Lords Sitting of 11 May 1970

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.

"INTAL" DRUG: SALES AND FOREIGN TESTS
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why the drug "Intal" is already on sale in the United Kingdom, while it is still undergoing clinical trials before clearance in the United States and Common Market countries.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (BARONESS SEROTA): My Lords, the Committee on Safety of Drugs examined evidence submitted to them and agreed in September, 1967, that they saw no objection to the marketing of "Intal" for the purposes proposed by the manufacturer. The drug was discovered and developed in this country, and neither the Committee nor the Government saw, or see, any reason to defer marketing here pending clearance elsewhere. The negotiation of arrangements for licensed production in other countries often takes a considerable time, with a resulting delay in submissions to the appropriate foreign drug registration authorities. The Government are not aware of any reason for delay which might be connected with the safety of the drug itself.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask whether she would not agree that, having regard to the scientific expertise which abounds in the United States and all the Common Market countries, it would be in the
404
interests of the National Health Service, and indeed of the patient, if we pooled our information and waited until those countries also believed the drug was of proven value?
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the drug "Intal" has been used extensively for some years at one of the leading teaching hospitals in London and has been a safe and effective drug in the treatment of asthmatic conditions, and that no serious side effects have been reported? And would not the Minister agree that there is something derogatory to British doctors in the idea that the Committee on Safety of Drugs must await clearance from Rome and the United States before they I can make recommendations?
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I am certainly aware of the facts that the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, has just pointed out. This drug is undoubtedly of value in certain forms of treatment for allergic bronchial asthma and has brought very great relief to sufferers from that particular complaint. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, that if adverse reports on reactions to the use of this drug had been brought to the notice of the Safety of Drugs Committee and had indicated the need for a warning, Her Majesty's Government are certain that the Committee would have issued one. We are greatly indebted to the Committee, under the chairmanship first of Sir Derrick Dunlop and now of Professor Scowen, for the outstanding work they do in this field.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, although it has been mentioned before, would not my noble friend agree with me that the United States have time and time again proved that Britain has not always been right in this matter?
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, one can never be sure whether one is right. We can only provide the most effective and efficient machinery we have in this field, and, in my view, the distinguished Committee under the chairmanship of Professor Scowen is one whose word we should always heed.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that in America there are constant complaints of delays in testing drugs in that country?
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I am glad to know that all Governments and official bodies suffer from the same difficulty that we experience here.

ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES
2.40 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government upon what ground they seek to reassure women on the risks of oral contraceptives, in view of the serious warning given to doctors—

(a) to assess the family history of the potential user in relation to hypertension, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, thromboembolism;

(b) to examine for evidence of hypertension, glycosuria, varicose veins and hyperlipidaemia;

(c) to warn the user of the added risk of smoking and weight gain and the possible adverse effects of illness, accidents and operations especially when these require confinement to bed;

(d) to conduct periodical examinations; and

(e) to supervise the woman in such a way that healthy women do not become neurotic]

BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, the risk of thromboembolic disease attributtable to the use of oral contraceptives by healthy women has always been small. The recent Report from the Committee on Safety of Drugs has shown that it can be made even smaller; and the recommendations which the noble Baroness quotes in her Question, from a leading article in the British Medical Journal of April 25, are entirely sensible suggestions aimed at reducing the risk to the individual further still. Her Majesty's Government consider this to be a reasonable basis for reassurance about the degree of that risk.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much for agreeing with me in this matter. In view of the indications given to the
406
doctors who examine these women, can my noble friend tell me how it is possible for the overworked doctors in this country to make this detailed investigation into every case, if these pills are distributed on social grounds by the National Health Service?
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I think I should make it clear to my noble friend—I am sure she is already aware of this—that oral contraceptives are available only on prescription, and it is clearly, and in my view properly, the responsibility of the doctor who precribes the pill to do so in the light of all the relevant facts.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, am I to gather from that reply that the policy is not going to be changed; that the pill is to be given only on pathological grounds and not on social grounds? That will satisfy me.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I feel that I can never satisfy the noble Baroness on this particular point.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, would not the Minister agree (I say this with the greatest possible respect for her reply) that what we must bear in mind is that the morbidity and mortality risks of the pill are less than the morbidity and mortality as a result of pregnancy? Would not the Minister also agree that if to-day women are exhorted to examine themselves, to be examined, to be supervised, and warned continuously, there is a real danger of their being turned into raging hypochondriacs?
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, on the question of risks in pregnancy, I would add the further point that the risks where abortion is involved are even greater, certainly very much greater than the risks of the pill.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask a final question? The Committee on Safety of Drugs have said that there is very little risk, but is it not a fact that the Committee have also said that only one in ten thromboembolic episodes is ever reported to them?
BARONESS SEROTA: Yes, my Lords; these facts were most carefully and fully set out in the Report of the Committee on Safety of Drugs which was published

407
in the same edition of the British Medical Journal on which the noble Baroness has set her Question.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, while in general agreement with the reply which the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, has given to the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, I would ask whether Her Majesty's Government are aware of the enormous amount of research that is taking place on this particular subject, through the Medical Research Council and in other places, to find not only the safest type of the present kind of pill but also its long-term effects, and to explore other methods of contraception?
BARONESS SEROTA: Yes, my Lords; and the Committee on Safety of Drugs keep in close touch with the Medical Research Council on all matters of common concern.

CHEESE PRODUCTION AND EXPORTS
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: 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 what was the total tonnage of cheese produced in the United Kingdom during 1969 and the tonnage exported.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, in 1969 118,100 tons of cheese were produced in the United Kingdom, 2,800 tons of which were exported.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether everything possible is being done to encourage exports of dairy produce, particularly bearing in mind the difficult world market for these commodities?
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords. I understand that the British industry is very actively promoting sales overseas.

WAR PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: 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 the Chancellor of the Exchequer made provision in the Budget to make possible a rise in war pensions and allowances during this year which will take account of the present increase and expected increase in the cost and standard of living.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, no provision was made in the Budget, because war pensions and allowances, together with National Insurance benefits and supplementary benefits, were increased as recently as last November. That increase was the third made by the present Government since they took office in October, 1964.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, the cost of living has already risen, and is rising rapidly; and if the Chancellor makes no provision to do something before this year is out he will be neglecting a very important element in the community. Can the noble Lord give an assurance that war pensions will be considered before this year is out, and especially some of the special allowances, which go to men disabled in the highest degree? There are a very small number of them, and they were not dealt with in the period mentioned by the noble Lord. Is he also aware that the wives and children's allowances given to these men have not been improved since the First World War?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I can give an assurance that these matters will be watched. I think the noble Lord will agree that the record of this Government so far has proved that action does follow the review which is given. I have no doubt that he will also have considered the reference in the White Paper in which the Government have given a promise that, as with pensions and other benefits generally, war pensions and allowances

409
will be increased in line with any increase in the cost of living.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, that is a repetition of the pre-Election promise to keep it level, is it?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am not quite sure what the noble Lord means. There is a Bill in another place which will shortly be coming here and which will have the effect of putting pensions in line with the increase in the cost of living; and Her Majesty's Government have promised in the White Paper which was published on that Bill that war pensions will be treated similarly.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord.

FLINTSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move the first Amendment on the short list of Amendments. As this Amendment is consequential on the following Amendment I should like, with the leave of the House, to explain what the second Amendment sets out to do. Certain provisions conferring protection on statutory undertakings were, by inadvertence, deleted during the Committee stage of the Bill. The purpose of the second Amendment, which of course has been agreed by the Promoters, is to restore these protective provisions to the Bill, and therefore to give the statutory undertakers the safeguards they require. I beg to move the first Amendment, at page 5, line 18 of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 18, after ("if") insert ("(i)").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move the second Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 19, at end insert—
('(ii) in subsection (2) after the word "subsection" there were inserted the words "or to exercise any powers conferred by Part II of the Flintshire County Council Act 1970 which will or may affect any apparatus" and before the words "the undertakers may" there were inserted the words "in any case where the local authority intend to remove or alter any apparatus"; and
(iii) in subsection (4) after the words "by reason of" there were inserted the words "the exercise of any powers conferred by Part II of the Flintshire County Council Act 1970 in respect of any land purchased under the said Part II or".').—The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

NEWPORT CORPORATION BILL
Read, 3a, and passed.
SOMERSET COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I do not propose to move the Third Reading of the Somerset County Council Bill this afternoon.

BUILDING (SCOTLAND) BILL
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I beg to move That this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Clause 5 [Amendment of s. 8 of Building (Scotland) Act 1959]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 9, line 30, leave out ("49(1)") and insert ("50(1)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor drafting Amendment to

411
Clause 5, which is needed because of the re-numbering of the Interpretation Clause of the Roads (Scotland) Bill. At the Report stage we added a new clause, now No. 37, to the Roads Bill; and we have to alter the reference in the Building Bill from section 49 to section 50, otherwise the interpretation of highway authority does not make any sense at all. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

AGRICULTURE BILL
2.51 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 102 [Amendment of Diseases of Animals Act 1950]:
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Before I call Amendment No. 40A I think I should point out to the Committee that if this Amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 41, 42, or 43.
LORD BURTON LORD BURTON moved Amendment No. 40A:
Page 91, line 6, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
The noble Lord said: The following Amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, are on the same subject, and I hope it may be your Lordships' wish that we should discuss all these Amendments together. These two subsections in the Bill have been introduced to give the Government the powers to vaccinate every animal within a radius around the place of outbreak of any disease which
412
may develop. It was the disastrous outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in 1967–68 which gave rise to the setting up of the Northumberland Committee and prompted the legislation.
On the face of things, it may appear that the Government are not being unreasonable in seeking these powers. However, there are considerable drawbacks. First, the cost in present-day terms of the production, storing and turnover of foot-and-mouth vaccine alone would amount to £550,000 a year. The exceptional outbreak of 1967–68 cost the Government approximately £27 million, and if one adds the farmers' losses the total is likely to be around the £50 million mark. To what extent would this cost have been reduced if we had had vaccination? I suggest that it would not have been reduced by any considerable amount. Indeed, the vaccination could have caused enormous damage and additional cost. The 1967–68 outbreak was exceptional, and since then—probably thanks to the Government's wise decision on meat imports—there have been no cases at all.
It is pleasant to find oneself on one part of the agricultural front on which one can congratulate the Government, and the agricultural industry is indeed deeply grateful for the meat import restrictions. Since 1968 there have been new regulations and a tightening up of Ministry administration, further reducing the chances of epidemics of foot-and-mouth disease. The slaughter policy has always in the past proved itself effective, and now that the chances of an outbreak are reduced, why change our policy to one which has grave risks? Vaccination entails a very high risk, and only last week I believe that the Livestock Breeders' Association were making strong representations to the Minister against the policy of vaccination. Vaccination could produce in this country animals which are carriers of the disease. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture himself stated that no Government could be expected to face consequential compensation which could result from vaccination.
At the present moment it is illegal to import into this country any animal which has been vaccinated. Admittedly a few countries vaccinate with live vaccine, and

413
in this country it would be the intention to use only dead vaccine; but if it is too dangerous to import animals which have been vaccinated, is it wise to vaccinate our own stock, even in what may be a limited respect? In recent years we have had experience of vaccination for brucellosis; indeed, the fact that adult cattle have been vaccinated with S.19 has been made by the Government one of the main platforms for excusing the early introduction of a scheme for the eradication of this disease. It has come to light that the S.19 vaccine used for two or three years was an ineffective serum, and it has taken all this time to find the defect. Surely we could not risk any such accidents with foot-and-mouth disease.
Again, a number of countries would not be prepared to import our vaccinated animals, and that could cause loss to our export trade. I am not going to overplay this line, but the trade at the moment is over £1 million a year and it is scarcely surprising that the N.F.U., the Livestock Breeders' Association and most farmers and people connected with the trade have been worried at the proposals to take these powers. At the meeting on brucellosis which some of us attended at the Ministry last week, it was strongly emphasised to us that the Ministry wished to have talks to try to secure agreement with all parties in the industry—farmers, veterinary officers, milk boards and so on—but there appears to have been little or no consultation on a complete reversal of policy on two animal health matters. Indeed, few of us knew anything about these proposals until the Committee stage of this Bill in another place, and during that Committee stage a good many doubts arose. I wonder if the Minister could say whether it is intended to stock vaccines, for example, for every strain or sub-strain of foot-and-mouth disease, let alone the other diseases? Could the Minister give any details of what discussions he has had with the industry, and could he say whether any sections of the industry have given their blessing to this proposal? Could the Minister say whether the undertaking given by this Government (who, I gather, are to use the vaccine only in exceptional circumstances), would apply to future Governments?
If we pass these subsections as they stand to-day we are giving the Government of the day very dangerous powers.
414
If the powers are to be used only in an emergency, once the disease has got out of control or has perhaps got to the proportions of the 1967–68 outbreak the area to be covered and the number of cattle, sheep and pigs involved would be very considerable; indeed, it would amount almost to total vaccination of whole areas of the country. That would be contrary to the recommendations of the Northumberland Committee, which emphasised the speed with which ring vaccination should be administered. Again, who is to give the order that vaccination is to commence? Does that very grave decision rest upon the Minister's shoulders?
I suggest that there are imponderables and technicalities way beyond most of us sitting here this afternoon. As a result of Government action on imports, new regulations and the Ministry's plans, there is no immediate urgency for a decision on this matter. Therefore, would it not be better to delete these clauses from this miscellaneous Agriculture Bill this afternoon and allow full and detailed discussions to take place? Then if it is decided by the industry—and, after all, the industry should have the major say in the matter—that the Government should have these powers, let us have a separate Bill, which could be put through quite quickly if it was agreed and which could cover many of the points I have raised this afternoon. I strongly exhort your Lordships to support my Amendment, and I beg to move.
LORD SWAYTHLING: I have been put in something of a difficulty. The Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Burton, is one that I would ordinarily support—holding the views I do about vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease I could hardly do otherwise—but I am of the opinion that, even if your Lordships were disposed to accept his Amendment, it would not be agreed to in another place. In view of what the Lord Chairman has said, I hope the Committee will agree that it will be an advantage to discuss my Amendments Nos. 41, 42, and 43 at the same time as we discuss the one that is before the Committee now. All three Amendments are of course interconnected, so it would be necessary to refer to them together.
In my speech during the Second Reading debate, I mentioned that I should

