Lords Sitting of 1 May 1973

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells
The Lord Biddulph—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

YEMEN: THE DHOFAR CAMPAIGN
LORD BROCKWAY: 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 any proposals were considered during the recent visit of the Secretary for Defence to Oman for negotiations to end the ten years' war.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, during the course of my recent visit to Oman I was able to meet the Sultan and to discuss with him a number of matters of mutual interest, including his plans for the Dhofar campaign and for the future development of the province. There is no evidence that either the hard core of the dissidents or those
2
who provide shelter and support will settle for less than the overthrow of the Sultan. I believe that his plans are the best way of bringing the rebellion to an end and of fostering peace and stability.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him this question? Is it not the fact that South Yemen and North Yemen are now negotiating for union a hope that some more moderate policy may be followed in South Yemen? Secondly, is not the detente between the West, Britain, and the Soviet Union and China—the two sides arming both forces—a reason why some negotiation should begin to bring peace in this area?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, if there should be a settlement between the North and South Yemen that would be very good. As the noble Lord knows, the rebels in the Dhofar are being supported by the P.D.R.Y., and it is only for the P.D.R.Y. to stop supporting the rebels for the rebellion to come to an end.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I put one further supplementary? Is the noble Lord able to give the House any particulars of the British deaths and the casualties which have been announced over the weekend in Oman? And could he, on behalf of the Government, express some sympathy towards Yemen in the appalling disaster which has occurred this morning, with heavy loss of life, ambassadorial life, on the plane that has crashed?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would put down a Question about his first supplementary. I am afraid I could not, without Notice, give any details on that. With regard to the second supplementary question, I think everybody in the House always deplores loss of life in accidents of this kind and we send our sympathy to the relatives.

FUTURE BUSINESS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 my noble friend Lord Ferrers will be making a statement on E.E.C. farm prices.
Perhaps I may also inform your Lordships, since there are unlikely to be any printed Order Papers tomorrow, that on Thursday the Northern Ireland Assembly Bill and the other Northern Ireland business will be taken before the Hallmarking Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for agreeing to this change.

LONDON CAB BILL
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I beg to move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 45(2), that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Avebury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN BILL
2.41 p.m.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to strengthen the existing legislation governing the employment of children in part-time work and during holidays. The general position at the present time is that the law prohibits, with minor exceptions, the employment of any child who is under the age of 13. This Bill seeks to protect all children between the age of 13 and the school leaving age. It has wide support from many groups who are interested in the welfare of children. The Bill was piloted through another place by my honourable friend and fellow countryman from Somerset, the Member for Louth, and was passed unamended.
4
It is, however, slightly more than an ordinary Private Member's Bill, for two reasons. First of all, the Bill is based on research. This research was sponsored by the Department of Health and Social Security and was carried out by Dr. Emrys Davies in 1970. On November 10, 1972, a summary of his research findings was published in a periodical called Education. This periodical, I understand, is not in the Library at the present time, but the Librarian assures me that should any noble Lord wish to consult it he will obtain a copy. Secondly, the Bill is based on consultation. A consultative document was issued in 1970 and comments on it were received from no less than 50 organisations covering the fields of education, welfare and local government, and in addition comments were received from employers' associations and from the Trades Union Congress and its counterpart in Scotland.
Two main points of common ground emerged from the research and from the 'consultation. The first was the lack of uniformity in the present rules and regulations governing the employment of these children which, at the present time, are embodied in by-laws passed by local authorities. There is a very wide variation from one part of the country to another in these by-laws. For example, some of them state that there may be no employment before the age of 13, whereas in other places the age laid down is 14. It is also possible for a child to be living in one area subject to one code of bylaws, and to be employed only a mile or two away in another area with a different and separate code. Rules for working on Saturdays and Sundays also vary considerably from place to place. All these factors make for difficulties, particularly for families who, for one reason or another, move house to a different part of the country. They also produce very serious difficulties and problems of enforcement. This aspect of the question is dealt with in Clause 1, which replaces the existing local by-laws by a power given to the Secretary of State to make regulations applying uniformly to the whole country. In addition, the Secretary of State will be enabled to make it necessary for children to obtain a permit from their local education authority before they take up any employment.

5
The second point of common ground concerns the supervision of children's employment and the prevention of unsuitable, though lawful, employment. Clause 2 enables local authorities to obtain in advance details of proposed employment from parents and employers. It gives power to local authorities to prevent a child taking a job which is unsuitable to that child or is prejudicial to its education. Such prejudice is likely to be on purely personal grounds, something affecting the particular child in question; and I believe it would be a definite improvement on the present position where the harmful employment has to be actually begun before the local authority can intervene. At present, local authorities' powers extend only to children in certain specified schools. In future, it is proposed that the powers should apply to all children, regardless of what school they are attending and regardless of whether they are actually attending school at the time, provided that they are of the necessary age.
I think that the majority of Members of this House have children of their own and many of those who do not have been concerned over a long period of years with the education and welfare of children. This Bill seeks to protect the interests of the individual child and it is estimated that as many as 750,000 children may be affected by its provisions. I trust that it will commend itself to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a;.—(Lord Hylton.)
2.48 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, may I offer the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, congratulations on introducing this measure in this House, and particularly on the manner in which he has done so. I have no wish to repeat all the good points about the Bill which he has enumerated. On this side we welcome it, because it ensures that there will be uniformity throughout the country in regard to the conditions of employment of children of compulsory school age. At the same time, it leaves to local government considerable responsibilities for ensuring in their turn that the measure is respected as it ought to be. We on this side will do everything we can to help expedite the progress of the Bill
6
through this House. I would join with the noble Lord in commending it to your Lordships' House.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I should like for one very brief moment to support this Bill, not so much because of what is in it, but because it is concerned with a subject which is rather dear to my heart. Under this Bill there will be regulations which can be used as a very powerful lever to right a position which has become rather serious, particularly of late. There is a quite extraordinary gap between the child at school and the young person at work and, to some extent, this gap must somehow be bridged before the child leaves school. That means that before he leaves school the child must be given a picture of what life at work is like. I am afraid that schoolmasters are almost exactly the wrong persons to do this. Schoolmasters are quite extraordinarily bad at telling children what will follow after, and they have very little experience of it themselves. It is my belief that if, centrally, something strong can be done towards letting the children see more of industry before they leave school, either through short experience or other methods, and if regulations can be carefully framed so as to make this not only possible but, so far as it can be done, open wide, so that it can be done thoroughly, then this Bill is going to be an extraordinarily good thing. It is for the sake of those regulations and the purpose for which I wish to see them used, which is showing school children what is available when they leave school and go into industry, that I wish to support this Bill.
2.50 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I speak today in the absence of my noble friend Lord Aberdare, and I should like to confirm that this Bill has the Government's full support. My noble friend Lord Hylton has admirably explained the purpose of the Bill and its background, and we are pleased to have from the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, confirmation of support for this Bill in its passage through this House. As my noble friend Lord Hylton has said, the Bill stems from a review of this branch of the law which the present Government initiated in November, 1970, when a Consultative

