, in his house, in his possession or under his control any of these game birds: partridges, pheasants, black game and so on. It is an offence for any of your Lordships during the close season —and I commit the offence, I know— under the Game Act to have game in your deep-freeze. It is an offence for a game dealer to have it in cold storage. It is an offence for the Savoy Hotel, shall we say in July, to have in its cold storage grouse killed in the previous season so that they can produce it for dinner on August 12 this year.
My Lords, when this Game Act was passed that was perfectly sensible, because in the middle of the close season if one had game in one's possession it was quite clear it had been killed or taken during the close season. But that is not so now, and the law is, I am certain, being broken quite unwittingly all over the country, because in modern times there is no reason why one should not have game in cold storage. This does not affect the buying or selling, which I am sure ought to be prevented during the close season: this is actually holding.
There is one other point with regard to dealers. In 1831 not many people bought game—not many people could afford to do so. Nowadays, game is bought by every kind of person throughout the tend, and as a result game dealers, to meet the market, have to carry a very much larger stock towards the end of the season than they would have had in the old days. What are they to do with this stock if it is not sold? Throw
254
it away? It seems peculiarly wasteful. What they do is put it in cold storage and sell it when the season is open again. The offence (as it is at present) of holding is the main thing that I want to alter by this Bill, so that a dealer or a private person will be permitted to have game in his possession—not to buy or sell it—during the close season. This does not affect the poaching of game in the close season and so on, because that comes under different Acts.
There is one other point, which comes under Clause 1(2). It is not clear from the wording of the: Game Act exactly what one can have in one's possession in the way of game birds. A man may have birds in a mews or breeding place, but under the Act he may not buy or sell. Subsection (2) of Clause 1 provides that he may buy or sell, or have in his possession, birds for breeding or for exhibition purposes. The reason I have brought in this provision is that, as your Lordships know, while it was not a common practice in 1831 it is nowadays a very common practice to buy poults, young birds, for rearing. They are invariably bought and sold during the close season, and are then put out for rearing. There are various ways of doing this—under broody hens, for instance—rather than by hatching out the eggs. 1 am advised that under the Game Act this buying of young birds for rearing is illegal. As it. is a common practice and serves a useful purpose, and does nobody any harm—indeed, game farms are set up for this purpose—I am suggesting that in future people should be allowed to buy and sell, and have in their possession, birds for rearing during the close season.
As regards the exception of young birds for exhibition purposes, the reason I have included them in the Bill is that there is quite a trade now in breeding golden pheasants, Reeve pheasants— those rather exotic types of pheasants— for aviaries and exhibitions, for zoos, and so on. Nobody in his senses puts these birds out in the woods to go with their other pheasants because all their cocks are very pugnacious and drive off the ordinary cocks in the breeding season. As I say, the birds are bred for exhibition purposes, or for zoos and aviaries, and they are often bought and sold in the close season. However, they are

255
pheasants, and under the present law you are not allowed to have them, and you are not allowed to buy or sell them. This is a comparatively new activity. I do not think the Game Act ever visualised this sort of trade, and there seems no harm in allowing this to be done.
My Lords, this is a modest measure. I am trying to bring up to date what was not nonsense in 1831 but is undoubtedly a bit of nonsense now. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Derwent.)
4.45 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I wonder whether I may express my admiration to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, for the way in which he explained both the Bill and the background to it. One could almost see some of these birds flying about, or not flying about, as he described them to us. The attitude which the Government take towards this measure is one described to me as"neutrality ", but I would say that to me the Bill appears to reflect the sensible, practical and moderate approach to a problem which we should expect from the noble Lord. If the House agrees to a Second Reading there are certain aspects of the Bill which I would suggest should be amended, but, in general, the neutral posture of the Government will be maintained.
As I understand it, the Bill seeks to do three things: first, to increase the penalties for some offences created by the Game Act 1831; secondly, to remove the present restrictions on the possession of dead game birds in the close season; and thirdly, to permit, in the close season, the buying and selling of live game birds for rearing or for exhibition purposes. The proposed increases in the penalties for taking or killing game birds in the close season, and for selling dead game birds after the first ten days of the close season, seem reasonable and are acceptable to the Government. Apart from the fact that the penalties have remained unchanged for about 140 years, the proposed increases would have the effect of bringing those penalties into line with those prescribed in the Protection of Birds Act 1954 for comparable offences in respect of birds on the Third Schedule to that
256
Act, which includes those species of wild bird, other than game, normally shot for the table. However, I think the noble Lord referred to the higher penalties prescribed in the Game Laws Amendment Act 1960. The offences in the 1960 Act which attract the higher penalty are concerned with trespassing in pursuit of game —in other words, poaching, which is rather a different offence from that of killing out of season, which is the offence in Section 3 of the 1831 Act with which the noble Lord is principally concerned.