415
be putting down these Amendments concerning the proposed powers of the Minister with regard to ring vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease. I think it essential that we should first consider the pros and cons of vaccination itself, remembering as we do that the Minister already holds power to vaccinate animals that have come in contact with cases of foot-and-mouth disease. What can be said in favour of vaccination is the vast improvement in recent years in the various vaccines. As your Lordships know, there are a number of different types of foot-and-mouth disease virus, against which we now have vaccines of greatly increased potency. The second improvement in recent times is that we are now believed to have protection for pigs which we did not have before.
We must remember, however, the dangers incumbent in vaccination. First, vaccinated animals exposed to infection may become highly dangerous carriers and could spread the disease to susceptible stock. Secondly, there is no adequate protection to the animals which have been vaccinated until 7 to 14 days after vaccination. As I mentioned on Second Reading, in Denmark they adopted a system of ring vaccination and after an outbreak of the disease last December several subsidiary outbreaks occurred in vaccinated stock within 14 days. I understand that the Danes are most disturbed by the possibility that healthy cattle which have been vaccinated will excrete foot-and-mouth disease virus and thus themselves create subsidiary outbreaks.
The most important of the disadvantages is that after vaccination there is a great risk of the disease becoming endemic in this country. But even if it does not become endemic, the risk is that many countries to whom we export livestock would regard it as too dangerous to import animals from this country and a great deal of harm would ensue to our export trade. There are very large numbers of pedigree breeders in this country who are most anxious about this aspect, and who hope that a vaccination policy will never be put in force.
We had all assumed from the recommendations contained in the Report of the Northumberland Committee that very careful consideration would be given before
416
the contingency plans for the application of ring vaccination were implemented. However, a document, dated April 1, 1970, produced by the Animal Health Division gives grave reason to doubt whether due attention has been paid to this requirement, in that it is stated therein:
"If vaccination is deemed necessary it would begin within 24 hours of the outbreak."
This is surely a completely inadequate period, except under the most exceptional conditions, for anyone to be able to make a correct assessment. For this reason it is felt necessary to impose a delay in vesting in the Minister a power to order ring vaccination so that further consideration can be given to the details. It would also give an opportunity for national and international consultations concerning the effect of vaccination on our export trade with other countries. I understand that these consultations have not taken place up till now.
As I said when I began, I think there would be more hope of getting agreement to this delay in the granting to the Minister of these powers of ring vaccination than of obtaining a complete ban. I feel that it is a reasonable compromise and one that will enable a full study to be made of these important matters and of what will be entailed. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will agree to accept my Amendments when they are moved.
LORD BALERNO: I have a great deal of sympathy with the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Burton, and with the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Swathling. However, I have slight reservations in that I think the Northumberland Committee reported in favour of this procedure, and in the veterinary profession I believe the tendency is, on the whole, in favour of what the Government are proposing here. We have been assured that the powers which are being given are, as it were, powers of last resort, to be used only in an emergency. That brings me on to the question of the cost of this operation. I believe that the cost of keeping various strains of this vaccine would be approximately £500,000 a year, and there are many years when it would not be at all likely that ring vaccination would be brought into operation. Indeed, the only likelihood of its being brought into operation would be when there was

417
a massive outbreak, and when a great deal of money had already been spent by the Government in combating foot-and-mouth. My own hesitation arises on whether this is a prudent expenditure of money. If there were a "wild fire" outbreak of foot-and-mouth, and one could pour in the vaccine and get it into action, that would be one thing. But it would be quite another thing, as I see it, to spend £500,000 a year on maintaining the vaccine.
3.18 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: I recognise that there is more than one opinion about this proposal, which is a departure from what we have hitherto stood by in this country. But I am bound to say that I am a little surprised now, in the light of the sort of representations that were made during that dreadful period of the disaster, to hear the objection to the proposal to have ring vaccination as a standby policy. Many noble Lords will remember when we had to report practically each week that there were further animals being infected. Something like 438,000 were, I think, ultimately slaughtered, and from all sides of the House people were asking: Cannot something more be done? Representing my right honourable friend at this Box, I had to say that we had a slaughter policy and we proposed to continue with that slaughter policy. Nevertheless, there was a feeling that the whole matter ought to be looked at again, and it was looked at again by as authoritative a body as could be set up to look at it.
I rather felt, when the noble Lord, Lord Burton, and the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, indicated that this decision of Her Majesty's Government to have this power to engage in ring vaccination was taken without proper consideration, that that was rather unfair. Of course everything was gone into; of course people were consulted; of course evidence was taken by the Northumberland Committee. And we then came to this decision. The Government have accepted that there will be this power vested in the Minister to engage in ring vaccination if, in the light of all the circumstances, it is considered justifiable. I was asked——
LORD SWAYTHLING: Will the noble Lord excuse my interrupting him? I
418
am afraid that I cannot refer to the paragraph in the Northumberland Report which deals with the matter, but I understand that it stated definitely that, if ring vaccination was ever resorted to, it should not be resorted to until after many considerations had been taken into account. If the Minister is given these powers which are in the Bill, can we have an assurance that the period of 24 hours, which is mentioned in the Animal Health Division's leaflet about putting vaccination into operation—which would mean that no assessment could be made of the situation—will be extended?
LORD BESWICK: I was about to say that I was asked who would make the decision as to whether to vaccinate or not. It would be an important decision, and I was asked who would make it. Of course, the decision would be taken by my right honourable friend the Minister but it would not be taken within 24 hours of any outbreak, not just like that. There would be a study jointly carried out by veterinarians, meteorologists, virologists and epidemiologists; and there would be an initial assessment of the risks of potential spread of the disease and the likely direction of spread. That would become available, of course, in a matter of some hours, and it would be on this assessment that a decision would be taken as to whether ring vaccination was necessary as a control measure. If the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, wants assurance that it will be a decision taken after the most careful consideration by all the various people and authorities concerned, then I can give him that assurance. But in the light of the experience which we had in the last outbreak, and in the light of the recommendations that were made by the Northumberland Committee, it would be quite irresponsible of the Minister not to take these powers to vaccinate a ring around an infected area if the various considerations suggested that such a step was necessary.
I was asked about the cost of vaccination. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, said, it would cost some half a million pounds to stock the vaccines. In answer to the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Burton, there will be more than one strain of vaccines. A number of strains, which between them

419
will give an effective coverage, will be available.
The noble Lord, Lord Burton, asked about the carrier problem, and I know that some farmers and breeders are concerned about vaccinated animals becoming carriers of the disease. Indeed, I think that I made this point myself, in answer to questions, when I was being pressed on the earlier occasion, during the outbreak, as to why we did not vaccinate, and I said that this was one of the possibilities we had to look into. The results of research and experience in many countries show that with modern vaccines and techniques the carrier problem does not constitute a significant risk. We shall have two safeguards against that risk. On most farms there will be young, unvaccinated animals fully susceptible to the disease, and these will act as controls. Secondly, we shall take samples and carry out tests on those vaccinated herds where we consider there is a risk from this problem before we remove restrictions from the area. The noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, spoke about secondary outbreaks in Denmark. I understand that these secondary outbreaks had in fact been seeded—that is to say, animals had been infected—before vaccination, and that subsequently the vaccine was effective.
I was also asked about exports. It was the Northumberland Committee, in paragraph 194 of Part I of their Report, who said:
"There will be no problem with exports to countries where vaccination is practised. Exports of livestock to such countries constitute the major part, both in quantity and value, of our total exports. There could be resistance from other countries, but many accept imports subject to special precautions from countries where vaccination is practised. The precautions required for exports to such countries are already considerable, and there is no reason why we should have difficulty in satisfying the extra precautions imposed because we had of necessity resorted to ring vaccination."
Another point put to me concerned consultations by the Minister: I was asked what discussions he had had. He did in fact discuss the plans with the British Veterinary Association on April 8, and the proposals there were, as the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, said, favourably received. There were also discussions earlier this month with the farmers'
420
unions, the National Cattle Breeders' Association, the National Pig Breeders' Association and a representative of the Royal Agricultural Society. Opinions were expressed. I cannot say that in these cases the proposals were received favourably, as with the Veterinary Association, but, of course, one understands that there is a reluctance to embark upon a policy which has certain disadvantages. But, of course, there are disadvantages in an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. There are infinitely greater risks there if we have no reserve policy of ring vaccination. I understand the reservations which noble Lords have expressed, but I put it to them that it is only sensible, practical and wise, in the light of all the advice which has been tendered, for the Minister to take the powers for which he asks in this Bill.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: May I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for answering the debate on this important matter of the control of foot-and-mouth disease? I should begin by declaring a personal interest in this field, as I am chairman of the Animal Virus Research Institute at Pirbright, which is our main research institute dealing with foot-and-mouth. Let me say immediately to my noble friend Lord Burton that I should have thought he can take some comfort from the fact that our official policy for the control of foot-and-mouth is unchanged. It is still the slaughter policy; and on balance—and, heaven knows ! this matter has been carefully looked into by the Northumberland Committee—I am sure that this is the right policy.
The statement which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has made this afternoon about how the Government propose to use this second line of defence which is contemplated in this clause is, I think, helpful. There is a certain haze hanging over this, as to what should be done; and one has to bear in mind the comments of the Northumberland Committee on this score, where they roundly say that emergency ring vaccination will not be of any use unless it is done immediately. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has told us that in fact it will not be done immediately. This I sympathise with: I do not think it could be, so it introduces other factors. But in so far as ring vaccination is to be applied as a last-ditch measure

421
if an outbreak of foot-and-mouth should become as widespread as it was in 1967–68, and if there really was a danger that the slaughter policy would not be sufficient to contain it so that the outbreak threatened to spread throughout the country, as it did then, then this seems to me a measure which is justified.
LORD BESWICK: I wonder whether the noble Lord would enable me just to qualify the word "immediately". When I spoke just now I was using the word "immediately" in the sense of "automatically". There is no question of automatic vaccination, but I agree that if all the circumstances of any particular outbreak suggested it, then speedy action would be necessary. But it would be on the basis of a special assessment by all the people concerned in each case.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: Yes. I quite take the noble Lord's point, and I think he is right. In fact, this will take time, and this makes it even more difficult for a decision to be taken. But I am sure my noble friend Lord Burton will take Lord Beswick's point that at the height of the crisis in 1967–68 we were all asking: "Is the slaughter policy going to be adequate when the epidemic is so serious and is spreading so fast? Ought we not to think of using vaccination as a second line of defence?" Indeed, the Government then imported a stock of vaccine for that very purpose, and I think this was done with the approval of everybody.
So it really is necessary, in order to judge the Government's present proposal fairly, to remember those circumstances of two years ago and, apart from the financial loss, the immense suffering of the farming community as they saw their valuable herds being slaughtered. My noble friend Lord Burton said that he thought that perhaps the consequential cost was equal to the compensation. I should think that it might easily be double that; and that the total cost of an outbreak might be nearer £100 million than £50 million. Certainly there is no doubt that it was touch and go whether the slaughter policy could get control of it. It is against this background that I think we have to judge what the Government are now putting before us to provide themselves with a second string. Although I hope that we
422
shall never have such a bad outbreak again, on the whole I think we should be glad to think that there is a second string. In fact, the Northumberland Committee, I should tell my noble friend Lord Burton, estimated that if ring vaccination had been applied in the Oswestry outbreak, it might have saved half the outbreaks. They qualified this by saying that ring vaccination would have had to begin very early.
Here I come to the point that I was discussing earlier with Lord Beswick. The decision whether or not to carry out ring vaccination presents enormous difficulty. The Chief Veterinary Officer would have to be the main adviser to the Ministar, and the implications are so extensive, the difficulties of making a correct appreciation of the situation in the middle of an outbreak, when slaughtering is going on every day and when reports are coming in all the time, are so great that it will be difficult to judge whether or not this secondary measure should be taken. The point I would stress is that it is worth while having a second string to your bow; it is going to be of some help to the Minister and his advisers to know that they have it and that they can bring it into action if they wish. That can be the sole justification: that it is a last-ditch measure if the slaughter policy seems to be failing. Really, I should think it is more what the Northumberland Committee called "barrier vaccination" than ring vaccination that would be brought into operation in such an event; and it is bound to come in later rather than earlier because of the great difficulty of sizing up the situation and deciding whether to do it.
I should like to add this footnote to the main issue. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Burton in thinking that it would be disastrous to turn to ring vaccination as a first line of defence. The Animal Virus Research Institute, of which I have the honour to be Chairman, gave evidence to the Northumberland Committee that this would be the worst of all worlds; that the right thing to do is either to slaughter or to vaccinate everything, to have a wholesale vaccination policy.
Of course, it is perfectly true, as has been mentioned in this debate, that the technique of vaccines has enormously advanced in recent years. The Western

423
European countries have by wholesale vaccination methods made tremendous progress in eliminating, or very nearly so, or getting under control, foot-and-mouth disease in their countries which was a serious thing 15 or 20 years ago. So if we decided to carry out wholesale vaccination we should get the advantage then of having complete protection. But it is very expensive. It would cost at least £5 million a year, every year, and more than double that to start it off. There is immense dislocation in doing it and certain disadvantages, as my noble friend Lord Burton has said, to the export trade. I am still quite sure that for us in this island the slaughter policy is the best. But that depends on reducing the number of primaries. These have been increasingly worrying in recent years. The measure that the Government have taken in persuading the South Americans to bone their meat before sending it here represents tremendous progress, and the Government are much to be congratulated on it. I am sure that this will reduce the number of primaries; and if we can reduce the number of primaries then our prospect of being successful with the slaughter policy is very much improved.
I turn now to another point made by my noble friend Lord Burton and by Lord Swaythling on the pros and cons of ring vaccination and the risk to the export trade due to the presence of vaccinated animals in the national herd. I think that one can over-state this risk. One has to remember that if we are ever unlucky enough to be in a situation where we have had such a serious outbreak of foot-and-mouth that ring vaccination is employed, this would mean that the disease had been raging over quite large areas of the country and that, in any event, for some months to come the export trade would be prejudiced—whether there had been ring vaccination or not. Inevitably, a potential customer overseas for our cattle would hesitate for some months before buying our cattle. I do not think that if in such a case we decided on ring vaccination it would extend the period of doubt significantly.
I would therefore give my advice to my noble friends and, indeed, to the cattle breeding societies that I do not think that this would be a significant point affecting the export trade. Let
424
us be frank about this: if anybody wants to buy cattle now from a country like France which has regular vaccination, he buys them. The Charollais trade has not suffered by the fact of general vaccination in France. The fact is that beef breeders all over the world want Charollais cattle and they will soon find some means of getting the Charollais cattle from France, sending them through some kind of quarantine arrangement and making sure that they are clear of the disease when they arrive in the United States or anywhere else. I do not believe that this is going to bother our export trade, and in the event of our ever having to ring vaccinate, the prolongation which it would bring about of the period of doubt, if any, would be a short one.
As to cost, it is true that it will cost about half a million pounds a year. That is about the cost which is now being borne in carrying this stock of vaccine. That must be regarded as an insurance policy. It is a second line of defence. In fact, I hear rumours that the cost may be cheaper; that we may be able to get our supplies of vaccine at a lower price. But whether it is half a million or less, it is worth while if we regard it as part of our insurance premium. We might remember that the cost of running the Research Institute is over half a million a year. This is entirely an insurance measure in order to inform us in this country and to give us the strongest team of scientists able to deal with animal virus. It is solely in order to give better protection here. If we pay another half million which helps to keep the virus out of the country, then it is good value. I do not think that that is a significant point that ought to deter us.
The disadvantages we must recognise. Lord Beswick, I thought, made a fair point: there is no perfect policy. Whatever you follow has its pros and cons. What we are being asked to agree to is to continue our traditional policy of slaughter and to add a second line of defence in the form of ring vaccination if we had an immensely serious outbreak which we were in danger of failing to to control. I think that this is a perfectly safe thing to do, and that we should give it our support.
LORD BURTON: I should like to thank Lord Beswick and all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I am sure that there are a number who may be confused as to what is what, but I think there is not a great deal between us. The only question is how to delay the issue: whether to take it out of the Bill now or to leave it in the Bill and ask for a year's delay. What must come out of this debate, I think, is the considerable divergence of opinion as to whether vaccine should or should not be used. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said that although he had the Veterinary Association's agreement it appears that the rest of the industry is not altogether in favour of it. That is the very reason why we are asking for delay. We feel that there ought to be more consultation and consideration. Perhaps the Government would get the farming industry to go with them if we had a year's delay, but at the moment parts of the industry are not in favour and they are the people who will suffer.
I disagree with the suggestion that the Northumberland Committee agreed to ring vaccination. If there is to be ring vaccination, the Northumberland Committee have advocated that it must be immediate. The decision of noble Lords on both sides of the Committee has been that it should not be immediate. We should, perhaps, not be talking about ring vaccination but barrier vaccination, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. This is another possibility altogether, but it is one more reason why we should have discussions with the industry before proceeding with this matter. If I may quote from the Report of the Northumberland Committee, paragraph 221 states:
"We think that in certain conditions ring vaccination could be a useful adjunct to slaughter."
The Committee say "in certain conditions." One of the conditions was if there was no restriction on the import of meat. I have already congratulated the Government on their wise decision to restrict these imports. In the next paragraph the Report says:
"If such conditions on meat imports are not put into force we would recommend that the slaughter policy should be reinforced by ring vaccination."
But as they have been put into force it is questionable whether ring vaccination,
426
or barrier vaccination, should be considered.
I think Denmark is the only country which uses ring vaccination, and there are considerable doubts about it. In one paragraph the Northumberland Committee report considerable doubts about the methods of killing the vaccine, and it might be a dangerous thing to use. I feel that there ought to be more discussion and consultation about this. I am not competent to say whether we should have vaccination or not; it is obvious that some of your Lordships feel strongly that we should have it and some that we should not. But I consider that there is a great need for more consultation.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
3.33 p.m.
LORD SWAYTHLING LORD SWAYTHLING moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 91, line 6, at beginning insert ("subject to the provisions of subsection (4) of this section")
The noble Lord said: I am very grateful to the Minister for having said that ring vaccination will not be put in force without proper consultation. I think it was obvious that we did not suspect that it would be, but I should like to quote from a document called The Outline of Contingency Plans for Ring Vaccination issued by the Animal Health Division on April 1, 1970, which says:
"If vaccination is deemed necessary, it would begin within about 24 hours of the outbreak; would involve the vaccination of all cattle and sheep over three months and pigs over six weeks old, and would be completed within seven days."
In view of what the Minister has said, I hope that this will be corrected and that there will be no thought that they could make a proper assessment within 24 hours of whether ring vaccination should be resorted to. The Minister said that there had been consultations with the breed societies. I can say that the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers and the National Cattlebreeders' Association are still very much against power being given to act immediately. They would approve the acceptance of my Amendment which, after all, is a very reasonable one. It asks only that the power should be delayed for 12 months to enable the kind of details mentioned in the Animal Health Division paper to be sorted out; and also for the question of