7
Document was issued. Useful comments were made by a wide range of interested bodies. Broadly, the Bill gives effect to changes which the Government decided upon as a result of that review. Noble Lords may recall that these intended changes were mentioned by my noble friend Lord Aberdare last May in the debate on the Second Reading of the Children Bill. We therefore welcome wholeheartedly the introduction of this Bill; and, as my noble friend Lord Hylton has said, our consultations in 1970 showed overwhelming support for its two main objectives among organisations representative of the wide range of interests affected.
The principal objective of this Bill is that the many and varied local by-laws should be replaced by one set of regulations made by the Secretary of State and applying throughout Britain. The regulations would cover, broadly, the same ground that is now covered by local bylaws. The regulation-making powers in the Bill are basically the same as the present by-law-making powers, but are a little more extensive. Nevertheless, I should like to make it clear that before these regulations were made it would be the Government's intention to consult very widely about what precisely they should contain. The Department has been preparing a Consultative Document containing a set of proposals on which all the interested bodies would be invited to express their views, and the present intention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is that this should be given wide circulation as soon as the Bill has passed.
The noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, raised a point, but I should like to make it quite clear that this Bill is concerned with children who are employed outside school hours, and it should not be confused in any way with what is generally called work experience, which nowadays comes as part of the school curriculum. As this Bill is not concerned with what is called work experience within a school curriculum, I should like to draw that distinction and make it quite clear at the outset I think that that is really all I need say by way of explanation of this Bill. I think it deserves the welcome which your Lordships have extended to it; and I
8
should like to thank my noble friend Lord Hylton for bringing it forward here and also my honourable friend the Member for Louth for introducing it in another place. The sooner it is on the Statute Book the better.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I think it only remains for me to express my thanks to all those speakers who have taken part in the debate. With the blessing that the Bill has received from both Front Benches, I feel it can hardly fail in its objective.
On Question, Bill read 2a;, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HEAVY COMMERCIAL VEHICLES (CONTROLS AND REGULATIONS) BILL
2.55 p.m.
LORD BETHELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The main provisions of the Bill seek to amend certain sections of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967, and the purpose of the Bill in general is to place greater emphasis on provisions for amenity by providing regulations and restrictions, and in some cases prohibitions, on the entry of heavy commercial vehicles into certain areas. If I could briefly draw your Lordships' attention to the Bill, your Lordships will see that the first clause is lengthy and, if I may say so, a little difficult to understand without frequent and complicated reference to the parent Act, the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967. Subsection (1) of this clause contains two major provisions. The first, in paragraph (a), provides for the specification of through routes for heavy commercial vehicles. It is recognised that at this stage it may be a little difficult to enforce the provision of through routes around certain areas which it is thought wrong for heavy commercial vehicles to pass through, but this will be a very useful provision for the future if certain through routes around areas of beauty or areas which are particularly important from an amenity point of view can be established and defined, and if lorry drivers and drivers of other heavy vehicles can get into the habit of making use of these routes. Paragraph (b) of this subsection is important in that it gives local

9
authorities power to specify certain zones which can be restricted or prohibited as regards the entry of heavy vehicles. Under the original Act, which now applies, only single roads may have this prohibition or restriction placed on them.
My Lords, the real crux of this Bill is contained in subsection (2), which provides for restrictions to be placed on certain areas for the purpose of amenity to a much greater extent than has up to now been the case. Up to now it has not been possible for a local authority to impose a prohibition of more than 8 hours in 24 on a road in a town except because of danger to buildings, to the road or to persons. But under this provision it will be possible to impose any restriction, up to total prohibition, on a road which it is thought right to protect from the amenity point of view, or even on an area or zone which is of particular importance from that point of view. This does not give unfettered power to any local authority, because every order under this provision will still need the approval of the Secretary of State.
My Lords, subsection (3) of this clause lays on every local authority the duty to carry out a survey of its particular area, and to formulate written proposals which will be submitted to the Secretary of State for his approval. These proposals will be considered from the amenity point of view in particular, but provision is also made for consultation with other groups, including the balancing body, which is comprised of persons concerned in the operation of heavy commercial vehicles and of persons, the trade unions, representing the drivers of such vehicles. It will be the duty of local authorities to conduct this survey and to submit proposals to the Secretary of State by January 1, 1977, in the case of England and Wales and by January 1, 1978, in the case of Scotland. The later date in the case of Scotland takes into account the later date of local government reorganisation in Scotland. Subsection (4) of this clause is, again, an insertion of a request to local authorities to consider the amenity point of view where previously this criterion was not thought to be taken sufficiently into account. It provides a balance to the existing provision under the relevant section in the Road Traffic Regulation Act
10
1967 requiring local authorities to maintain access to premises. Under that section they will also have to take account of the amenity point of view.
Subsection (6) of this clause makes it possible for the Secretary of State to consider whether proposals submitted to him under subsection (3) are satisfactory and whether they have been submitted to him with sufficient despatch. Under paragraph (a)(i) your Lordships will observe that any draft order which is unsatisfactory can be rejected by the Secretary of State. Under subparagraph (ii) if the Secretary of State believes that any unreasonable delay has taken place, making it unlikely that proposals will be submitted to him within the stipulated period, he can take such steps as he thinks fit to improve the amenity of the area and to satisfy any of the other provisions for the use of heavy commercial vehicles which in the final analysis rest in his power and which it is his duty to preserve.
Subsection (7) of this long clause concerns the definition of a "heavy commercial vehicle". Your Lordships will observe that under the proposed subsection (1A) this definition will be a vehicle which "has an unladen weight exceeding three tons". Some of your Lordships may be aware that there was a certain amount of discussion during the Committee stage of this Bill in another place when certain representations were made to the effect that a lorry of 3 tons unladen weight may not be sufficiently large to provide the centre of certain towns with the provisions and supplies necessary for the town's commercial needs. It was also pointed out during that Committee stage that certain refrigerated vehicles and vehicles that supplied supermarkets are as much as 5 tons unladen weight and that there might be difficulty in maintaining normal commercial supplies to certain areas if these vehicles were not allowed into towns where there might be restrictions under this Bill. This is why the proposed subsection (1B) of this clause gives the Secretary of State power to order particular regulations in particular cases. It will be possible under the Bill to make it incumbent upon certain owners of heavy commercial vehicles to restrict their vehicles' entry into certain parts of towns but not other parts. Where representations are made by owners of heavy commercial vehicles, I understand that their