I am less sure about the need to alter the penalty for laying poison with the intention of killing or injuring game birds; not because I think a higher penalty is not justified, but because I doubt whether it is usual nowadays for a prosecution for such an offence to be brought under the 1831 Act. There is a better alternative in the Protection of Birds Acts. Section 5 of the 1954 Act, as amended by the 1967 Act, makes it an offence, punishable by a fine of up to £25 or one month's imprisonment, or both, to use any poisoned, poisonous or stupefying substance for the purpose of killing or taking, or with intent to cause bodily injury to, any wild bird. In this context, the term"wild bird"includes game birds. Whilst I am open to correction, I should have thought this was a better provision under which to bring a prosecution against a person who had laid poison. However, as the offence created by Section 3 of the 1831 Game Act still subsists, the Government would not wish to object to the modest increase in the penalty proposed in the noble Lord's Bill.
The second proposition in the Bill— that is, the proposal to permit the possession, but not the sale, of dead game birds throughout the close season—would also have the effect of bringing the law regarding game birds on this matter into line with that in the Protection of Birds Act. Under that Act it is illegal to sell, or offer for sale, what are described in my brief as dead Third Schedule birds—namely, birds which, as I said earlier, are those species commonly shot for the table—during most of the close season but it imposes no prohibition on the possession of dead birds in the close season. There have been previous unsuccessful attempts by means of Private

257
Members' Bills to amend the law to enable game birds to be kept in cold storage in the close season. Generally those were wider than the present proposal, in that they sought to permit not only the possession but also the sale of dead game birds. Even this more restricted relaxation may create problems, however. For example, it might encourage the illegal killing of game in the close season, or present the risk of overkilling during the open season for laying in stocks. However, on this point I again maintain my neutral posture, and the Government will be guided by the wishes of the House as expressed on this or other later occasions.
If the Bill proceeds to Committee stage I suggest that it may be necessary for the noble Lord to have another look at the wording of the amendment to Section 4 of the Game Act 1831 which he is proposing in sub-paragraph (ii) of Clause l(l)(c) of his Bill. As now worded, the proposed amendment does not seem quite to secure the noble Lord's objective. Probably we could have a look at that before the next stage and I will explain the reasons for my reservations. I think it is just a question of extending his amendment to include the following few words in the 1831 Act.
I am not too clear about the reason for the inclusion of the last proposal, contained in Clause 1(2) of the Bill. The buying, selling and possession of live game birds in the close season, for the purposes of breeding or sale alive, by persons who are licensed to deal in game or who hold licences to kill game has been lawful since 1911. The actual provision which amended the Game Act in this way is rather obscurely tucked away in Section 10 of the Revenue Act 1911. I am not sure whether the noble Lord's researches took him to that Bill. Provided a person has lawful possession of a bird, no specific authority is necessary to enable him to exhibit it, and the present law may therefore be sufficient to allow the possession and sale of live
258
game birds in the close season for the purposes the noble Lord has in mind. Again, if the noble Lord wishes to consider that point in greater detail at his convenience, on some other occasion between now and the Committee stage—if the House agrees that the Bill should go forward—I shall be glad to look at it with him. Apart from those observations, I leave it to the House to decide.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether this Bill applies to ground game such as hares? Under the Ground Game Act, I understand that if a farmer has hares in his ground he is allowed to shoot them at any time of the year.
LORD DERWENT: No, my Lords, the Bill does not apply to ground game. It applies to specified birds—pheasants, partridges, bustards, black game and grouse. I think that is the law. But the Bill does not apply to duck and so on; it applies only to specified game birds.
May I say that I hope the Government's neutrality is always as benevolent as on this occasion I am grateful for the suggestions made by the noble Lord. If he will allow me, I will come and see him before the next stage of the Bill, so that we can perhaps get it right, as only Governments can really get these matters right. Subject to your Lordships' giving the Bill a Second Reading this afternoon, I willingly and most gratefully accept the offer.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT (SHIPS) BILL
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Bill has been endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911.
AMOCO (U.K.) BILL [H.L.]
BARCLAYS BANK D.C.O. BILL [H.L.]
BASINGSTOKE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
BERKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
BOOTLE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
BRIDGE STREET BAPTIST CHURCH, BANBURY BILL [H.L.]
BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
BRISTOL CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
DONCASTER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
EAST SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
GATESHEAD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
GLOUCESTER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
GRIMSBY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
HAMBROS BANK BILL [H.L.]
HOOKER ESTATES LIMITED (TRANSFER OF REGISTRATION) BILL [H.L.]
HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
IPSWICH DOCK BILL [H.L.]
LINDSEY COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL [H.L.]
NATIONAL TRUST BILL [H.L.]
NORTH RIDING COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
NORTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
NORWICH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
PEMBROKESHIRE WATER BOARD BILL [H.L.]
PORT OF LONDON BILL [H.L.]
PRESTON CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
READING CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
SALOP COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
STAFFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
TEESSIDE CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
TEESSIDE CORPORATION (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
TRENT AND LINCOLNSHIRE WATER BILL [H.L.]
WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
WESTERN VALLEYS (MONMOUTHSHIRE) SEWERAGE BOARD BILL [H.L.]
WILTSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Presented, and read 1a.
House adjourned at eight minutes before five o'clock.