427
the effect on our export cattle trade to be assessed properly after international consultations. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has said that in his opinion it would not affect the export trade adversely, but I can assure your Lordships that there are many cattle breeders in the country who take the absolutely contrary view. I beg to move.
LORD BESWICK: I hope that we may come to the same conclusion in respect of this Amendment as we did after we had listened to the arguments on the earlier Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, counsels delay. It is conceivable that if we delayed for a period of 12 months, and there were no further outbreaks, there might well be one or two others who would come round to the point of view which has been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, and by the noble Lord, Lord Burton. But suppose that after two or three months of the 12-month period there was an outbreak of foot-and-mouth and the same kind of situation as we had in 1967–68 befell us again. What a different approach there would then be! The fact is that there is always a reluctance to pay an insurance premium if one is not having any burglaries. It is when there has been a burglary that people see that their premiums are paid. I suggest to the noble Lord that although it is a persuasive argument that we should wait for 12 months, in the light of the considerations we have referred to in our earlier discussions it would be an irresponsible thing to do. There have been consultations and discussions; evidence has been taken; and the Government have decided that it would be right to have these reserve powers. If we are to have them, surely it is better to have them now.
I was asked about the word "immediate". Immediate vaccination is not possible. You cannot go out within 24 hours and vaccinate all the cattle in an area; you must have a proper assessment of the situation. The more appropriate word is "urgent". There would be an urgent assessment. In some cases it might be possible to decide that the outbreak could be contained. In other cases, if there were the kind of infection explosion that we had two or three years ago, the decision might well
428
have to be that we should have to have a barrier of vaccinated animals around the infected area. In any case, I suggest to the noble Lord that his fears, although understandable, have to be put against the legitimate fears of another outbreak of this disease.
The noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, spoke again about the export trade. I can only echo the relevant, and I thought final, comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford: that if we had an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, it would be equally, if not more, difficult to sell our animals abroad.
LORD BURTON: Will the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, give a little further explanation to try to allay some of the fears which have been expressed? There is the question of when this might be implemented. Do I gather that it will have to be an epidemic on the scale of the one in 1967–68 before any action will be taken? Would it be a barrier round the area, rather than ring vaccination which is mentioned in the Committee Report?
LORD BESWICK: I did not hear the last sentence of the noble Lord, Lord Burton.
LORD BURTON: If one reads the Report of the Northumberland Committee, one sees that they refer to three different sorts of vaccination: one is universal vaccination; one has been referred to more or less in the Continental phrase of barrier vaccination designed to stop the virus coming in from Asia, and the other is ring vaccination. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, did not like the word "immediate", but it will be as immediate as possible around the area of primary infection. Do I take it that what is wanted is a middle course, which is vaccination around the area of an epidemic once it has broken out?
LORD BESWICK: The answer to the noble Lord is that it will be around an epidemic once it has broken out. But again, not necessarily every epidemic; it would depend on the location, the circumstances and the assessment made by all the specialists concerned. Certainly there would not be universal vaccination: that is not the proposal. It is a question of putting up a barrier, a defence in depth, if you like, around the

429
infected area beyond which it would be unreasonable to believe that the infection would spread. That is the intention. However, it would be wrong of me to go into too great detail about a hypothetical case. All I am assuring the Committee is that there is a wealth of advice at the disposal of the Minister, and no step would be taken without proper advice having been received.
LORD BURTON: If that is the case, would not the noble Lord agree that in the case of the 1967–68 outbreak it would have meant vaccinating one third, or even one half, of all the cattle in England and Wales?
LORD BESWICK: I should not like to be too definite about this; but I would say that it was obvious in the very early stages that that outbreak was going to be difficult to contain; and there would have been a case for ring vaccination early in that outbreak.
LORD STRANGE: Has the noble Lord any information about the serious outbreak which took place in Russia: whether there was any vaccination to try to stop it, or was it allowed to run—or any information at all?
LORD BESWICK: I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Lord the benefit of any information about Russia's experience.
LORD SWAYTHLING: The noble Lord has stated that he thinks twelve months is quite unnecessary. Would he accept six months or four months in order to carry out the policy that I have suggested? He told us that there have been some consultations about the export aspect of this matter, but I am assured that there have been no real international consultations on the matter. He says that twelve months is not necessary. But if he would accept a delay of six months or three months, I should be pleased to alter the Amendment to that effect. It seems to me that it is necessary to have these matters cleared up before the Minister has these powers. It may well be that when they have been acquired he will find that the reasons against them will be such that he would not ever wish to put them into operation.
LORD ROWALLAN: Have we any information as to the percentage of carriers left among animals that have been vaccinated? And have we any information about the so-called means of detecting those carriers? These, I think, are two important points.
LORD BESWICK: I shall be glad to see whether I can find an answer for the noble Lord, but I have not the information at the moment.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: Perhaps I can help my noble friend, Lord Rowallan. There is a quite satisfactory technique, called the Probang system, for detecting carriers. It consists of a piece of machinery which is pushed down the animal's throat and takes a sample of its gullet, because it is there that the virus, if it is there, lies. This technique is used for the Charollais exported from France and destined for the United States. In the past, these animals have been quarantined here, and quarantined in Brest. The animals are now subjected to this test, and it is quite a satisfactory method of discovering whether an animal is a carrier. So this does not present a problem with specific animals. I should not think that anyone would like to make a guess at the percentage of carriers, but it would be pretty small.
LORD BESWICK: The information I have is that the number of animals would be very small indeed.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I think the noble Lord said that vaccination would not be done in every case. I hope I am not misquoting him, but I understood from his earlier remarks on the subject, when he was answering the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Burton, that he anticipated that vaccination would be used only in exceptional cases. He did not give me that impression when he was answering the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, and he said that it would not be used in every case. I think it is important to establish which of these two is correct, and which is the Government's idea.
LORD BESWICK: Let me put it again in this way. There is no intention automatically to vaccinate for every outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. I have indicated that if there were a notification of an outbreak there would immediately be

431
an assessment. I mentioned the sort of people who would need to look at the situation—veterinarians, meteorologists, virologists and epidemiologists. In the light of their advice, and on their report, a decision on whether or not to vaccinate would be taken. I said that it was unlikely that it would be done in every case; almost certainly it would not be. But a quick decision on the basis of their report would be taken.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I think that in the 1967–68 outbreak almost everyone supported the Government in their slaughter policy. Although I can see that in the exceptional cases vaccination could be an advantage, I should have thought the noble Lord might have been rather more forthcoming than he has been so far. What worries me is that in 1968 we went into the matter very deeply, and I believe that nearly all knowledgeable opinion took the view that the Government were correct to continue that sort of policy. What has occurred in the meantime that the noble Lord wishes these powers to be used on any but the very exceptional occasion? I do not think I have expressed myself very well, but this point does worry me.
LORD BESWICK: The noble Duke appears to be suffering from the same difficulties that I have in not expressing myself very well. He asks what has happened since then. There has been an outbreak when 430,000 animals were slaughtered. There was a great demand from everyone in this House and from those outside that there should be another look at this problem. A Committee was established precisely for that purpose, and they had a look at it. The noble Duke asked me about the difference between what I said on one occasion and what I said on another as to the number of times that ring vaccination will be applied. I cannot say. I do not know what kind of outbreak there is likely to be. But I would say that the last outbreak in 1967–68 would have been one where advice would have favoured vaccination. That was an exceptional case. The way that the infection exploded around was exceptional. But whether in the future we shall have a number of isolated cases where no ring vaccination will be necessary, or another case of the 1967–68 variety, I cannot
432
say. All I am saying is that on the basis of the advice that has been tendered to the Minister the power ought to be there. The advice will be in the Bill. It is not a matter of going out and vaccinating immediately the Bill goes on the Statute Book. It may be a long time before it is used; and one hopes that it will never be used. Basically, our policy remains that of slaughter, but on certain occasions ring vaccination is a valuable additional ally.
LORD WISE: I should like to ask the noble Lord one further question. May I take it from his earlier replies that the policy of ring vaccination would not in any way cause the disease to become endemic in the country? That is something which is not fully understood and it is troubling a lot of people.
LORD BESWICK: Universal vaccination of the national herd would have the effect of making the disease endemic. Ring vaccination of this kind would not.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: May I ask one further question: have we enough vaccines now in the country to apply it?
LORD BESWICK: If I were asked to supply them to-morrow I could not give an affirmative answer, but in the very near future the answer will be "Yes".
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 102, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 103 [Eradication of brucellosis]:
3.52 p.m.
LORD BALERNO LORD BALERNO moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 92, line 10, at end insert:—
("( ) In any scheme made under subsection (1) of this section and by which an order for compulsory slaughter is made then the compensation to be paid will be the difference between the price fetched by the animal when slaughtered and that which it is estimated by one of his inspectors that the animal would have fetched if sold in the open market in sound condition.")
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to give the cattle farmer a guarantee that in all cases of compulsory slaughter through brucellosis there will be some measure of compensation, and to give him an assurance that it will be a reasonable measure of compensation. The existing brucellosis accredited herd scheme was designed for the late 1960s, to prepare the way for

433
compulsory eradication. I suspect that the Government hoped it would carry on into the early 1970s. Unfortunately, as noble Lords on both sides of the House are well aware, that scheme has not had the success that was hoped for—indeed, it has been described by some, and not without reason, as a scheme which spreads brucellosis. This is on the ground that reactors and infected animals can be sold with impugnity on the open market. Accordingly we must all welcome this clause in the Bill which the Government inserted at Report stage in another place. At least it shows that the Government are aware of the problem.
We are informed that the purpose of the new scheme is to provide the sinews of compulsory eradication, and that limited eradication projects will be started next year. During the Second Reading debate in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, with his customary picturesqueness, described this as standing on the threshold of compulsory eradication. There is some evidence, however, that this new clause has been hastily drafted with the intention of leaving as many options open to the Government as possible. This is commendable; but when too many things are left open, the probable action becomes quite indeterminate and the position is, quite naturally, regarded with suspicion. Farmers are accustomed to plan ahead, and we should like the Government to learn to do the same. We want some indication of whether the threshold is looking North, South, East or West, and what is the visibility from the threshold.
The purpose of my Amendment is to clarify an essential part of any scheme that the Government may develop. The Amendment is to make clear beyond peradventure that compensation will be paid for all animals compulsorily slaughtered under this scheme, and that the compensation will be adequate though by no means generous. The cattle industry are much concerned by a statement made by the Government in another place when the Bill was in the Report stage (column 1336, of Hansard, for March 24). While conceding 100 per cent. compensation in cases where healthy animals may have to be slaughtered because of excessive exposure to
434
brucellosis, and the herd heavily infected with that disease, the Minister went on to say that in dealing with reactors the Government do not intend to pay 100 per cent. compensation. Most fanners will regard that statement as a rather foggy outlook for them.
The reason given for this is that the Government cannot afford deliberately to create a situation in which it pays people to buy up reactors in the confident knowledge—and I quote:
"that they—and any other animals they may infect—will command 100 per cent. compensation".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 24/3/70; col. 1336.]
If this Amendment is accepted, it will not be worth while for anybody to buy a reactor. The Amendment implies that the purchaser cannot receive in toto more than the value of the animal, and the value cannot be more than the price the purchaser paid for it: it may well be less. It may be argued by the Government that a man buying a known reactor cheaply may be able to keep it for some months and sell it at a higher price. If it is a steer for fattening no great harm will result. Long-term fattening of cows is a most unprofitable business. If it is a dairy cow that he hopes to sell after she has calved he is running at least a fifty-fifty risk that she will abort, and her value will go down. That will hardly appeal to a prudent farmer.
I therefore conclude that we can discount this line of argument which, to judge from what was said in another place, is based on the methods applied to tuberculosis eradication. Brucellosis eradication differs in many ways from T.B. eradication. We have had too much slavish copying of the T.B. methods (I say this almost with my tongue in my cheek) and it really ought to stop. Nevertheless, there is one lesson that we can learn from the T.B. eradication, and that is to proceed area by area. If competently selected, the cost to the Exchequer of this method of eradicating, area by area, can be well controlled. The faster eradication can be carried out in the country, the cheaper it will be in the long run: the cost will be much less. It is this long-drawn-out policy of eradication that is making the matter so expensive. If the Government were really concerned about this, they might have considered the suggestion made in another