11
requests and demands will be taken into consideration and that every case will be considered on its merits.
The reason why those who support this Bill have thought it necessary to stick by the original 3 tons limit is that up to now the unladen weight limit of 3 tons has been a standard limit defined by many criteria. There are, for instance, a large number of traffic signs which define heavy commercial vehicles as those with an unladen weight of 3 tons. There is already a legal obligation on vehicles above this unladen weight to carry red and yellow striped markings. This being the case it will be much easier to enforce compliance with this provision on vehicles which can be identified easily as exceeding the specified 3 tons unladen weight limit. Any other provision will be harder to enforce, although it is recognised under this Bill and provided for that in certain cases it may be necessary to specify a higher limit. This is the end of Clause 1. It is the only clause that deals specifically with restrictions or prohibitions on the use of heavy commercial vehicles on the grounds of amenity.
Clause 2 aims to prohibit the parking of heavy commercial vehicles, as defined under the Bill, on pavements or verges. Up to now it has not been in itself an offence to park a heavy commercial vehicle on a pavement or a verge. It has been an offence to drive on a pavement or a verge or to cause an obstruction. One might imagine that if a heavy commercial vehicle is found on a pavement or a verge it might be concluded logically that the lorry had at some stage been driven on to the pavement or the verge. That is not how the law has been interpreted up to now. The police have been unwilling to prosecute in such cases because it did not follow apparently that a heavy vehicle found on a pavement or a verge had been driven on to it. Therefore under this clause the loophole will be blocked and anyone who parks his vehicle on a pavement or a verge will have committed an offence. The fine, as indicated in subsection (2) of this clause, has been approved by the Home Office and is thought to be appropriate to this offence. Subsection (2) specifies a maximum penalty of £50.
12
Clause 3 of the Bill covers a small point which, again, plugs a loophole in the law and allows an enforcement officer who suspects that a vehicle may be overloaded to permit the driver of this vehicle to move his vehicle to a specified place where he may unload and bring his vehicle down to the required weight limit. Up to now it could be said that, according to the strict letter of the law, any enforcement officer who gave such an order to the driver of an overloaded vehicle was conniving at the commission of an offence, and that the driver, by driving his vehicle away even for a few yards to have it unloaded, was committing an offence. If the driver had an accident en route to his unloading point he would be liable for any damage caused, and so might be the enforcement officer. The provisions in this clause will remove that anomaly and make it possible for the enforcement officer to act in the way in which he would be employed to act.
Some noble Lords will say that the Bill is not strict enough and does not go far enough to provide for the needs of our amenities in the face of an ever-growing volume of transport and an ever-increasing number of heavy commercial vehicles, particularly those which travel through towns of historic interest where buildings are old and are liable to be damaged by the vibration caused by passing traffic. On the other hand, one must bear in mind that heavy commercial vehicles play a very important part in the supply of essential products to our towns and it is vital that this work should not be restricted too much. They must still be enabled to obtain access to premises in order to be unloaded and to make it possible for shops and warehouses to carry on their commercial activities in a proper way. The problem facing those compiling the Bill was to find an effective balance between these two most important considerations. It is their view that up till now that balance has been tilted a little too far in favour of freedom of access and the movement of heavy commercial vehicles, and not sufficiently in favour of preserving the amenities in certain areas, particularly in towns. It is the belief of those introducing the Bill that its provisions will set a balance which is more or less right,

13
or at least as right as it can be, and I hope that your Lordships will agree to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Bethell.)
3.30 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, for the way in which he has introduced his Bill. He has given us a clear explanation of its clauses. Also we are grateful to him for undertaking the task of piloting it through your Lordships' House. There is, and has been, increasing anxiety and concern about the growing menace to our environment of the heavy lorry. During the past year we have discussed juggernauts when considering the foreign vehicles regulations; in the debate on road safety initiated by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester; in the debate on transport initiated by my noble friend Lord Popplewell; in the debate on the quality of life and urban planning and in the recent outstanding discussion on historic towns and villages. In all those debates there was a clearly expressed recognition that while appreciating the evils of vibration, noise, smell and danger resulting from these vehicles we have still to live with them, despite the fact that we are hoping—I think we shall manage to do so—to transfer some of the traffic from the roads to the railways. We shall have to learn to live with the presence of the heavy lorry which delivers goods to the towns and conveys much of our road traffic.
That does not mean that there is not an urgent need for action to control the heavy commercial vehicle. When I first looked at the Bill I wondered whether there was any need at all for its provisions, having regard to the fact that already we have the Road Traffic Act of 1967, the 1968 Transport Act and the Local Government Act of 1972. However, after reading the debates in the other place and listening to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, to-day, I can see that this small but important Bill will add something to the existing powers for controlling these vehicles in the interests of the environment. I regard the stress laid in the Bill on "preserving or improving the amenities" of our country as very worth while. These words appear in a
14
different context from that used in the 1968 Transport Act. In Section 130 of that Act appear the words:
"… having due regard to…the effect on the amenities of any locality affected …"
They are tied to the duty placed on local authorities to secure
"the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic."
In this Bill the word, "amenities" is part of a clause providing for specifying through routes for heavy vehicles and prohibiting or restricting their use in zones or on the roads which may be specified. It appears to me that although the words in the 1968 Act and in this Bill are similar, the emphasis has been changed and those in the Bill fit in with the purpose behind it. In my opinion that is what makes the Bill worth while—the change of emphasis, the fitting of the words into a different context.
My Lords, I think it is right to make local authorities the initiating bodies and I welcome the imposition of a duty on local authorities to formulate proposals by a given date. It sharpens and concentrates the mind wonderfully to have a deadline to which one has to work, and although the authorities come into being only on April 1, 1974, I do not think that the date in the Bill of January 1, 1977, is an impossible target date. I believe that the authorities will be able to meet that date. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, told us that the definition of a heavy vehicle which appears in the Bill is a vehicle of over three tons unladen weight. To me that appears about right, but I wonder why it seemed desirable to give to the Secretary of State power to amend the weight of over three tons, whether unladen or laden. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, knows the answer; I do not. I cannot see why the Secretary of State should be given power in the Bill to make this change if he feels it is desirable to do so.
In connection with Clause 2, which deals with the prohibition of parking on verges and footways, I wonder whether the existing law also needs strengthening regarding the parking of lorries in residential areas. I know of some streets which are solely residential in character where huge lorries are parked overnight, thus spoiling the character of the street entirely. So far as I can see, this happens

15
mostly to enable drivers—I can understand this—to drive to their homes in the evening and to make an early start in the morning, going straight off with their vehicles immediately after breakfast, but it spoils the character of a street and I find that people living in the street very much resent this happening. I wonder whether the existing law is adequate on this point and, if it is, why it is not enforced. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, could tell me anything about this aspect of it. I believe it is important, at least to quite a number of people.
The rest of the Bill seems fairly straightforward and worthy of our support, but I must nevertheless complain of the fact that the Bill has all the faults of legislation by reference. An example of this and of the difficulty of reading the Bill occurs in Clause 1(1), where find the words:
"a local authority as defined in subsection (2) (a) above".
Turning to that definition in the 1967 Act, we find that subsection (2)(a) has some 78 words to define a local authority, but remembering that since 1967 we have had the 1972 Local Government Act we look at that Act, as we have to, to see whether the 1967 definition was amended. We find that it was, and that 43 of the 78 words go out, leaving 35 words applicable. So in order to read this Bill we have to go to the 1967 Act and then to the 1972 Local Government Act. My Lords, in less than the 35 words that would be left if we cut out all the words cut out by the 1972 Local Government Act we could have imported the definition into this Bill; but I suppose that would have been too easy, although it is something that ought to be done in Bills of this character to avoid as far as possible this legislation by reference. My Lords, with that small complaint about the Bill—and perhaps we may be able to do something about that on the Committee stage—I wish the Bill an easy and early passage in this House.
3.23 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, on this beautiful May afternoon, following my noble friend Lord Bethell's sweet and dulcet tones in introducing the
16
Bill and Lord Champion's almost unqualified acceptance of the Bill, I apologise at the outset that I am going to strike a somewhat discordant note. I think I ought also to apologise, my Lords, that I hope to engage your Lordships' attention for rather longer than the two noble Lords who have already spoken. I do not dispute the fact that what my noble friend Lord Bethel said in introducing the Bill was quite right, but of course he did not tell your Lordships any of the disadvantages—and I refer primarily to Clause 1.
My Lords, to put this matter in a right perspective one has to remember how this Bill came about. It arrived in your Lordships' House having virtually been rewritten from its original form. It had to be rewritten because when the other place looked at the Bill it was found to be thoroughly impracticable—marvellous in theory, absolutely delightful to appease the growing and more vociferous environmental and amenity lobby. Of course, my Lords, large heavy goods vehicles are a nuisance. They irritate people; they cause damage to buildings; they frighten children; and they keep old people, young people, middle-aged, all people, awake at night if the vehicles go in places where it is not desirable that they should go. So all of a sudden it is proposed to rewrite the Bill. The other place turned the whole thing down and produced the Bill now before your Lordships.
Consider the construction, use and control of heavy goods vehicle. There are very many people, including, I suspect, some of your Lordships, who are not fully understanding of a heavy goods vehicle—and I hope to illustrate this point. The environmental lobby has grown enormously, and so also has the responsibility of the local authorities towards the dangers and incursions that road transport makes into the quality of life. We have talked about this subject five times in the last fourteen months; and five times these emotive references come out. This Bill is yet another emotive force, almost sledge-hammerlike in the effect it is likely to have on a number of aspects of the quality of life. The Bill is not necessary. Having said that, I am quite prepared to go along with it if we can alter it and make it a little more useful than

17
it appears to be at the moment. Principally, in Clause 1 two facts are involved: one is a denial of access, the other is a definition of a heavy goods vehicle. No commercial undertaking using lorries sends vehicles to any place in which they are not wanted—that is just commercial suicide. That is the first point. That roads and roadways are not available to take a heavy goods vehicle from a port to another place is another and different problem and this Bill is not going to cure that.
Secondly, the entire distribution network of our suppliers of everyday goods is geared to a certain type of vehicle, a certain type of road system and a certain type of driver and roadway. This Bill will destroy that and will mean an enormous increase in cost. God alone knows that this is about the last thing we want to inflict upon the distribution of goods, because the increase will hit every single pocket. Let me illustrate what I mean by that. Nobody, no haulier, myself, your Lordships, wants a 30-ton gross, 32-ton gross or 40-ton gross vehicle to come anywhere near a city centre. It has to go direct to a distribution centre or direct to an off-loading point. If a vehicle is directed to a distribution centre the land has to be found, and I think of Portsmouth and Southampton, two towns who tried to prepare for this contingency and found no land available.
Where do you find 130 acres for a transshipment depot? It may be necessary for some large vehicles to go by certain routes. The local authorities already have ample powers to prohibit, by weight and width restrictions, the passage of vehicles along certain roadways, and they are increasingly exercising those powers. The advised routing system which local authorities are introducing, albeit without statutory power, is increasingly being used, because it is being proved to the operator that this is an easier and more economical route. By and large, drivers do not disobey their routing officers' instructions; they do not want to get snarled up in traffic. So we can dispense with that end of the argument. That is being taken care of, albeit slowly. And certainly by 1978–80, with the completion of the Government's present road-building programme, a number of these problems will disappear.
18
My Lords, I have spoken about transshipment. Your Lordships will appreciate that if a load has to be broken down, labour has to be used, and labour costs money. That cost will be represented on the goods being trans-shipped. If you put them into smaller vehicles, then more small vehicles are needed. There is, on the one hand, the problem of weight, noise, pollution and so on, and, on the other hand, in the urban areas there is a congestion problem. If the load is halved into two vehicles, that congestion problem is increased. The duty of a transport authority is not denial, prohibition and restriction, which are negative things; the duty of a transport authority and of the Government is to adopt positive, not negative attitudes. It must be made easier to move traffic through cities and to its destination with the least possible inconvenience to the people, to the environment and to amenity. This Bill does not do that.
A further point is that because it is easier to enforce, as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said, and because it may cost a lot of money to change the signs, as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, said, somewhere along the line we are to stick to the definition of "3 tons, unladen" as the criterion for a heavy goods vehicle. "Three tons, unladen" is really rather meaningless. Given three or four days' notice, I could show your Lordships an enormous vehicle, some 22 feet long and right up to the limit of width, but weighing only 3 tons, this lightness being achieved by the use of certain materials, the way in which it is manufactured and the way it is offered at the weighbridge. As I say, "3 tons, unladen" is quite meaningless, and already the sale of vehicles which go 3 tons unladen at licensing is on the increase, to get around the existing legislation in regard to heavy goods vehicle drivers' licences. I will not weary your Lordships by explaining that, as I am sure you will call it to mind. It is far more sensible to face facts as they are. A bigger and heavier vehicle is necessary. Already, because of the Regulations to be introduced in 1976, when the 3 tons unladen weight criterion must disappear in favour of one of 7·3/8 tons gross, manufacturers are redesigning their vehicles to get round that limitation.
Take B.R.S. Parcels. Tesco, Sainsbury, William Cory, and there must be twenty