435
place and included in this clause a provision that anyone who knowingly or recklessly sells a reactor will have his milk licence removed. I will support my noble friend Lord Burton when we come to his Amendment, No. 45A.
Once the majority of dairy farmers—and this goes for beef, too—know that there is to be a realistic, but by no means generous, measure of compensation, they will welcome the use of the stick upon the "black sheep" of their industry. If we are on the threshold, then I beseech the Government to accept this Amendment, or something like it, and so clear the air in order that we may see in some measure of clarity the road ahead. That will be a real encouragement to all decent farmers to co-operate wholeheartedly in the eradication of the disease.
LORD BURTON: There are many farmers sitting on the fence with large numbers of infected animals within it. They are waiting for a scheme of compensation. Whether the scheme to be introduced in 1971 will include this provision perhaps the Minister can tell us—I think that almost certainly it will. Perhaps he will also tell us whether the scheme is likely to start early in 1971 or late in 1971. I do not think we have had any indication so far. Another year's delay would be adversely received by the industry. A large number of dangerous animals are being kept waiting for this compensation scheme to come into effect, and every day that these animals are kept they are spreading disease throughout the country. Therefore the sooner they are removed, the better.
My noble friend Lord Balerno mentioned differences between the T.B. scheme and the brucellosis scheme. One point which has perhaps not yet come home to the Ministry is that in tubeculosis one can work from the clean to the dirty animal, from the animals which have not got the disease, and gradually work out. With brucellosis, I feel, one should work the other way round. The sooner the dirty, infected animals are removed, the better.
4.1 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: The noble Lord, Lord Burton, says that there must be many farmers who will be waiting for
436
just such a scheme as this. I can well imagine that that is true and that there would be some farmers, at any rate—a very few, but some—who if they had not a herd of dirty animals would think about acquiring one. This would run contrary to the whole principle behind the scheme. We have a principle here which I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, will accept. It is that one should give rewards to the farmer with healthy animals, rather than give compensation to the farmer with unclean animals.
Before I go on to that argument in some detail, I would point out to the noble Lord that I think he is mistaking the purposes of Clause 103, which has nothing at all to do with compulsory slaughter. It will only enable the Minister to provide himself with funds to implement the voluntary scheme, in which there is no compulsory slaughter. So it would be quite impossible, or at any rate inadvisable, to have this Amendment on the grounds of legislative logicality. It just would not fit into this clause.
However, I plead with the noble Lord, not on some technical factor but on a question of principle. For a start, we have this voluntary scheme. Farmers will be given an incentive to build up a healthy herd; they will be given l¼d. a gallon extra for their milk or 37s. 6d. on the beef animal. This is the right way of going about it, as we see it: putting the incentive on the healthy animal and good husbandry, rather than the other way round. I hope that this is the way round which the noble Lord, on reflection, will accept.
The noble Lord asked about the known reactor, which is mentioned in an Amendment we shall consider later. I shall listen with great interest to the arguments advanced on that Amendment. I have some sympathy with the noble Lord's intention there, but I think there is a contradiction between the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Burton, in his Amendment and the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, in the matter which he is putting before us here.
I have simply to repeat that the Government do not intend to pay 100 per cent. compensation for reactors on the basis that they are healthy animals when in fact they are unclean animals.

437
The whole essence of the Government's approach to brucellosis is to put the emphasis on the clean animals and clean herd and to reward vigilance against the disease, instead of underwriting infection. That is why, in contrast to anything that has ever been done before in compulsory eradication of our animal diseases, the Government intend to pay appreciable sums in the shape of incentive premiums on the clean animals found in herds subject to compulsory eradication. That is why on those occasions when a healthy animal has to be compulsorily slaughtered because of excessive exposure to brucellosis in a heavily infected herd, the Government will pay the full 100 per cent. compensation. No new statutory powers are needed to do this. Additionally, in the compulsory areas, and to assist in the process of restocking, there will be a flat-rate replacement grant on each slaughtered reactor. That is in the compulsory scheme. But we are here dealing with the voluntary scheme, and in the voluntary scheme the emphasis, as I say, is in the amount of money which Clause 103 will make available to the Minister to give to the owners of the clean herds. I hope the Committee will agree that this is the right way of tackling the problem.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Balerno, before taking a further part in the debate, could make a little clearer how he sees his Amendment working. His Amendment says:
"'… compensation to be paid will be the difference between the price fetched by the animal when slaughtered and that which it is estimated by one of his inspectors"—
that is, the Minister's inspectors—
"that the animal would have fetched if sold in the open market in sound condition."
That seems to be a contradiction in terms. I know that my noble friend has great knowledge of these matters, but I found this a little difficult to understand, because I should have thought that a Ministry inspector when confronted with a diseased animal could have put only a slaughter value on it. I found it difficult to get my mind clear on what sort of value my noble friend saw being put on it. Would he eludicate this point?
LORD BALERNO: Yes, with permission. The animal one was considering
438
would be healthy, because so far as slaughter for eating the flesh of the beast is concerned, the case I have in mind is not parallel with tuberculosis. There is no likelihood of there being any meat to be condemned. Those words were put in with a little hesitation, I will admit, and I should not have minded leaving out the words "in sound condition", but I received some advice which made me leave them in. I quite see that there might be equivocation, but at the same time I do not think any inspector would have difficulty in understanding what was meant.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: If I may make a brief comment on this point (we are in Committee and therefore there is no limit on our speaking), I am still not absolutely clear what my noble friend wants. I should have thought that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is something which we all accept in these veterinary matters. No Minister of Agriculture can be expected to pay the market price for a dairy cow as a dairy cow if she is diseased; she can only go for the slaughter price. A scheme which provided for her to be paid for as a dairy cow at market price would put an impossible premium on people buying up diseased animals in order to make money out of the scheme. No Minister could possibly justify spending public money in effect to encourage bad husbandry. I am quite sure that my noble friend Lord Balerno could not have such a thought in his mind.
Of course, there should be full, 100 per cent., compensation for animals which are healthy but have had so much contact with diseased animals that they have to be slaughtered. But that is another matter. It is of course always difficult for us to discuss these veterinary matters and grasp the precise portent of the different technical points. This is a matter of very great interest at the present time. We all want to see the brucellosis scheme for eradication going ahead as fast as possible, and that is why we are debating it now. I should not have thought that we wanted to make too much of any difference of opinion between us. It seems to me that the Government may have the right balance here in giving the incentives they have offered on the milk and carcase, which will bring in additional revenue to the man who wishes

439
to be, and indeed has become, accredited. He will use this additional money to enter into an insurance scheme—I understand that the N.F.U. Mutual is now working one out—which will itself provide the difference between the slaughter value of the animal which is slaughtered and the market value which the farmer would have received if she had not been a reactor.
I should have thought that this was the right structure to get the incentive pulling the right way, so that both the dairy and the beef industry have the necessary incentive to aim for clean herds. Whether the premiums have been set at the right level only experience can show. It looks as though they might be about right, but if experience shows that they are set too low to cover the cost of such an insurance policy I should think there would be a case for uplifting them to make them adequate for the purpose. But I do not think it could be right to give a full market value compensation price for a diseased animal. Therefore I hope my noble friend is not making that the point of his Amendment, because I think it would be wrong. But it would be right to say that the Government must watch these premiums to make sure that they will be adequate to pay for an insurance policy that will compensate for reactors when they have to be slaughtered.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I should not like the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, to think that I am critical of him in any way, because we are anxious to persuade people to support the scheme for the eradication of brucellosis, but I think that in this matter his judgment is a little wrong. It seems to me that in this Amendment, which as I see it is asking for 100 per cent. compensation whatever the condition of the cow, the noble Lord is assuming that all farmers are men of high principle like himself. If the farmer was not tempted to dispose of an infected cow, much of this debate to-day and much of the agitation on the part of those who wish to eradicate brucellosis would be redundant. Indeed, the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Burton, which I think is an excellent one, would be redundant. But I do not think we can assume that every farmer is absolutely honest and would
440
not be tempted, if this Amendment were passed, to procure cows which he might subsequently sell for 100 per cent. value. It may well be that this Amendment is wrongly drafted and that this was not in fact in the noble Lord's mind. I would ask him to withdraw it and subsequently, with the help, I am sure, of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, to support the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Burton.
LORD BURTON: I should like to make one more comment. Particularly with beef cattle, I think it must be borne in mind that once a cow has aborted with brucellosis there is the possibility that she will not abort a second time. Therefore there is quite a strong temptation for a man to continue keeping his cattle; but he is keeping infected cattle which may, and probably will, be endangering his neighbour's cattle. Unless he has some incentive to get rid of his dirty cattle he will not do so; the 37s. 6d. (or whatever the figure is) per head per year will not compensate him for the cost of changing over his herd. With a small herd of 25 cows it will probably cost £2,000 to have his cows slaughtered and to buy in fresh, clean animals. Therefore this man will "sit on" his cows and be a danger to his neighbours, rather than bother with the 37s. 6d.
LORD BESWICK: I think the noble Lord is under a misapprehension. If the farmer just "sits on" his cows, not only would it be an uncomfortable way of spending the day but he would not get his bonus payment on the milk. He will have to leave the scheme and he will not get all his incentive payments. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, that the real crux of the matter is the level of incentive; whether it will make it possible for a farmer to get rid in a proper way of those animals in his herd which are found to be infected. The levels of premiums, of course, will be reviewed annually.
LORD BALERNO: I should like to reply to some of the points which have been raised. In the first place, I must apologise for not having made my meaning clear. I have never for a moment suggested that the Government should pay 100 per cent. compensation. What I have suggested is that together with the value that the farmer will get as a

441
result of the slaughter there should be a sum which would make up the market value of the animal. May I give some examples? If it is an animal that is being fattened for beef, then that will be the price, and the Government should have nothing to pay when the animal is slaughtered. If it is an animal that is in process of being fattened for meat there might be a small element of loss, but I do not think there would be a large sum of money to be paid for the difference between the market value of the animal for beef and its market value sold as a store. At the very outside, it would not amount to more than a third, and I doubt whether it would be as much as that.
A dairy cow at the height of her milk production is the only case where there would be a substantial amount to be paid by the Government, but at the moment dairy cows are selling quite well for slaughter. Again I do not think that this compensation could amount to as much as 50 per cent. of the value, and in many cases, with certain breeds, it would not amount to as much as that. Therefore I do not see the Government having to "shell out" a tremendous sum of money, nor do I see the farmer being generously treated, but he is getting the incentive to get rid of a cow in full milk that he knows is a reactor; and that is what we want to happen if we want to get rid of the disease. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said that this clause was not compulsory but only permissive. I always find it extremely difficult to understand——
LORD BESWICK: I am sorry, but I was not talking about that at all. What I was saying was that this clause is not dealing with compulsory eradication. It is discussing the voluntary scheme and making possible the financing of the Minister's bonus payments and other administrative expenses.
LORD BALERNO: I apologise. I was thinking that the Government were proposing to go in for a compulsory eradication scheme, and I believe that that is the only way in which we shall get the disease eliminated from this country. Unless there is a compulsory eradication scheme we shall have the disease with us till the end of time. It is questionable whether the "carrots"
442
that the Government have produced, while they are helpful in certain circumstances, will even pay for the cost of the insurance premiums which a prudent farmer may wish to take out. The "carrots" are very small ones and I think the time has come when a stick should be wielded. I am sorry that I gave a wrong impression to the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, because before she spoke I had already written in my notes that we had to put the screw not only on the bad animal but also on the bad fanner. Merely to encourage will not be sufficient. That was the purpose of my Amendment.
However, I see that it has some snags, as my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford has pointed out, and perhaps some illogicalities, in that the Amendment has got itself attached to a permissive instead of to a compulsory clause. In those circumstances, but full of hope that it will not be long before the Government realise that compulsory eradication and forceful action, especially against the bad dairy farmers, will be the only way of getting the disease out of the country, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.20 p.m.
LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 92, line 36, at end insert—
("(5) Section 13(5) of the Agriculture Act 1967 (under which a levy scheme relating to the expenses of the Meat and Livestock Commission may not impose charges in respect of livestock slaughtered under the Diseases of Animals Act 1950 or any order or arrangements made thereunder) shall be amended by inserting at the end 'or in accordance with any scheme under section 103 of the Agriculture Act 1970'.
(6) Any person who knowingly or recklessly makes any false statement for the purpose of obtaining for himself or any other person any payment under a scheme under subsection (1) or (2) of this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or both.
(7) Any of the following officers—

(a) in England and Wales, any officer of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food authorised in writing by that Minister to exercise the powers conferred by this subsection;

(b) in Scotland, any officer of the Secretary of State or of the said Minister having the like authority of that Secretary of State, and

(c) in Northern Ireland, any officer within paragraph (a) above, and any officer of the

443
Ministry of Agriculture for Northern Ireland having the like authority of that Ministry;

may, for the purpose of obtaining any information which he may consider necessary in connection with a scheme under subsection (1) or (2) of this section, enter upon any land or premises and there inspect any animal, apply any test or take any sample, and examine and take copies of or extracts from any document.
The right of entry under this subsection may be exercised at any reasonable time, but only after production of the officer's authority if so required; and any person who obstructs or impedes an officer acting in the exercise of his powers under this subsection shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £20 in the case of a first offence, and, in the case of a second or subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding £50 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or both.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the Amendment I am now proposing to Clause 103 is, despite its apparent length, very simple, and I hope it will be generally acceptable. The Amendment will, on the one hand, give Ministers certain powers essential to the smooth administration of new schemes made under the clause; and, on the other hand, will ensure that those participating in such schemes receive certain benefits that have gone with schemes made under the Diseases of Animals Act. Perhaps I ought to elaborate on that a little. To take the second and more straightforward point first, Section 13(5) of the Agriculture Act 1967 exempts from the Meat and Livestock Commission's levy scheme all livestock slaughtered in Great Britain under any arrangements made under the Diseases of Animals Act. This exemption has, therefore, applied to reactors slaughtered under the old Accredited Herds Scheme, and in the Government's view it would only be equitable for the same arrangement to be extended to reactors slaughtered under the new Brucellosis Incentives Scheme. Subsection (5) of the Amendment would do this.
The remaining subsections, as I have indicated, give Ministers various powers essential to the effective administration of any schemes that may be made, and were, in part at least, foreshadowed when the Bill was in another place. Briefly, the powers conferred by this part of the Amendment are similar to those contained in Sections 6 and 7 of the Diseases of Animals Act. The need to re-enact them here arises because, as the Minister of Agriculture explained in another place, the relevant provisions in the Diseases of
444
Animals Act apply only to Great Britain, whereas the new clause provides for payments throughout the United Kingdom. Also, the powers conferred by the Diseases of Animals Act in this respect are naturally enough confined to payments made under that Act, so that it will be necessary to ensure that similar provisions exist for any payments made under Clause 103. Thus, the effect of the Amendment will be two-fold. First of all, it will put the new brucellosis incentives on the same footing as the generality of agricultural grants and subsidies by enabling officials authorised in writing by the Minister to enter premises and carry out certain inspections in order to check claims for brucellosis payments. Secondly, it will make it an offence to obstruct any officer authorised to carry out an inspection of the kind I have mentioned, just as it will make it an offence to render a false statement to obtain a brucellosis payment. These are tidying-up provisions. I hope they will have general support. I would say in passing that, having explained all that, I quite understand why the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, got a little confused when he tried to apply his Amendment to this clause. I beg to move.
LORD BALERNO: I think this indicates that the whole of this brucellosis clause, while we are very glad indeed that it has been brought forward, has been brought forward in a great hurry and has been somewhat ill-considered. I suggest that it needs further consideration, and if the Government had further thoughts on this clause by Report stage, I am sure they would get the complete support of noble Lords on all sides of the House. I have only one other word to say. It seems to me that the regulations under this clause are absolutely necessary before we can go ahead with the compulsory eradication of the disease. The noble Lord is shaking his head, so perhaps I am wrong again.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: May I say this by way of comfort to my noble friend Lord Balerno. In so far as this provision for the eradication of brucellosis appears to have been brought forward without complete preparation and in a hurry, perhaps noble Lords, and indeed noble Ladies, on all sides of the House may take some comfort from the