19
others, who provide the bulk of the products that are bought in the High Street shops day by day: the distribution of their goods from warehouse to retail outlet is based on a 5 tons unladen weight, 12½/14 tons gross vehicle. May I use Sainsbury's as an example? The refrigerated wagons which your Lordships see moving from their central depots—and I think of the central depot at Basingstoke, serving the South-West of England—are vehicles of an unladen weight of about 4·4 tons. Cut out the refrigeration plant and one of these vehicles will go well under 3 tons. But Sainsbury's want the goods in the shop fresh. Split the goods, and instead of 4 wagons going down the M.3 to one retail outlet there will be 8. That is the kind of thing this Bill will promote.
One does not want to be unreasonable about these matters, but one has to face facts as they are. There must be a balance between environment and amenity and the commercial life and wellbeing of cities. In Southampton about eight months ago a boy was stabbed and killed. Nobody saw it and nobody heard it, because nobody was in the city centre. And nobody was in the city centre because the city centre is dying owing to traffic being unable to get in and out: nobody wants to live there; it is dead. Under this Bill we bring in these denial limits and say: "That is all right: a heavy vehicle can go down this road; it can go to an out-of-town shopping centre, to a hyper-market, or somewhere else." But, my Lords, that system does not work in this country because we have not enough room. If we force all that traffic into out-of-town shopping centres we will congest the countryside even more, because to make it viable as an out-of-town shopping centre at least eight acres of parking space is needed for around 12 hours per working day. So we are really talking rather nonsensically about keeping all traffic out. We have to find ways of bringing it in to sustain the investment in a shopping centre, to sustain life within a city; not commercial life alone, but ordinary life, as well.
My Lords, in the 15 minutes I have been speaking I have indicated to your Lordships that I cannot join with my noble friend Lord Bethell and the noble
20
Lord, Lord Champion, in giving this Bill the unqualified support that I think they hope for. I hope I have drawn to the attention of your Lordships some of the real dangers to the people, and not just to the truck operator. It is not a pounds, shillings and pence profit exercise that I have been engaged on this afternoon. I hope that I shall hear from the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, when he winds up, some real answers; not the kind of answers that I have read in the Reports of Standing Committee in the other place or of debates on Third Reading. I hope I may receive some reassurance from my noble friend on the Front Bench, who is also going to speak. Unless I do, I cannot guarantee that the passage of this Bill will be quite so easy as some of your Lordships may hope.
3.40 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I should not have been tempted to intervene in this debate but for the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who appeared to be advocating in your Lordships' House the policy of almost complete laissez-faire in a sphere where at the present moment we are all thinking very hard about what is the right thing to do. I would think that few except motor manufacturers and road hauliers would agree with the bulk of what the noble Lord has just told us. If we were to agree with this and accept his argument, we might just as well abandon all idea of planning which we have slowly been building up in the light of experience during the last fifty years. But, having said that, surely what we have to consider is the search for the right balance, which the noble Lord in fact mentioned. If he is really prepared to accept that the problem here is that of achieving the right balance, then I find it hard to see why he should also say that the Bill is not necessary, because what this Bill is attempting is to find the right balance.
I have not read the debates in another place, either in the House or in Committee, but I cannot see why, when a Bill is amended either in this House or in another place, it should necessarily be wrong—because that is surely what Parliament is for. It is a place where Bills, including Private Members' Bills, can in fact be discussed and where, as a result of the discussion of new ideas

21
and the intervention of common sense, Amendments—often very substantial ones—can be introduced with advantage. So part of the noble Lord's argument is wrong, I feel. He then spoke about putting this matter in its right perspective, but the fact that the Bill has been amended in another place ought to strengthen the case for the Bill rather than the reverse.
The noble Lord also spoke about the growing and ever more vociferous amenity and environment lobby and used the adjective "emotive" a number of times, suggesting that when those of us who are concerned with these things, although not to the exclusion of everything else, talk about the environment we are emotive but when the financial interest is discussed then the word "emotive" is not used and other adjectives are substituted.
My Lords, as to the need for some form of control, I can only commend to your Lordships the lesson that can be learned by standing at the corner of Parliament Square and Bridge Street at a busy time of day. This is, of course, near a city centre where we have been told no sensible road haulier would ever dream of bringing a large vehicle. So there must be rather more foolish road hauliers than we supposed who keep putting themselves, and perhaps also their shareholders, to unnecessary expense. But if any of us were to stand on that corner with our feet on the pavement edge, I do not think it would be very long before they were crushed by the rear wheels of some vast trailer coming up from Westminster Bridge and swinging left. I happened to be standing there the other day and saw a vehicle hit the railings and knock a section of it down. I mentioned this to a policeman nearby, but he appeared to think that it was something which happens so often that it was hardly worth taking notice of. I have spoken enough for an intervention at this stage, and I apologise to your Lordships for not having put my name down to speak. But I do make an earnest plea that this Bill should be given a Second Reading. It may well be necessary to amend it in Committee but we should accept the principle as being very necessary at this particular time.

E.E.C. FARM PRICES
3.44 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, if I might have the permission of the House, it might be convenient if I were to read a copy of the Statement which is being made at the moment by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture in another place. I should like to apologise to members of both Parties opposite for the fact that they have not been able to receive copies of the Statement earlier than has been the case. This is because my right honourable friend arrived back from Luxembourg only a short time ago—just before 3 o'clock. The Statement is as follows:
"At its meeting which ended in Luxembourg this morning, the Council of Agricultural Ministers agreed on the prices under the C.A.P. for 1973–74. This agreement, in my view, represents a reasonable compromise and safeguards British interests. The Commission's original proposals envisaged an increase of prices of 2·76 per cent. virtually across the board, with substantial additional increases for some products.
"As a result of lengthy negotiations, we secured, first, that under the provisions of Article 52 of the Treaty of Accession we could reduce by 10 per cent. for each commodity except beef the increase in price which would otherwise have resulted from our undertakings to the Community. On individual commodities the Council agreed that the increases in the prices of cereals and sugar should be limited to a modest 1 per cent., with a similar further increase when all member States have adhered to the joint float. This element of delay, adding an additional 1 per cent., is a useful gain.
"The Council's decisions on milk are complicated and have to be looked at as a whole. The target price of milk is to be increased by 5½ per cent., but only by 4 per cent. in Germany and Benelux. The intervention price of butter will be reduced by 5½4 per cent. and the price of skimmed milk powder raised to offset this and also, of course, to absorb the effect of the higher target price.