445
fact that the debate which took place here a month or two ago did not fall on deaf ears and may have stimulated noble Lords on the Front Bench to take action to get a move on with the eradication scheme. Undoubtedly this is the basis for the future eradication areas which we are all most anxious to see set up next year.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.26 p.m.
LORD BURTON LORD BURTON moved Amendment No. 45A:
Page 93, line 12, at end insert ("(7) Any person offering for sale other than for slaughter any animal known to be a reactor to brucella abortus shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100 for each animal so offered").
The noble Lord said: Unlike my earlier Amendment today, this Amendment is quite straightforward; it proposes something which has been sought by farmers throughout the country and is approved, I think, by most veterinarians. My next remarks may be a little critical of the Government, and after the kind utterances we have heard from the other side this afternoon on this Amendment I am a little hesitant, but I feel it necessary to proceed and I hope they will forgive me.
Some of your Lordships may be becoming tired of the mention of this word "brucellosis", but this agitation for action has been brought about entirely by Government lethargy in the past. Until the urgency for action is pressed home, there will be need to continue this agitation. It must be borne in mind that there was a debate on brucellosis in another place as far back as June, 1964, and very little progress has been made since then. Indeed, people who should know feel that the disease has spread during this period. It was only after the defeat on brucellosis in the Committee stage of this Bill in another place that the Government at last took action by introducing their present proposals, in a new clause at the Report stage. This, I think, bears out the remarks of my noble friend Lord Balerno, who said that things seem to have been rather hurried, though we are grateful for any action that has been taken and we should now only like a little more.
Farmers and most veterinary surgeons feel that the proposals in this Bill still do not go far enough. One honourable
446
Member in another place referred to the feeling of utter hopelessness which farmers feel about this disease, and if this Amendment is not accepted to-day—or at least an Amendment to cover the situation is promised by the Government on Report—then the farmers' feeling of hopelessness will only increase. They will say, "The Government are not interested in this disease. What can we do?" There have been references to the need for farmers to impose discipline upon themselves. In this case, as a farmer, I am endeavouring to assist the eradication of brucellosis by seeking to impose such a discipline, by adding a possible additional criminal offence on the farming community. I very much doubt whether I shall have a murmur of protest against my intention from any farmer.
There is little doubt that the disease has been spread to many herds through farmers' putting infected animals on to the market. Some years ago, before this disease became well known, I can remember one of my tenants having an "abortion storm" in his herd. A few months later he sold all his cattle through the open market. How many clean herds this man infected I hate to think; I am only relieved to say that he is no longer farming. But this procedure has continued—indeed, I think I should not be inaccurate in stating that it is quite widespread. Is it surprising that there is a demand from farmers for legislation such as I propose? The Minister may tell us that the scheme which the Government propose to introduce will be taking some action along the lines that I suggest. But even if this is the case—and we shall have to wait and see whether it is—this scheme will not start until some time in 1971. Here may I repeat my question to the Minister? Will it be late in 1971 or early in 1971? Action is urgent now; we must have action straight away.
There is one slight snag to this Amendment, and that is the difficulty of enforcement, the difficulty of proof. How can one prove that the farmer knew that the animal was a reactor, or, if the Government prefer it, an infected animal? This is a reason that the Minister may produce for hesitation over the Amendment. At the present time there is nothing, apart from a man's conscience, to stop

447
him from putting an infected animal on the market; and in the present state of farming the shekels often cry louder than the conscience. If we pass this Amendment to-day, there is a good chance that it will become illegal to put such animals into the market, and, whether or not there is difficulty of proof, farmers will undoubtedly think twice before breaking the law. In any event, in certain cases proof will be quite possible. I can think of many circumstances when proof would be possible. One has laws against theft, but no one suggests that one can prove in court every case of theft.
In discussing the Amendment I have come to the conclusion that possibly it does not go far enough, that in fact it ought to be compulsory for a vet who has found an animal to be a reactor to this disease to mark it indelibly, either by tattoo or ear punch, so that if the animal enters the open market other than for slaughter it will be easily identifiable. If it is felt that this is necessary then perhaps the Government will put down an Amendment on Report stage to legislate for this. Or, if they would make their draftsman available to prepare such an Amendment, I am sure that many of your Lordships would be happy to move it. However, sufficient unto the day—I beg to move the Amendment as printed on the Marshalled List.
4.31 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I should like to support this Amendment. There are many of us here who would like it to go even further than suggested by my noble friend on the subject of brucellosis. It is the habit in our Parliament to adopt a piecemeal attitude to legislation. I am grateful for this Amendment for this reason. I have been amazed at the apathy of farmers in respect of brucellosis, because often it is the farmer's family and employees who develop the disease. Nevertheless, it stems in a great part from the fact that if a farmer has an infected animal he says to himself "I may be able to pass it off on to somebody else." It is astonishing that in this country it is legally possible for an abortion to occur, for the vet in attendance to know that the cow is suffering from brucellosis and yet subsequently to learn that this cow has been passed on.
448
There are two or three aspects of this matter. A farmer is making money and he points out that he cannot afford not to pass the animal on to somebody. Nevertheless, he feels rather guilty. After the debate on brucellosis a few weeks ago I had a big daily mail, most of it from vets; but a number of letters came from fanners. The fanners asked, "What is going to happen if you do not make it illegal to pass on infected animals? What do you expect us to do?" One farmer was sweet; he used me as a sort of Mother Confessor. He wrote saying, "I passed on an infected animal. I feel such a guilty man that I have got to tell you." I thought that was very sweet of him. There are those who pass the animal on because they are hard up. I am quite sure that the man who confessed to me that he had done it will, along with many others, be pleased to see that it will now be an offence.
Turning to the question of vets, I discovered this fact when I first became interested in brucellosis, which followed on the cleansing of cows from tuberculosis. I realised then that brucellosis was still there to be tackled. But what astonished me was that a vet knows that a farmer has an infected cow, but (and this is where I lay the blame) there are no public health regulations which demand that the vet should inform the public health authorities of the existence of the infected cow. Vets will be pleased about the Bill. We must face the fact that a vet finds his position very difficult, because, after all, he is employed by the farmer, and if in a country district the vet reveals the fact that the cow is infected he must be afraid lest he loses the custom of the farmer. We have to remember that 63 per cent. of the vets in this country themselves give a positive reaction and have all kinds of horrible symptoms. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, is not here, because she spoke of her own vet as a martyr to the disease. This Amendment will remove this obligation from the vet; he will be able to say whether the man passes on that cow. It will be an offence, and the man will be subject to a heavy fine.
We want to go further. I, too, should like to see the cow marked. Nevertheless, this is a most important step forward because it is the kind of step which will alert the whole industry. Farmers will

449
learn of it and vets will learn of it—in fact, the whole of the countryside will learn that the passing on of an infected cow is a criminal offence. Therefore I hope that my noble friend will accept the Amendment.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: I am all in favour of this Amendment, but it does not go far enough. I agree with Lady Summerskill that this disease should be notifiable. By making the disease notifiable the vet is protected. Therefore I should like to ask the Government to introduce on the Report stage an Amendment incorporating Lord Burton's suggestion, but also including the word "notifiable". Brucellosis, in the case of humans, comes under the Ministry of Health. I think that the vet should report to the Ministry of Health, and that it should be up to the Ministry of Health to introduce this as a notifiable disease among humans.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I should like to ask my noble friend two short questions. If his Amendment is accepted, does it have effect the day after the Bill receives the Royal Assent? I rather imagine that it does. I find this difficult to establish from reading the Bill. Secondly, is my noble friend satisfied that a fine of £100 is enough? The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, to subsection (6), which we have just accepted, says
"Any person who knowingly or recklessly makes any false statement … shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or both."
It seems to me that if a person continually sells reactors on the market it might be of advantage to have some provision such as is contained in that Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: Before the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, replies I should like to add a few words of support for Lord Burton's Amendment. This is, as it were, a third shot, and I hope that it will be "third time lucky." I am happy to find myself this time on my noble friend's side, and I hope that he is successful.
LORD BALERNO: I should like to support this Amendment of my noble friend Lord Burton. I do so with the
450
realisation that it is going to come hard financially to certain farmers. Some forty years ago I followed the example of my noble friend Lord Rowallan in establishing a clean herd in this respect, and I have with considerable trepidation maintained herds in that state ever since. Therefore it may appear slightly vindictive on my part to indicate to the ordinary farmer that he has got to do this, and why. But at the same time I think we have got beyond the stage when we can expect purely voluntary action in order to clean up the disease. I must agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, that we must use the stick.
4.40 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: The noble Lord, Lord Burton, has argued a very strong case and, as he knows, I have a great deal of sympathy with his objective. He has been supported by a number of others, including my noble friend Lady Summer-skill, and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. Indeed, all who have troubled to sit in the House during the passage of this Bill have voiced their feeling about this problem of brucellosis. I noticed that last week there were some very forcefully expressed opinions, and that some passions were aroused. But passion alone is not a basis for legislation. If we are to create the offence proposed by the noble Lord, it must be as an act of considered judgment and after careful consideration of the practical implications. I should like to set down the arguments as we see them, for and against. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Burton, would not like his Amendment to be lightly dismissed or lightly adopted, and therefore I am saying to him, "Let us have a look at it in some detail."
For this purpose we must first look at all forms of sale, whether in the markets; between farmers, or from farmers to dealers, and so on—because the Amendment is not confined, for example, to market transactions. There are three types of brucellosis reactors which can be offered for sale. First, there are the unknown reactors; and because only a minority of the national herd has been tested for brucellosis, whether officially or privately, this is doubtless the largest group at this point in time. Sales of reactors in this group would not be affected by the noble Lord's Amendment.

451
Secondly, there are the vaccinal reactors. These are healthy animals which present no risk whatever to human or animal health. Calves treated with Strain 19, and older animals treated with the 45/20 vaccine, will temporarily enter this group until they shrug off the after-effects of vaccination. Not so those treated with Strain 19 as adults before that practice was prohibited in 1967; they are in the group for life, and it will be some two years before the natural processes of culling have reduced their numbers to insignificant proportions. From what has been said in earlier debates, your Lordships will know just how difficult it is for professional veterinary surgeons, with all the modern laboratory facilities behind them, to distinguish vaccinates from animals that are genuinely infected with brucella abortus. Intentionally or otherwise, sales of the healthy animals in this vaccinal group could be caught by the noble Lord's Amendment.
The final group consists of those animals which have been subjected to the most sophisticated blood tests available, and which—in the light of the results and other factors, such as herd history—disclose a degree of reaction that cannot reasonably be attributed to vaccination. Sales of such animals, other than for slaughter, could simply be caught by the noble Lord's Amendment—in this case with good reason. I say advisedly "could be caught" because the proposed offence arises only where the reactor is offered for sale "other than for slaughter". Your Lordships will realise that an owner could, in good faith, sell an animal for slaughter but it would then rest with the buyer whether and when it was in fact slaughtered. It might prove difficult to found successful prosecutions upon transactions of that kind.
Then again, the proposed offence has to be committed "knowingly". I am sure that this is right. The effect is to exempt, for example, the owner who could contend that the animal was healthy when it left his farm and must have acquired infection in transit, in a market, or on the purchaser's premises. In practice "knowingly" would presumably mean that the owner had sold the animal despite knowledge of clear-cut results of a blood test. We should do well to consider whether, confronted with
452
this proposed offence or any similar measure, owners might elect to avoid blood tests altogether so as to retain unfettered freedom to trade their animals. The general effect might be to discourage necessary recourse to the veterinary profession for essential advice; or to find owners placing unwarranted reliance upon other and less effective tests which can only serve as a pointer to—but never evidence of—a "reactor to brucella abortus".
In the final analysis this Amendment seeks to influence farming attitudes and farming practices. Let us be quite clear that if there is a real need to create this offence it is not to safeguard a minority of stupid buyers, but to give more protection to a majority of genuine sellers. Few owners of clean herds are foolish enough to buy untested animals; and if any such owners remain, now that the Incentives Scheme offers premiums for clean herds, then this Amendment would not prevent them from persisting in their folly. Equally, no owner of an infected herd gains anything by buying a clean animal, adding it to his herd and thus exposing it to the disease. The real need here is to protect the owner who wants to sell a clean animal without the risk that its value will be debased because it has to mingle with reactors in the open market. It is this most relevant aspect of the whole problem that the Government are currently discussing with the organisations concerned.
So I am saying to the noble Lord—and to all those who have taken such a great interest in this problem—that it might prove difficult, especially over the next two years, effectively to enforce the constructive measure which the noble Lord, Lord Burton, has proposed. In the agricultural analogy, it would be difficult to sort out the wheat from the chaff. I am also alerting him to the fact that a law of this kind could have unintended side-effects.
I invite the noble Lord, Lord Burton, and all those who have shown the interest that they have in this matter, to read, or consider, if they will be good enough, what I have said. If the noble Lord, Lord Burton, wishes—and I have stated the case for both sides as clearly, fairly, and as calmly as I can—to press this Amendment, I undertake that on Report stage I will accept it, though I would say

453
to him that it will require, as the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, said, some amendment as regards the penalty. We have in this Bill rationalised the penalties, and it would of course be necessary to bring this offence into line with the others. But with that one reservation concerning the amount of the fine I undertake, if the noble Lord so wishes, to accept this Amendment on Report stage.
My noble friend Lady Summerskill, and the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, asked me about the possibility of veterinary surgeons notifying the local medical officers of health. I nave had a good deal of correspondence, both with my noble friend and with others, and this is a matter which is now being discussed between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Social Security. It is a matter of getting agreement with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. Approaches will be made to them, and I hope that some progress will be made there, too. But it will be possible to take that action by administrative means, and it will not be necessary to incorporate it in this Bill. Having said that, I end by expressing the hope that the noble Lord will think I have made him a fair offer, and will now withdraw this Amendment. Then we can, if necessary, deal with it on Report stage.
LORD BURTON: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, as I am sure all farmers throughout the country will be. My noble friend the Duke of Atholl posed two questions to me, but in view of the answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, I hope that my noble friend will not expect an answer from me to-day. I am sure that Lord Beswick is more competent to answer on this point than I am. My noble friend Lord Balerno said that my method would fall hard on the farmers, yet my other noble friend is asking for more. So I am not sure of the answer. If the Minister is worried about the use of the term "reactors", perhaps he would prefer the words "infected animals" because, as he says, there are vaccinal reactors. However, an animal which is a vaccinal reactor is almost certainly known to have been vaccinated, and therefore it might be a better wording, if he would prefer this. I think that the argument about proof is a little exaggerated, but I believe that the Minister has accepted that it
454
would be a good thing to put this Amendment into the Bill at the Report stage. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: With the permission of the House, may I say a few words? I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Beswick very much for what he has done, because I realise that he has taken a personal interest in this matter and understands full well the difficulties involved. I want to say how very pleased I was to hear that the whole question of notification, which is fundamental to this Amendment, is being discussed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 103, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 4 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Repeals]:
LORD BESWICK: We are within sight of the finishing post, and with that in mind I hope that we may speed up a little. I would suggest, if the idea commands the support of your Lordships, that we take Amendments Nos. 47, 48 and 49 together with No. 46. They are all related and they are all consequential on what we have already agreed. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 105, line 18, column 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 22 and insert ("In section 1, subsection (3), paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (4), and, in subsection (8), the definition of 'the appropriate Minister or Ministers' down to the word 'Food'.")
Page 106, line 16, column 3, at end insert (", and, in section 1(8), the words from the beginning to 'jointly'.")
Page 108, line 29, at end insert—

("7 & 8 Eliz. 2. c. 31.