23
"We were able to secure agreement that member countries should be able to pay a subsidy on butter consumption amounting to about £47 per ton. This represents over 2p per lb. and half the cost will be met from Community funds. The cut in the common butter price, together with the buttter subsidy, are positive steps in dealing with the buttter surplus problem. As a result of these measures and of the 10 per cent. abatement under Article 52, which I have already mentioned, the average price of butter in the shops of this country should show no increase this year over present levels.
"For beef there is to be an increase of 10·5 per cent. in the guide price. There will be no 10 per cent. reduction under Article 52 in the price alignment in the United Kingdom. This is not necessary for beef because the increased guide price is still well below present market prices. These increases will not raise retail prices. Producers on the other hand, will have the assurance that their returns will not fall to unduly low levels, and this should help to maintain the expansion of home production. At the same time, consumers will still be able to benefit from any moderate falls in the world price of beef. They will also benefit from the continuing suspension of all import charges which was agreed to operate until September 15. This is a very important move which will help to encourage imports and keep down prices. In addition, the Community have agreed to introduce grants to encourage milk producers to switch to beef production. This is a valuable move, designed to help to reduce excess butter production.
"For pigmeat an increase of 4 per cent. was agreed, with provision for a further increase of 1 per cent. when all member States are in the joint float. This should not affect consumer prices.
"There will be a general increase in the basic and buying-in prices of fruit and vegetables covered by the C.A.P. of 7·5 per cent., except for pears (5 per cent.) and cauliflowers (9 per cent.) As these prices are well below current market price levels, the increases are
24
unlikely to have an significant effect on the level of market prices.
"The Council also agreed on a resolution on farming in poorer areas. The Council will adopt by October 1 a directive which will provide for a special aid system, including compensatory payments designed to encourage farming and to improve farmers' incomes in the poorer areas of the Community. Such a directive should prove an important step in the development of the C.A.P.
"Finally, the Council agreed that there should be a thorough-going review of the general system of the Common Agricultural Policy in the autumn. This may well prove in the long run to be one of the Council's most important decisions."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.49 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure that we are grateful to the noble Earl for repeating this Statement. I should also like to congratulate his right honourable friend upon his stamina and upon the efforts he has made to frustrate the effect of the C.A.P.—a Policy, of course, which Her Majesty's Government had previously accepted without any qualification at all. Would the noble Earl be good enough to confirm that the net effect of the efforts which his right honourable friend has made is that there will be no reduction at all in the quite intolerable level of food prices but in fact there will still be an increase, even though a small overall increase? May I also ask whether the noble Earl will say something about the reduction of the intervention price of butter? When he says that this will enable us to subsidise butter, does this mean that Her Majesty's Government have decided that they will subsidise the price of butter? If so, does this mean that half the cost of subsidising butter will fall upon the Treasury and will not come out of the Common Agricultural Policy kitty? Does it also mean that the corresponding increase of skimmed milk prices, to which I understand the noble Earl did not give a figure, will be reflected in the increased cost of manufactured foods? If so, is this increase in the cost of manufactured foods included in the estimate of the increase

25
in the cost of living so far as food prices are concerned?
Would the noble Earl tell me whether this statement that we are going to subsidise the price of butter means that previous Statements which have been made by Ministers on that side of the House over the past weeks and months, that it is quite impossible to subsidise food prices, are now inoperative and that we find that we can subsidise food prices? If so, would they undertake to look again at some of the suggestions we made about the possibility of subsidising other basic fresh food prices? Would the noble Earl also tell me whether this intention—if intention it is—to subsidise the price of butter in this way is separate from and in addition to the intention of the Irish Government, for example, to subsidise butter for those consumers who are in receipt of Social Security benefit? In this country, shall we still be able to apply a similar subsidy to such individuals here?
The Statement refers to a subsidy, or some form of grant, to producers who switch from milk to beef. Could the noble Earl tell me what form those grants will take? Lastly, so far as the last paragraph of the Statement is concerned—which the noble Earl rightly says is probably the most important one in the Statement—can we anticipate that in the very near future Her Majesty's Government will tell us what policy they propose to suggest to the Community as a replacement for the present general system of common agricultural food policy?
3.53 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, we on the Liberal Benches are naturally delighted that the Ministers should at long last have reached agreement on the basis, as I understand it, of a second compromise put up by the Commission. This gives nobody everything that he wants, or, at any rate, nobody what he originally said he wanted; but so far as we can understand it at the present moment—and everybody will have to look into this very complicated Paper before making up their minds—it seems to be reasonably satisfactory, as indeed the Minister said.
But would not the Government agree that the all-night so-called "marathon" sessions are a crazy way of doing busi-
26
ness? Surely, if the European Economic Community is to endure the only sensible thing to do is to get away from the so-called "Luxembourg Compromise" of 1966 whereby any Member effectively has the right to veto anything if he simply says that the vital interests of his country are involved. Could not the Government, for instance, say that, at least in certain spheres, they will be prepared to accept what is called "qualified" majority voting, whereby a major Power can still successfully object to anything, provided it has the support of one other major Power, or, as I believe, two or three other minor Powers? Alternatively, could not they set up an inquiry as to what is meant by "vital interests"? That would be, at least, a step forward. Anyhow, regarding agriculture generally, no absolutely vital British interest is involved. It is important but not vital. And regarding regional policy, surely it might be in our actual interests to accept qualified majority voting.
Finally, if we are to arrive at some substantial revision of an unworkable Common Agricultural Policy—and I agree that if this came about it would be a major achievement—would it not be all the easier to arrive at such a revision if we all agreed to accept some kind of qualified majority voting? What I am asking the Government—and I hope I shall get a reply—is whether, so far as they are concerned, they will soon make a strong effort to modify the Luxembourg compromise which, if maintained in its full rigour, may, even now, result in some disruption of the Community.
3.56 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for what they have said, and for their welcome to this Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, asked a number of detailed questions. If I am not able to satisfy him entirely with the replies to the details I hope he will understand. The decisions have only recently been arrived at and, as I said earlier, my right honourable friend has only very shortly returned from the discussions.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, asked whether I would confirm that there would, nevertheless, be no reduction in the price