The Agricultural Improvement Grants Act 1959.

The whole Act, so far as not specified in Part I or Part II of this Schedule.")

Page 108, line 45, after ("The") insert ("repeal of the Agricultural Improvement Grants Act 1959, except so far as it extends to subsections (4) and (8) of section 1 of that Act, shall not have effect until whichever is the later of the dates referred to in Parts I and II of this Schedule; and the").—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Remaining Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.

INERTIA SELLING BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
REGENT, ROYAL AND CARLTON TERRACE GARDENS, EDIN BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

PLOUGHING GRANTS SCHEME 1970
4.55 p.m.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Beswick, I beg to move that the Ploughing Grants Scheme 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on April 21, 1970, be approved. I trust that it will be acceptable when dealing with this Order to deal also with the Ploughing Grants (Scotland) Scheme 1970. Noble Lords are already familiar with these Schemes, which provide grants for ploughing up grassland which is at least twelve years old, where the cost of the work required to bring it into a satisfactory state for cropping is substantially heavier than normal. Our aim is to encourage farmers to improve the condition of suitable land. The acreage recouped in this way helps to counterbalance the agricultural land lost each year to non-agricultural development.
The provisions of the Schemes are virtually unchanged from previous years, but this is probably the last time that
456
we shall see an annual Ploughing Grants Scheme in its familiar form. As the House will be aware from the proceedings on the Agriculture Bill, it is proposed to simplify certain of the agricultural grants, and the Farm Capital Grants Scheme, to be introduced later this year, will include provisions for ploughing up grassland. Arrangements will be made to close the Ploughing Grants Schemes to new applicants from this date. I trust that your Lordships will accept that this grant encourages the effective use of agricultural resources, and will agree to the approval of these Schemes. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Ploughing Grants Scheme 1970 laid before the House on April 21, 1970, be approved.—(Lord Hilton of Upton.)
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, at a time when the cereals acreage is declining, the continuation of this grant is certainly welcome. However, the rate at which this grant remains, £12 per acre, is not quite so welcome. Costs have recently risen enormously. Your Lordships will remember from the Agriculture Bill that the tractor grant is to be done away with completely, although tractor prices have recently gone up. The Government will probably agree that the proof of the pudding in an Order like this lies in the results achieved. Therefore, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, whether the Government have any details of the amount of grant-aided land under this Order which is drilled with cereals? I realise that the answer to this question may be that it is a fairly small amount.
May I also ask whether the Government feel that the 32,000 acres which this grant covered last year is a really satisfactory target? The noble Lord, Lord Hilton, has told us that 50,000 acres are taken out of agricultural production each year, and many of us genuinely wonder how the Government's own agricultural expansion programme is going to succeed. I do not want to seem unreasonable; obviously, in a small island no Government policy can replace 50,000 acres indefinitely. But the Economic Development Council Report, published only in March, reported progress for the Government in rather arresting terms. It stated that the expansion of arable acreage

457
needed for the Government's targets had not yet begun. It would seem that there is a disparity under this Order between the 32,000 acres which are brought back into production and the 50,000 acres which are taken out of production.
Finally, several questions were asked in another place about ancillary work; either that which is grant-aidable, such as the chemical preparation of land, or that, such as proper drainage, which has to be undertaken in some cases because the grant will not otherwise be given. May I ask whether, in order to get these grants, there must be not only permission to proceed, but also inspection preceding the work? If that is so, I should have thought there might be factors of which some applicants were unsure before they went ahead with ploughing under this Order. With those few questions, I most certainly support this Older and the continuation of this grant.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Hilton, replies to those few questions, I wonder whether I may make a comment. On the Committee stage of the Agriculture Bill I said on one occasion that I thought the ploughing grant of £3 an acre which used to be paid was a perfectly absurd grant and that I was glad to see it done away with. I do not think the same comment would apply to the £12 an acre grant, because its object is to bring into production and cultivation land which has previously not been properly used; therefore this does help agriculture as a whole to become more efficient. I wonder whether the noble Lord would be kind enough to give us some indication how this grant has been used. I believe that in the last year 32,000 acres were grant-aidable under this scheme, but is this a declining figure or has it always been a fairly substantial figure?
Can the noble Lord also say whether the land which has been brought into cultivation has, on the whole, been used properly, and therefore has been of benefit to agriculture as a whole, or has the opportunity to claim a £12 an acre grant merely been taken, the grass re-seeded and then allowed to go back into relative desuetude? If the noble Lord could answer those questions I should be grateful. Can he also confirm that when this scheme comes to an end the new farm
458
improvement grants will cover what this scheme has up to now covered?
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the way in which they have supported the introduction or the reintroduction of these grants. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, as usual, asked a number of very interesting questions. I cannot at the moment give answers to some of them, but I will write to him with the full information for which he has asked. He asked, however, about cereals acreage, in view of the fact, as he said, that costs have gone up—and that is true. As to the acreage, I cannot let him have the full facts now, but I will write to him.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, reminded us that he had criticised the grant of £3 per acre which was formerly given but that he does not criticise this particular grant, and that is not surprising. As I said in my opening speech, although the provisions of this scheme are virtually unchanged from those in previous years and this is probably the last time we shall see an annual ploughing grant scheme in its familiar form, the House will be aware from the proceedings on the Agriculture Bill that it is proposed to simplify certain of the agricultural grants—and really I am repeating now what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said a moment ago. The farm capital grants scheme, to be introduced later this year, will include provisions for ploughing up grassland, and arrangements will be made to close the ploughing grants scheme to new applicants from that date. If I have not replied fully to the questions put to me, I promise to write to both noble Lords with the information they need. With that, I commend this Order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PLOUGHING GRANTS (SCOTLAND) SCHEME 1970
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Scottish Scheme be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Ploughing Grants (Scotland) Scheme 1970 laid before the House on April 21, 1970 be approved.—(Lord Hilton of Upton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AIR NAVIGATION (NOISE CERTIFICATION) ORDER 1970
5.5 p.m.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Beswick I beg to move that the Draft Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order 1970, laid before the House on March 25, be approved.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I am a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is not in his place—I see that in fact he is now here.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I apologise to the House and to the noble Earl. I was outside taking advice on certain points which I had not had the opportunity to take before. I understand that my noble friend has moved, on my behalf, that this Order be approved, and I hope that we shall in fact go on to approve it.
All of us in this House know of the need to control aircraft noise, and most of us appreciate the problems involved. This Order is a step forward. It is not a giant leap forward, but an essential and practical step towards a civilised solution. It is the first legislative attempt to control aircraft noise at the point it ought to be controlled; namely, at source. It is made possible by much research and by international agreement which followed the initiative of Her Majesty's Government in convening the first international conference on noise in 1966. With the French and American authorities we have worked hard to secure the adoption by I.C.A.O. of a scheme which will be incorporated in a new Annex to the Chicago Convention. If this House approves this Order, the United Kingdom will be the first country to implement the I.C.A.O. standards.
The main purpose of this Order is to compel the manufacture and use of the much quieter aircraft which noise-reduction technology now makes possible. It aims to ensure that quietness standards are incorporated into the design and manufacturing stages of an aircraft's development, in much the same way as is already the case for airworthiness standards. Noise certification is quite distinct from operational noise abatement measures which, I ought to emphasise,
460
will continue as and when required at noise-sensitive airports, although our hope is that as the future quieter aircraft begin to dominate in the skies the need for operational measures will diminish.
My Lords, I now turn to the main provisions of the Order. Article 1 establishes that from January 1, 1971, an aircraft to which the Order applies, unless exempted, will not be permitted to land or take off in this country without a noise certificate. Article 3 identifies the aircraft to which the Order applies. These are jet aircraft, but excluding light aircraft, vertical and very short take-off aircraft, and supersonic aircraft, such as Concorde. These will be dealt with later, when experience and technical knowledge allows. The types to which noise certification standards will apply which are now under development or projected include the Rolls Royce-powered Lockheed 10–11 "Tristar", the BAC 311, European A 300, and the Douglas DC 10. All but the earliest jumbo-jets will be covered, also.
Under Article 5 the Board of Trade are responsible for the issue of noise certificates in this country. This is in accord with the principles set out in the recent White Paper on Civil Aviation Policy (Cmnd. 4213), which indicated that the main responsibility for noise abatement must remain with the Board of Trade even after the setting up of the proposed Civil Aviation Authority. The remaining Articles make provision for the administration, application and enforcement of the noise certification scheme. Some of the penalties prescribed in Article 14 may look trivial in relation to the issues involved in the Order, but I should like to emphasise that the ultimate sanction will be the denying to an aircraft of the use of United Kingdom airports under Article 10 if the Order is contravened.
The standards themselves are set out in Schedule 1 to the Order. The noise limits vary according to the weight of the aircraft and are specified at three different measurement points, in order to establish the total inherent noise characteristics of an aircraft. They are expressed in EPNdB (Effective Perceived Noise Decibels) which is the unit of measurement that records most closely the actual extent of disturbance of aircraft noise as heard by a person on the

461
ground. The unit EPNdB is a complicated one, and its definition and measurement is set out in a Board of Trade publication, CAP 335, which is referred to in Article 2 of the Order.
The prescribed standards represent, roughly speaking, a halving of perceived noise as between a certificated aircraft and a current aircraft of the same weight. As some have expressed surprise at this degree of difference, I would emphasise that it is as between a certificated aircraft and a current type of the same weight. The upper limit of 108 EPNdB represents the maximum allowable noise level for a future subsonic jet civil airliner at the specified measurement points. Even if future aircraft are much larger than the 600,000 lb. aircraft to which this noise limit applies, they will still have to be as quiet as aircraft of that weight. That is the maximum for the future.
The Order, together with its supporting documents, is a complicated piece of legislation, but that is inevitable. This country has given a lead internationally in a matter that is of wide public concern. The work we have done, and the present Order, establishes that the next generation of subsonic airliners, despite their greater power and size, will be very much quieter than those we now have to live with. This is a significant achievement, but I know that we all look forward to still better things to come. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order 1970, laid before the House on March 25, be approved.—(Lord Beswick.)
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord was able to be present to move this important Motion. I am sure also that the House is grateful to the noble Lord for explaining with his customary thoroughness and clarity the purpose and aspirations of this Order on the future control of aircraft noise. I use the word "aspirations" advisedly, as the Order as drafted is somewhat limited in scope. It does not cover, for instance, the Jumbo Jets which we hear are some 15 per cent. quieter—but 15 per cent. of what we are not told. Nor does it cover future supersonic flights, and its effect on reducing
462
noise levels will not, one understands, have much impact until the mid-1970s when the new generation subsonic aircraft come into operation. Coupled with that, the Order does not cover one important aspect of the noise problem around airports, namely, the frequency of flights. Nevertheless, for all those shortcomings, which no doubt will be corrected at a later date, this Order is a notable milestone in a long road ahead, and I am sure that we all welcome its general purpose.
There are one or two points concerning the Order which I should like briefly to put to the noble Lord, although I would say at once, in case he is anxious, that I do not intend either to cross-question him on the mathematical equations of Schedule 2 or to ask him to elucidate the unit measurement of effective perceived noise decibels—not that I doubt that he would be able to do so. The first point that I should like to make, in welcoming the Board of Trade's initiative in organising the International Conference in London in 1966 and the subsequent conference in Montreal in 1968–69, is whether he could tell us what parallel action other countries are taking now on this problem of noise certification and how soon will a new noise Annex to the I.C.A.O. Convention be promulgated, for one assumes that the ultimate success of any such order as we have before us today rests very much with international co-operation.
I should like also to mention, as the noble Lord mentioned, Article 4. He said that the BAC 311 would also come within Article 4. May we assume that this is a hint that the BAC 311 will now be backed and will go forward into production? Under Article 5, which deals with the issue of noise certificates, the Board in my opinion are assuming very wide blanket powers and will be able to place whatever condition they see fit to any certificate. Whereas one can see the necessity to set a target within the current technological capabilities, there must be a danger that these powers of the Board, if not used with great discretion, will lead to a damaging degree of uncertainty for both air transport operators and the industry. I am sure that that would not be the wish of the Board. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could give us an assurance that the Board, under

463
Article 5, will work closely with the A.R.B., whose prime responsibility is the testing of equipment.
Turning to Article 8, I would point out that the Board have powers to suspend immediately a noise certificate, even before the grounds for its suspension have been either considered or justified. This power again can lead to damaging consequences to any operator, particularly if a suspension turns out to have been made on an erroneous allegation. One wonders why the Board need to be granted this instant power when they will be empowered to suspend, revoke and modify a certificate after the grounds of such action have been carefully considered. Perhaps the noble Lord could tell us in what type of instance this immediate power of suspension will be used. I turn now to Article 10, dealing with the power to prevent aeroplane flying. In subsequent Articles the expression "an authorised person" comes into the Order. This authorised person, under Article 10 and other subsequent Articles, acts on behalf of the Board and will have very wide powers; yet nowhere in this Order are we told who is to be the authorised person, how he will be authorised, what qualifications he will have to inspect aircraft or how he will prove that he is the authorised person. That point was raised in another place when it was discussing the Order; but owing to the usual pressure of time no reply was given. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to take this opportunity of elucidating the point more fully.
Under Article 11, the House will recall that the Board or the authorised person shall at all reasonable times have access to all aerodromes except Government aerodromes. As this Order refers only to civil aerodromes and not to military aerodromes, one finds it a little odd that this exception is put in here. Why are Government aerodromes so privileged? What are Government aerodromes? Do they include the British Airports Authority aerodromes? I should be grateful if the noble Lord could tell us about that as well. Turning to the penalties laid down under Article 14, I think it is a little surprising to note the very limited amount of fines that the Board may impose on any offender. For instance, for what may be considered
464
a fairly serious offence the maximum fine the Board may impose is only £10. That is not a very effective deterrent, and I should be grateful if the noble Lord could explain the reasoning behind the limits laid down and what effect it is expected that a £10 fine will have.
The final point that I should like to put to the noble Lord concerns the progress of the noise monitoring systems. These systems, which I am told (but do not understand how) will be governed by the equations of Section 2, are the key to the success of any noise regulations. I think it would be of interest if the noble Lord would tell us a little about the up-to-date position of the systems. How soon will they be fully automatic? How many are still to be installed at Heathrow? My Lords, I feel that I ought to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for asking him these questions on this Order after his fairly gruelling involvement with agriculture this afternoon, but, as he fully realises, this is a very important Order which, one hopes, is the first step towards improving the problem of aircraft noise. I feel that the Board of Trade is to be congratulated on bringing forward this Order and on its initiative in attempting to obtain international agreement, on which I wish it every success.
5.21 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I will not stand between the House and the next business for more than one or two minutes, but there are one or two points on this Order which I should like to raise with the Minister. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that this is a most important step forward towards relieving the public from the increasing horror—as it is, at certain times and in certain places—of constant aircraft noise. Nevertheless, my Lords, to me the most interesting and encouraging sentences spoken by the Minister were those in which he explained the difference between this Order and the noise abatement regulations to which the captains of aircraft have to adhere. I hope that the Minister will be able to say how soon we can eliminate the noise abatement regulations. I believe that under certain conditions their observation would, to some extent, increase the risk

465
which aircraft crews and their passengers have to accept when they defy the laws of gravity, as we all do when we fly.
My Lords, I was once in the front end, in the captain's compartment, of a 707 which was taking off from Montreal, where noise regulations are strictly observed. The captain said to me, "If one engine cut now" (we were taking off with a full load) "I should be a very worried man." He did not say that it would mean a disaster, but it might certainly have meant something tantamount to an emergency with which the captain would have had to cope. No doubt he would have coped adequately, but, as the Minister will know as well as I do, (hose noise abatement regulations are taken exception to by such representative bodies as the British Airline Pilots Association. Therefore if this Order has the effect of reducing the regulations as soon as possible, it will confer an added benefit on those who are in the air as well as those who are on the ground.
The other point I would raise was touched on by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull; namely, the very wide Dowers which the Executive are taking under this Order. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnuoll, asked why the fines were so small, but that question was answered by the Minister when he introduced the Order. He said that the Board of Trade had the final sanction by being able to suspend or revoke the noise certificate without which an aircraft is not allowed to fly. In fact, the Board of Trade has the power to stop from flying any civil aviation aircraft which has not the necessary certificate. That is a very wide power and I am worried that it may be exercised before a crime has been committed. Article 8 states:
"The Board may, if they think fit, provisionally suspend any noise certificate … The Board may, after sufficient ground being shown to their satisfaction after due inquiry, revoke, suspend or vary any such certificate."
That means that the Board of Trade might say, "You are not complying with the regulations and you must not fly." Then a week or two later, after investigation, the Board might say, "We apologise. We were perhaps a little premature; and of course you can fly." That is a very large power for the Executive to take, particularly when it is linked with
466
this vague Mr. X—"the authorised person."
As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said, questions were raised in another place about who is to be the authorised person. I feel that the House and that aviation interests would be reassured if the Minister would tell us that the Board of Trade's powers would not be delegated to anyone below a certain level in the administration of the Civil Service; because this mysterious authorised person can enter any premises, he can inspect any aircraft and can really give any orders. I am not saying that the Executive must not have these powers, but I think that the Legislature is entitled to ask who will be authorised to use them. Having made those few remarks, may I say I think that this is an admirable step forward. But let us, as legislators, all the time watch the Executive in its steps forward.
5.26 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have a formidable list of questions to answer, although I take it that, by and large, the Order is welcomed; and I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken for what they have said. A question was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, regarding the noise abatement procedures. I cannot forecast when it will be possible to remove all noise abatement procedures. I do not believe he really thinks that I am in a position to do so. What I can say is that I agree with him that this is a much better way of ensuring a reasonably civilised existence here on earth. We should give the pilot as quiet: an aircraft as possible so that he may fly it as naturally and as safely as possible. I think this is the objective towards which we shall work.
I was asked by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, when other countries are expected to take parallel action. The standards in Schedule 1 to the Order have been recommended for adoption in a new Annex, Annex 16, to the Chicago Convention of ICAO. We expect the standards to be formally adopted and implemented some time during 1971. By that time most countries which need to take legislative action in order to ensure compliance with the new Annex 16 will have to have done so. What form of action they each take in their respective countries will depend entirely on their own legal systems.

467
Regarding the extent of the powers that this Order vests in the Board of Trade, the noble Lord, particularly, will realise that this has international implications as well. The Board of Trade may also prescribe by Statutory Instrument countries which apply substantially equivalent standards to ours. In such countries the noise certificates for aircraft on their national registries will be valid in this country. Finally, we shall recognise the validity of the noise certificates of ICAO member-States pursuant to the Chicago Convention when the proposed noise annex has been formally adopted and has come into force.
I suggest to the noble Lord that all the complications involved here mean that one has to grant a certain degree of latitude to the Board of Trade. In any case, the phrasing used here about the extension of the powers is a common form of words, so I do not think that we should read into it any ulterior or dangerous intention. The noble Lord asked about the conditions. I think I have virtually dealt with that point.
Article 5(2), on conditions subject to which a noise certificate may be issued, and the conditions themselves, must relate to standards as to noise and not to other matters. The Board of Trade is required to make a condition regarding the maximum total weight at which the certificated aircraft complies with the noise standard in Schedule I. This follows from a requirement recommended under the ICAO scheme that such weights must appear on the noise certificate for international purposes. Other conditions may also be imposed at the discretion of the Board of Trade. Some anxiety was expressed by the noble Earl on this point. I give the assurance that it is not the intention to exercise the discretion with regard to conditions in a manner which would impose extra burdens on aviation. As I said earlier, it is common form to keep a reserve power to impose relevant conditions on the issue of licences for certificates, and there is nothing excessive in this particular case.
I feel that the noble Lord was under some misapprehension when he said that it would be possible for the authorised person to go along and say, even before the crime is committed, that he shall not fly this aircraft. It is not a question of
468
committing any crime in the air. This Order proposes to certificate certain aircraft in much the same way as they are granted a certificate of airworthiness. Either an aircraft has a certificate of airworthiness or it has not; either it has a certificate under this Order, or it has not. The crime would be in operating an aircraft without the appropriate noise certificate. It is not a matter of how he conducts himself in the skies, or anything of that sort. I was asked about the authorised persons concerned here. I cannot give the noble Lord the kind of qualifications that such a person would have. The list has not yet been drawn up. It will, one imagines, be officials in the main of the A.R.B.
The noble Lord asked why Government-owned aerodromes were exempt. Again, the purpose of this proviso is simply to preserve the normal position that the Crown is not bound by statutory provision unless expressly named. For reasons of State security, it is necessary to restrict access to Ministry of Defence installations unless the person in charge of the aerodrome agrees. In this particular case, with this authorised person, he would be expected to agree, otherwise no doubt there will be some row in Whitehall.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: Could the noble Lord say whether the British Airports Authority airports are covered by that proviso?
LORD BESWICK: No; they are not covered. A Government aerodrome is defined as:
"any aerodrome in the United Kingdom in the occupation of a Government Department or a visiting Force".
The B.A.A., therefore, is not covered by this exclusion. I was asked why the penalties are so small. I quite agree that some of them, on the face of it, are on the small side. But I think I could show the noble Earl that they are closely modelled on parallel provisions in the Air Navigation Order 1966. The Air Navigation Order deals with similar situations regarding offences which are no different in nature. Therefore, it was thought proper to have somewhat similar fines in both cases. But the real sanction here—and I think I indicated as much in my opening speech—is that they cannot land the aircraft in this country unless

469
they have this certificate. That, I should have thought, would be sufficient to cause them to comply with the Order.
The noble Lord asked a question about the monitoring system. He said that this was the key to success in regard to the noise problem. I do not altogether agree with him. Monitoring has nothing at all to do with this. We are dealing here with putting quieter aircraft in the sky. It is whether they are quieter or not that counts, and not whether we can measure the degree of noise that they make as they fly past. Nevertheless, for other reasons it is necessary to have an efficient monitoring system, and progress is being made with the automatic equipment to which the noble Lord referred. There are, I understand, four pieces of equipment in operation around Heathrow. The noble Lord said that he did not know how they worked. I am not sure, either. I gather that in some respects they are no better than the manually operated monitoring system, but that they have certain advantages. The idea is that at a certain fixed point there will be a measurement of the sound created by aircraft flying overhead. This will immediately be transmitted to a central control authority. If the noise is greater than that allowed, then it will be marked, and the aircraft concerned will be dealt with later. I hope that I have dealt with all the questions that I was asked, and that your Lordships will now approve the Order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INDECENT ADVERTISEMENTS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
5.35 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill to amend the Indecent Advertisements Act 1889 I think perhaps I should start by explaining the Act itself, although no doubt many of your Lordships are cognisant of it. This Act makes it a crime for anybody to display matter of an indecent or obscene nature so as to be visible to people passing along the street, or to hand it to passers-by, or to throw it down the area of a house or affix or inscribe it on any public urinal. Section 5 of the Act states:
"Any advertisement relating to"
any venereal disease
470
"shall be deemed to be printed or written matter of an indecent nature … if such advertisement is affixed to or inscribed on any house, building, wall, hoarding, gate, fence, pillar, post, board, tree, or other thing whatsoever, so as to be visible to a person being in or passing along any street, public highway, or footpath, or is affixed to or inscribed on any public urinal, or is delivered or attempted to be delivered to any person being in or passing along any street, public highway or footpath."
The purpose of this Bill is not to challenge the need to protect the public from exposure to indecent advertisement as such. But as things stand at present, however sober the terms in which an advertisement or notice may be drafted; however sensible the information or advice contained in it may be, or however sparse and inadequate the information may be, if it relates to verereal disease it is deemed to be indecent if publicly displayed.
Veneral disease to-day is a matter of grave concern, and the Chief Medical Officer of the Department of Health, in his last Annual Report, expressed anxiety at the rising figures. Since then, unfortunately, there has been a further rise. Gonorrhœa is the great problem. Over the last fifteen years the number of cases of gonorrhœa in men has trebled, and in women it has quadrupled. In the last five years there has been a further increase of one-third for men and women, but twice this rate of increase for women alone. Obviously, something badly needs to be done.
The Health Education Council was set up by the Government two years ago as the authoritative health education body for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. As your Lordships will doubtless remember, a debate on health education, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, took place in this House on December 20, 1967. The Council clearly has a duty to perform in this area—and here I must declare an interest, as I am the Chairman of the Health Education Council. Although the decision to attempt to amend this Bill is my own, and I am of course presenting it in my capacity as a Member of your Lordships' House, it does, I may say, reflect generally the views of the Council.
For the Council to carry out its duty effectively it must draw attention to the dangers of venereal disease, to the health hazards of promiscuity and the need to obtain medical attention immediately.

471
But under the 1889 Act the display of any poster on these lines, if visible to the public in any street or footpath—or, probably, in any public urinal—makes the person displaying it liable to a penalty of £20, or one month in prison; and those who produce the poster for others to display are liable to a penalty of £50, or three months in prison. Indeed, it is highly likely that many local authorities have been unwittingly breaking the law, so far as public urinals are concerned—although, frankly, those are the last places in which I should like to see the Health Education Council's posters displayed.
The Council has embarked on an anti-V.D. campaign, directed mainly at the 16 to 30 year olds, where the biggest increase is taking place. It consists of posters and leaflets explaining, in frank, simple terms, the facts about V.D. Incidentally, these were evaluated and researched, and it was found that it was this frank, simple explanation that young people wanted. The leaflets and posters also ask people to consult their doctor or local hospital if they feel that there is a chance that they might be infected, or otherwise contact the Health Education Council for information, and they will then be given addresses of their local clinics.
But, my Lords, every poster and leaflet carries the following warning:
"If this is displayed where it would be visible to some-one passing along a street, public highway or footpath, or if it is handed to anyone in those places, there is a risk of prosecution under Section 5 of the Indecent Advertisements Act 1889."
This, without any doubt, is a hampering factor in the fight against venereal disease. First of all, even with the warning, some of the cautious will not want to take the risk. The rather more indolent, who do not feel the necessity or urgency that many of us feel is needed to combat this rising incidence, will feel free not to take the trouble. Individuals may be prosecuted because they have inadvertently broken the law. The posters might be put up inside a building—for instance, a public library; the door could be opened, and somebody might see the poster from the street and lodge a complaint.
Thirdly (perhaps this is the most important reason of all) in this campaign
472
the Council is trying to break through the ignorance that still exists on such a vast scale in this country. It has established by research that well over 50 per cent. of young people show a complete misunderstanding about V.D. The fear which many people feel in even coming forward if they suspect that they may be suffering from one of these sexually transmitted infectious diseases is not going to be helped when they see this rather dramatic warning at the bottom of the leaflet or poster. What is also needed is to reduce the sense of shame that many people have if they suspect that they may be suffering, or that their partner is suffering, from one of these diseases. All this is endangered when one has to stipulate by law a spurious connection between these highly infectious venereal diseases and the Indecent Advertisements Act. I am sure your Lordships will agree that a change is required, and this is the reason for my Bill.
The only objective of this Bill is to add a proviso to Section 5 of the 1889 Act, stating that advertisements related to venereal disease are not to be deemed indecent if they are published for a local or public authority, or otherwise with the approval of the Secretary of State. The safeguards against giving out irresponsible information are secure. Your Lordships may be interested to know that during the passage of the 1889 Act (which was itself also a Private Member's Bill introduced into this House) the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Halsbury, expressed doubts as to the comprehensive nature of the proposed legislation. Further, when the Bill was presented on Second Reading the words, "venereal disease", "syphilis" or "gonorrhœa" were not spelt out, but were referred to as "any disease of a loathsome or secret kind".
My Lords, in 1889 there was no cure for V.D. It was included in this section to protect people from quackery. But this is 1970 not 1889. These diseases are no longer secret, and the more they remain secret the more dangerous and widespread they become. Nor should they be swept under our social carpet any longer. To-day they are readily curable if steps are taken in time. It is a great pity that something which is a medical and social matter should be included in

473
an Act with the rather diverting title of "Indecent Advertisements". This may cause a great deal of confusion, which I hope I have been able to clear up. What is even more absurd than the title is that this antique anomaly should seriously hamper, as it does, responsible efforts to deal with this growing problem.
I am sure your Lordships will agree that any legislation that helps in any way to deal with this should be passed as quickly as possible, since the benefits to be obtained from even this limited Bill are potentially very great. This is not only my opinion, and the opinion of the Council, but is the opinion of many leading venereologists and other doctors, and social workers who are concerned with this problem. Therefore I hope you will give this Bill a Second Reading this afternoon. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Birk.)
5.47 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships wish me to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, on having so clearly and courageously introduced this Bill to your Lordships' House. Nobody would wish to put any impediment in the way of this Bill going through, but there are one or two points that I should like the Minister to explain to us. Your Lordships will be aware that I have something to do with advertisements as Chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority. Not very long ago it came to our attention that a students' magazine was giving advice on where to go for treatment for venereal diseases. The magazine was taken to task on this matter and I therefore had occasion to look up the law on the point. In that case the subject seems to have been covered by another Act, the Venereal Disease Act 1917. It seems desirable that the two Acts should be harmonised. I am not quite certain that the noble Baroness's Bill goes far enough; it will probably achieve the purpose she had immediately in mind, but it might be desirable to amend the Bill at a later stage to make it a little more comprehensive.
The Venereal Disease Act of 1917 was prefaced as:
"An Act to prevent the treatment of venereal disease otherwise than by duly qualified
474
medical practitioners, and to control the supply of remedies therefor; and for other matters connected therewith."
It says in Section 2 that:
"A person shall not by any advertisement or any public notice or announcement treat or offer to treat any person for venereal disease, or prescribe or offer to prescribe any remedy therefore, or offer to give or give any advice in connection with the treatment thereof".
That is pretty wide.
Then it says:
"Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to any advertisement, notification, announcement, recommendation, or holding out made or published by any local or public authority or made or published with the sanction of"—
and, I suppose, the authority is now the Secretary of State—
"or to any publication sent only to duly qualified medical practitioners or to wholesale or retail chemists for the purposes of their business."
That Act plainly did not exonerate the students' magazine and in those circumstances I do not suppose it would exonerate either the Health Education Council—I am not sure, but I should think not.
Where the Venereal Disease Act does not fit in very well with previous legislation is that it seems all right for a local authority to publish an advertisement provided that it does not pin it up somewhere, affix it or, let us say, throw it down the well of a house. There seems to be some need for harmonising these two measures, and to make sure that what the local authorities have been doing for so long, and have presumably thought they had power to do, is something they really are entitled to do, and to ensure that other people also are entitled to do it with the consent or approval of the appropriate authority. It is for consideration whether that authority should be the Secretary of State or possibly the local authorities themselves. My Lords, with those few remarks I wish to give the purpose behind the noble Baroness's Bill warm support, and I wish the Bill well on its way.
5.52 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I also should like to congratulate the noble Baroness on the initiative she has shown in bringing this little Bill before Parliament. It was high time that somebody