27
of food. Of course I could not confirm that at all. I am in no position to determine what the prices of food are likely to be in the future. I can assure the noble Lord that as a result of the discussions which my right honourable friend has had, and with which he has persevered, the increases in the prices which were due in the Common Market, and which would have been reflected eventually in this country, will be very considerably modified. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, asked whether the Government were changing their mind and were going to subsidise butter. The subsidy to which the Statement referred was the subsidy from FEOGA to which, as the noble Lord, Lord Peswick, will know, we contribute very substantially. This is a subsidy which this country will get back from FEOGA.
Of course, the price of skimmed milk powder and other products may go up slightly; but these are much less important than butter and cheese which have been the centre of considerable attention. They noble Lord also asked whether people receiving the social security payments will benefit in the same way as people in Ireland have benefited. This question is at the moment under consideration; I can go no further than that. He also asked for details regarding the way in which the emphasis will be placed on the switch from milk to beef. At this juncture I could not give him the details for which he asked.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, said that these all-night marathons are crazy, and asked whether the Common Market should adopt some system of qualified majority voting. We will certainly consider what the noble Lord had to say; he will not expect me to comment upon that matter at this juncture. The last paragraph of this Statement indicates that the conclusions to which the Members of the Common Market came are very similar to the conclusions to which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, came, that this is a curious system of arriving at decisions, and it is one upon which it is to be hoped that some improvement may be made. Everyone who took part in the discussions realises their own personal substantial measure of inconvenience and over-exhaustion, and that this situation could possibly somehow be improved upon.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I make it clear that I did not welcome the Statement; I thanked the noble Earl for his courtesy in repeating it, which is slightly different. The noble Earl said that he could not confirm that there would not be a reduction in the price of food. Am I then misreading this Statement, one paragraph of which says that there will be an overall increase in the price of food? Would the noble Earl in fact say that despite all the efforts that his right honourable friend has made the overall price of food, already intolerably high, will go still higher? That is the first definite question.
The other definite question I put in this way: it has been said hitherto from the Government Front Bench that it was quite impossible to subsidise the price of food. There is now a mention of the possibility of subsidising the price of butter. I am asking the noble Earl whether that means that the previous statement made, to the effect that it was impossible to subsidise the price of butter—to use modern jargon—is now inoperative and that one can in fact subsidise food prices? If so, can the noble Earl say whether the Government are ready to look into the possibility of subsidising other fresh food prices?
Lastly, I asked about the final important paragraph, namely, about a change in the general system of the C.A.P. I asked when the Government will be making a Statement, or whether they will in fact be making a Statement, to the House about the policy that they intend to put forward in place of the present C.A.P.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am sorry if I misinterpreted the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, who said that he did rot welcome the Statement, but that he merely thanked me for it; because I thought the Statement went very largely along the road to meet the desires which the noble Lord has expressed on previous occasions. I thought he had welcomed the fact that my right honourable friend had secured very considerable advantages, and if he did not welcome the fact I am sorry that I misinterpreted him.
I do not intend—and the noble Lord would not expect it of me—to speculate on whether prices will go up or will go down.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it is in the Statement.
EARL FERRERS: No, my Lords. What is in the Statement is the fact that the price of food articles covered by this Statement will not be affected during the current months. The noble Lord also went on to ask whether the Government would be prepared to subsidise food prices. As has been explained on a number of occasions, Her Majesty's Government have not thought it expedient to subsidise the price of food in this country. That is a very different matter from accepting a subsidy from FEOGA, which is a body to which we contribute, and here we shall get a considerable return.
With regard to whether the Government will make a Statement on the policy which they will put forward at the forthcoming review of the C.A.P., all I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is that this is bound to be a matter of discussion between the member countries, and it will be up to Her Majesty's Government to decide in advance whether it is prudent to make a Statement, or whether they should make a Statement, after the discussions have taken place.
4.3 p.m.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, I am in the difficulty of being unable either to welcome or to condemn the Government Statement, and I am not sure that the Government are in any better position. What I am quite certain about is that my fellow countrymen suffer from the same disability as myself. For what happens? We have a Minister on the radio at lunch time who has been robbed of his sleep and who has not seen his bed for days. He gets into an aeroplane and comes back to this country; he hurries from the airport, dashes to the House of Commons and we get a Statement here and one in another place and we do not know what the small print is. I would respectfully submit to Her Majesty's Government that one of the reforms they could introduce—and they could start on this occasion—would be to publish a White Paper setting out what it was that the Minister sought to achieve, and then setting down what all the other countries also sought to achieve. We should have nine statements showing what they all wanted, and then in another
30
column there should be shown what they have got.
I noticed an important qualification in the Minister's statement on the radio, which was partially repeated in the Statement which we have just heard, when he referred to the price of butter for this year. The test of all this is not only what is going to happen in this year. It may well be that Mr. Godber has gone to Luxembourg and he may have done what Mr. Heath did when he talked to M. Pompidou—he may have sold this country down the river. I am not suggesting that Mr. Godber has done this, but he could have done a deal which is acceptable because nobody understands it as they have not seen the small print, but which in the long run will turn out to be wholly disastrous. This is not the way to run a railway, and it is not the way to tackle a democracy, because in the long run the British public are not bloody fools. They will find out the truth about it. Mr. Nixon in the United States is now suffering from the same complaint as Mr. Macmillan suffered from—nobody told him what happened. I want to know what has been said.
If there is any meaning in my attendance at this House at all it is as a representative here of those among whom I live. I want to know the facts and we have not been given the facts to-day. There is not one question that has been put to the Minister that he has been able to answer. I can excuse him; he is not in a position to answer. A piece of paper has been thrust into his hand which he has hurriedly read. He apologises to the Opposition and he apologises to the Liberal Party—whatever that may mean—but what about the rest of us? We have as much right to know what has been going on, and every man and woman in these Islands has a right to know because they have to pay the bill. They need to know what has been given away. We do not know what is behind it. I shall continue to agitate for the fullest possible facts about the continued "sell out" that is wrapped up in the Common Market.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I understand the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, and that he should want to know what he described as the "small print". I apologised to the noble