475
made a move about this matter. I myself have noticed, and I am sure that others of your Lordships had noticed, in recent weeks and months in the newspapers notices of prosecutions either under the 1889 Act or under the 1917 Act, prosecutions on the part of the police the wisdom of which one was forced to doubt. But of course the full circumstances are never known. It is very necessary that the position should be cleared up.
My noble friend has drawn attention to the really alarming increase in venereal disease of both types over these last years. The measure which was introduced in 1889, at a time when there was no cure at all and advertisements of this kind were obviously fraudulent, was no doubt very sensible—to try to stop people from being cheated out of their money by all sorts of fraudulent pretences. But that situation, as the noble Baroness has pointed out, has completely changed very nearly a hundred years later; and now it is not only possible but probable that these diseases will in fact be perfectly well cured if they are only tackled sufficiently early. Therefore we should have no hesitation in passing this Bill into law.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has drawn attention to a quite important point. The relationship between the two Acts is not as clear as it might be. The 1917 Act, as he has pointed out, contains safeguards. The noble Baroness has introduced rather similar safeguards into the Bill now before your Lordships. The relationship between the two existing measures is not very clear, and I think it would be rather a pity to leave the matter open to the police, who are not always too well equipped for handling a situation of this kind, when the two Statutes are in rather differing terms, of rather differing widths, and raise rather different problems of construction. The noble Lord is quite right in drawing attention to this matter and asking that the situation should be remedied. There will be time to do this, and I hope that the noble Baroness who is to reply for the Government will make the position perfectly clear, so that we may know where we are, and so that if Amendments need to be introduced they may be introduced at the proper stage. My Lords, with those words of welcome I add my
476
own support to the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
5.56 p.m.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, as there does not seem to be a medical speaker on the list of speakers, I thought I ought to add a word to say how much I appreciate the fact that the noble Baroness has brought this Bill before us and emphasised the obvious need to get rid of any old-fashioned Act which is hampering the work of the Health Education Council in this extraordinarily important field, when there has been so much increase in venereal disease in recent times. I am not at all qualified to speak on whether the 1917 Act and the 1889 Act ought in some way to be brought together in the final form in which our Bill goes to the other place and, we hope, obtains Royal Assent in due course. But I hope that nothing will interfere with the urgency of this Bill, which I think is extremely important. We are already in the middle of May and a small Bill like this could easily be put on one side. I hope it will not be, and that it will not be delayed for want of some rather academic Amendment.
5.57 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lady Birk in what I believe is her first attempt to introduce a Private Member's Bill. I am sure she will be successful. After all, all she is trying to do is to remove an anachronism. The Bill of 1889 was passed at a time of great hypocrisy. In fact, the whole question of venereal disease was regarded with loathing, it seemed, by those people who were not prepared to recognise that the sick are to be pitied, however they might have become sick in the first place. Later on, when clinics were established, I notice that a venereologist put it this way:
"The buildings were provided for the cloak-and-dagger days of V.D., when people slunk in basement bolt-holes to get the unspeakable disease dealt with."
That is the whole point. It was unspeakable in those days, and certainly disgraceful to write about it or to mention it. Venereal disease was rife and the doctors were baffled because they knew so little about it.

477
Now times have changed and we are living in what is known as "the permissive society". I find it difficult to believe that anybody will be shocked today by what they see written on a poster which is designed to direct to the nearest clinic people suffering from the disease. It has been murmured in my ear—and I did not think of this for one moment and I am sure that my noble friend will say it is quite out of the question—that these notices might be used to advertise proprietary drugs of some kind, but I am sure my noble friend's organisation will see to it that there is no abuse of this kind.
The figures are absolutely deplorable. Gonorrhœa in men has risen by 12½ per cent. since 1968, and among women by 20 per cent. The Department of Health and Social Security is very concerned at what is happening. I am sorry to say that the venereologists are rather pessimistic about the future. I hardly dare say this because the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, is present, and it is sheer coincidence that I have mentioned the contraceptive pill twice to-day, but the venereologists blame the permissive society and the pill.
We rarely have an opportunity to discuss this matter, which is of great concern to young people because the ages between 15 and 30 are the ages at which the incidence is highest. It is the young people between 15 and 30 who are suffering. One often thought of it as a disease of the middle-aged and of the elderly, because it was quite common for doctors to see the final symptoms manifest themselves later on in life. But this is a disease of young people who should be enjoying life and should be absolutely free from disease, and therefore we must make an effort to deal with it. I mention the permissive society and the pill simply because when the venereologists say that they are pessimistic it does not mean that the pill is a symptom of the permissive society. It means that the pill is not such an effective contraceptive as were the old-fashioned contraceptives, the condom and the pessary. It is a fact that the pill exposes people to this disease, and I hope that my noble friend, when she has reached the stage of deciding what should be put on these posters, will take the whole picture into account.
478
I did not quite understand my noble friend's meaning when she said that she did not like the places where it is proposed to exhibit these posters, that is to say, in the lavatories. I should have thought the lavatories at railway stations, where young girls come, where boys come when they see the big town, so to speak, almost for the first time, are ideal places to reach these young people. Perhaps I should have said it was the first thing they see in a big town. The whole problem is how to reach young people and to tell and explain the details of these diseases and how they can be prevented.
There is a grave shortage of clinics, and we must tackle that situation. I am told that the clinics are absolutely overcrowded and, even more important, that there is a grave shortage of staff. One can understand that doctors are not always attracted to the study and the treatment of venereal diseases. Again, that may be a hangover from the nineteenth century, but undoubtedly in order to make this Bill absolutely effective we must see that there is ample accommodation in our clinics, when of course the available staff will come forward. I wish my noble friend every success.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, it would be a tragic irony if, in a decade when many legitimate advertisements could be called indecent—I am thinking particularly of the connection between sexual attractiveness and smoking—a sensible and educative gesture should be prosecuted under an archaic Act. In urging your Lordships to support the noble Baroness—and I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn was so enthusiastic—I would suggest that at a later date we should give some time and thought to the quality and rhetoric of ordinary commercial advertisements in public places which have no such healthy educative function as those we are discussing.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I rise merely to ask whether the Act of 1889 and the Act of 1917 apply to Scotland.
6.7 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to those of other noble Lords who have supported the Second Reading of this

479
Bill and to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for the clear and succinct way in which she led us through the Bill and the reasons why she has brought it forward to the House.
I thought I would confine myself at this stage to attempting to answer the points relating to the present state of the law that were put in questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. I have no doubt that when my noble friend Lady Birk replies to this short debate she will explain to the House her reasons for choosing this way of putting her amendment to the 1889 Act forward and the effect she sees it having on the law as it exists at the moment.
The difficulty, as I understand it, is that we have on the Statute Book to-day two pieces of legislation which are in fact irreconcilable. One is Section 5 of the Indecent Advertisements Act 1889 and the other is Section 2 of the Venereal Diseases Act 1917. The latter Act, while preventing any unauthorised advertisement relating to venereal disease, in fact makes specific exemptions in the case of advertisements made or published by any local authority or any public authority, or with the sanction of the Secretary of State for Social Services (and the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, was quite right in that point) in England and Wales, or indeed in Scotland by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
In 1917 when this Act was passed, I think there was clearly no intention of preventing reputable bodies from displaying in public educational posters or advertisements which might help to prevent the spread of what is in fact now one of the most common infectious diseases—and that at a time when in recent years we have almost eradicated a wide range of infectious diseases from our society. But in 1970 clearly there is no reason for so doing. Yet, as the noble Baroness has become aware, this is in effect the result of the 1889 Act, by stating categorically, as it does, that any advertisement relating to syphilis, gonorrhœa, nervous debility or other complaint or infirmity arising or relating to sexual intercourse must be considered indecent under the Act if it is displayed in a public place. The 1889 Act puts highly respectable bodies, such as the Health Education Council, in the
480
invidious position of having either to risk prosecution or to limit their efforts to educate the public. I was glad to hear from those noble Lords who have spoken in this debate that there is general support for legislation which attempts to rectify this rather absurd situation.
My Lords, as I understand it, this Bill makes this attempt in such a way that the existing law is unchanged except where those bodies are concerned who are already afforded special exemption by the 1917 Act. In fact—and I think the noble Baroness will confirm this—the Bill makes a very limited amendment which resolves the basic contradiction between the two Acts without in any way endangering the current safeguards against irresponsible advertisements and matters relating to sexual intercourse.
As the noble Baroness assured the House—and I absolutely agree with her—none of us has any reason to believe that the result of this Bill will be a flood of material about sexual matters which certain people might find offensive. Nor, in my view, is there any danger of an outbreak of wildly offensive posters. In fact the Bill is a very mild and moderate measure which, by the minimal possible interference with the existing law, achieves its object of removing the threat of prosecution from organisations and also the purpose we all seek to achieve, namely, to assist the Health Education Council in promoting its very necessary campaign to make young people aware of the dangers and the effects of venereal disease. I have no hesitation whatsoever, on behalf of the Government, in recommending the Bill to the House, and, with the noble Lord, Lord Platt, I hope, too, that it will be passed through all its stages as quickly as possible.
6.12 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, may I first thank noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate for their very kind words and for their support for my Bill. I think my noble friend, Lady Serota, put very clearly the contradictions between the two Acts, the 1889 Act and the Venereal Diseases Act 1917, and showed how this particular amendment will help to resolve the contradiction. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, may I say that I considered very carefully whether to put forward an amendment

481
to the Venereal Diseases Act 1917, but, as I think he now accepts, it would not help in regard to this particular point in the 1889 Act.
The noble Lord raised a further point on the question of advice, and the section under which the student was prosecuted. The student was found not guilty on that count, so I hope that that will act as a precedent in future. I imagine that the reason was that the magistrate found that it was not advice as to treatment, but just advice. The Health Education Council in fact get round this particular point by printing on their posters and leaflets that they will give information. Frankly, in view of the lateness in the Session and the question of Parliamentary time, I felt that this matter could be accomplished without hampering the campaign, whereas the other point, about having to put out a warning, was a very hampering factor.
It is clear, if one takes a wider view, that eventually all these Acts will need a great deal of rationalisation and clearing up, and probably a certain amount of repeal and deletion. It was my first intention to try to amend the 1889 Act by repealing Section 5 altogether, but again it seemed to me that I had to take the practical view. The situation was urgent. A campaign is in progress at the moment. I felt that there would not be much chance of getting that repeal through in the present Session, because the matter needed a great deal more discussion. I think the noble Lord, Lord Platt, put his finger on the point when he said that we are already in the middle of May. This amending Bill will make matters much easier and will give a great deal more freedom and elbow room in the running of the campaign.
In addition to local and public authorities, which include the Health Education Council, the Bill means that any other person who wants to put forward posters or advertisements regarding venereal disease will be able to do so if he obtains the sanction of the Secretary of State. Some noble Lords may feel that one should go further; but at the present stage in the Session I think it is much more realistic to try to clear up one matter rather than to wait, perhaps for a very long time, to deal with things in a very much wider sweep. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, asked whether the local
482
authorities can take this on themselves or is it on the Secretary of State's sanction. As I have drafted my Bill, the local authority or public authority has a right to act on its own, but any other person has to publish with the sanction of the Secretary of State. But even if a local or public authority produced material that was considered offensive or indecent or obscene, they could still be prosecuted under Section 3 of the 1889 Act. That part of it seems pretty well watertight. Lord Chorley also drew attention to the relation between the two Acts, and I hope he will be satisfied that at the moment this appears to be the best way to deal with it.
I am also very grateful for the support of my noble friend Lady Summerskill, who is also a doctor, and I agree entirely with her comment about the buildings. There is no question of any of these posters being used to advertise proprietary drugs. Neither local authorities nor public authorities would do this, and if anybody wanted to issue any material of this sort it would have to be sanctioned by the Secretary of State. So I think she will agree that is a complete safeguard so far as that possibility is concerned. My noble friend asked me why I do not like the idea of the poster being in lavatories. It is because of the aura that this whole subject has had: it has always been thought of and dealt with on a lavatorial level. We need to bring the whole subject more into the open, in order to encourage people who may be infected to go along to the clinic, and I feel that it ought to be, for some time, at any rate, taken out of the lavatory; or, alternatively, that the public lavatory should not be the only or the first place considered for the placing of these posters.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I put this point to my noble friend? It is only in the privacy of the lavatory that the infected person feels he can study that kind of poster. If that kind of poster is placed elsewhere, most people—infected people or anybody else—will not feel they can stand and look at it while other people can see them doing it. It must be put in the privacy of some place where they can study it, and even write down the name of the clinic.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I take my noble friend's point, and I think we

483
will take it further in the campaign. What the Health Education Council have done is to produce a small leaflet with a plain cover which in fact goes into even greater detail than the posters and also directs people to doctors and clinics, in order to give the information out that way. The poster will lead to the demand for the leaflet.
The point that my noble friend made about shortage of clinics and doctors is quite true, but I know her too well to think she would be suggesting that the campaign should be kept down simply in order to keep it in line with the number of doctors and clinics available. Because, as she knows, in the past when people have been encouraged to come forward to see doctors, sometimes that has led to an increase in the facilities. I think that an increase in facilities must be pressed for; and when there is an increased demand, as unfortunately there will have to be, for these facilities, we may get better facilities. I have on other occasions expressed the view that we still do not include in the basic curriculum for the training of doctors and nurses sufficient education in regard to sex and human relationships. Doctors have told me that many of their colleagues take a rather punitive attitude towards these diseases. This situation also has to be tackled. I am grateful for the support of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie and I take his point. I think the question of the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, was answered by my noble friend Lady Serota. I was worried lest perhaps he wondered why Scotland had been omitted, perhaps thinking that there was no V.D. there. My Lords, Scotland was left out because it does not come within my province, but comes under the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Finally, though I do this rather reluctantly, I feel that I must gently take up my noble friend Lady Summerskill's point about the pill. I do not want to spoil her field day on this, but the fact is that the big increase in the incidence of V.D. is among young people of 16 to 20. This is not a group which widely uses the pill. It is used by those in older age groups. I think my noble friend is 'perfectly right in saying that the mechanical and other contraceptives provide more protection; but I imagine that a great many people
484
who contract V.D. possibly take no precautions at all. There was V.D. in 1889, and the pill did not exist then; nor did it exist during the last war, when the V.D. figures were extremely high. The more important point, I think, is to stress the danger of promiscuity and the health hazards attaching to it, as well as the personality danger.
I have always said, in discussing this matter, that for long-term effectiveness any campaign of this sort must be backed by a comprehensive programme of sex education, and also by a change in social attitudes. I do not think that any campaign can, on its own, achieve a great deal. But it can start the whole thing off and give an effective lead. As this Bill has nothing to do with the pill but is concerned with V.D., with which we have to deal irrespective of the pill, I think that is all I need say on that point. I hope that I have been able to answer the few points that were raised and that your Lordships are now convinced that although this is a small but limited amendment of the existing law it can in fact do a great deal. I hope that your Lordships will support the Bill—in other words, that you will help me to get half a loaf now, rather than our having to wait perhaps into the distant future for the whole loaf.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Reported, without Amendment.
NEW FOREST BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment; the said Amendment considered and agreed to.
HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.