31
Lord, Lord Beswick, and to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for the fact that they did not receive copies of the Statement earlier, but I did not apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, because he does not normally receive copies of Statements. I accept that he wishes to know all the facts, but it was up to my right honourable friend to decide, in view of the great concern about the negotiations which have been going on in the Common Market, whether he should make a Statement to both Houses as soon as possible or whether it would be preferable to delay and to give a fuller Statement later. My right honourable friend came to the conclusion that it would be for the convenience of both Houses and the public at large if a Statement on the conclusions were made as quickly as possible, and that is what he has done.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, it is a complete misunderstanding to suggest that I am complaining because I did not have a copy of the Statement. I am one of those who has been in politics so long that I never ask a question unless I know the answer. What I am complaining about is that the Minister himself has been given a paper that he does not completely understand, because he could not answer one single supplementary question on it; and furthermore he then gives a copy of the Statement so late to the Opposition Front Bench and to the Liberal Party that it is really useless. If that is how the Minister is treated, and if that is how they are treated, what about the rest of us? I do not want a copy of the Statement—I can manage quite well. It is a question of the niceness of the views of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on this subject.
I am asking the Minister whether he will go back to his right honourable friend and ask him to publish a White Paper in which is set out his own negotiating position. What is it that he asked for in the first instance? What is it that each of the other members of the Nine wanted? In that way we could see what each wanted and what they have got. The Minister has put before the House what purports to be a political and economic miracle, because all the countries that wanted more appear to be satisfied and all the countries that wanted less are
32
also satisfied. This is not possible, and, therefore, I do not believe a word of it, and I am quite sure that on reflection the noble Earl will not believe it either.
LORD NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, despite the puzzlement of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, there are certain aspects of the Statement which my noble friend has repeated which I should like to welcome warmly? Is my noble friend aware that the Minister of Agriculture, my right honourable friend Mr. Godber, seems to have done a very good job in this very complicated matter? He has had some restraining influence on those Ministers in the Common Market who wish to see higher agricultural prices, he has secured some reductions, and he has made a useful contribution in this international context. Is my noble friend aware that, despite the questions, or statements, from Benches opposite (which, of course, are opposed to the Common Market) most of us here are in favour of our entry and see the Common Agricultural Policy as a highly complicated and to some extent embarrassing feature of it? But is he aware that we also see that the general policy of encouraging maximum agricultural production in Europe is something of which we may be very glad in the long run, in a world where we are becoming increasingly aware of food shortages? While I should still wish to see some modification of the prices in the Common Market, the general policy seems to me to be right.
LORD HOY: My Lords, may I ask one or two questions? I apologise to your Lordships' House if I do not deliver a speech. What I should like to know is how the Minister can say that there is to be a 10 per cent. increase in the price of beef without its having a repercussion on retail prices in this country as far as the housewife is concerned. May I also ask the Minister—moving from beef to milk—how one promotes a changeover from milk production to beef production by increasing the price of milk to the milk producer by 5½ per cent.? If that has been agreed upon, how is it going to be reflected in the price of milk to the consumer in this country? Can the Minister tell us what, as a consequence of this change, will be the increase in the price of skimmed milk, which manufacturers fear is going to put up their prices very

33
considerably? Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, I cannot welcome it and I cannot then say that I do not understand it. May I put my question and then I shall get the answer so that I shall be able to understand it? Is it not a fact that in a manufacturing industry—including the ice-cream industry, for a reduction in whose prices the Government took great credit during the last Budget—this will mean a very considerable increase in costs?
May I also ask the Minister, because he merely skimmed over it—perhaps that is not the right word to use—in dealing with hill-farming, which is extremely important to a considerable part of Wales and to a great part of Northern Scotland, what decisions were reached which will encourage hill-farming in those areas? Finally, may I ask the Minister about the question of the butter subsidy? As I understand it, agreement has been reached that butter can be subsidised to the tune of £47 million. What I am not clear about is whether that £47 million covers every country in the E.E.C., or whether it simply applies to Britain as a whole? Indeed, when the Minister says that the E.E.C. will meet half the cost of this subsidy he is in fact saying, I think, that they will be responsible for £23½ million and the Governments or a Government will be responsible for the other half. Is that what he means? Because if so, we shall then want to know whether this applies to European countries generally or to Britain in particular. Indeed, if the consumer is not going to pay for it in direct increases in prices, then it has to be met from the national exchequer. There can be no other alternative. We should like the Minister to be clear in his explanation of this matter. The final part of this question—it will be my last one—is: does it not mean that, whatever happens, the price of butter simply cannot be reduced? Indeed, the forecast of 4p per lb. is going to be restricted to 2p per lb. If the Minister is denying that, is he then saying to the country that, no matter what happens, the price of butter in Britain will not be increased over the next eight or nine months, until the end of this year?
4.13 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, first I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford for what he
34
said about my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture. Indeed my right honourable friend has done a magnificent job in Luxembourg in putting forward, with considerable clarity and conviction, the British point of view, which was frequently at variance with that of other members of the Community. As a result, the Community have been able to secure very different arrangements from those which would have been secured had Britain not been a member of the Community and which would have been secured if my right honourable friend had not taken the stand that he has taken.
The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, asked how can one say that beef prices will not go up if the intervention price goes up. At the moment, beef prices in this country are above the intervention price; therefore the increase in the intervention price of beef will not have any material effect on the price of beef in the markets. The noble Lord referred also to the hill-farming scheme and asked how that would be affected. I cannot give him details of the scheme and how it is to be worked out, but I can tell the noble Lord that in fact the scheme to help hill farmers and farmers on the poorer land will be a scheme put out by FEOGA and it will be one from which, again, this country will benefit. It will be a direct Exchequer benefit from FEOGA.
LORD HOY: My Lords, may I intervene for a moment? When the noble Earl talks about a direct benefit from FEOGA he is ignoring the fact that we contribute to FEOGA. Surely what the noble Earl is trying to convey to us is that as a result of contributing we may get something back, but it cannot be more than that.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, that is absolutely true, but there was considerable concern that our hill farmers would suffer and that we should not get back from FEOGA what we hoped to get back. Now I am able to tell the noble Lord that we shall be able to get this back from FEOGA. The noble Lord wanted a categorical assurance that the price of butter will not go up during the course of this year. I can only repeat to him what I said in the Statement, which was that as a result of these measures and of the 10 per cent. abatement under

35
Article 52, the average price of butter in the shops in this country should show no increase this year over present levels.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, first, would the noble Earl make quite clear to his noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford that what concerned the Ministers at Brussels as much as anything was not a question at all of increasing the production of food, it was the question of dealing with the surpluses of food? That is the biggest headache and that is where the biggest nonsense of the C.A.P. comes in. Can the noble Earl clear up this question of the subsidy? He has told my noble friend that the money comes froth FEOGA. The statement says quite categorically that only half the cost of subsidy will come from Community funds. What I asked the noble Earl, and what my noble Friend subsequently asked, is where does the other half come from?
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, before my noble friend answers that question may I ask him two more questions briefly: one with regard to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick? Is my noble friend aware that in any system of guaranteed prices for agriculture it is impossible to isolate one commodity from another and it may very well happen that one commodity is in surplus whereas another one is in shortage? It is quite impossible to treat them separately, one from another. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, does not understand the point that a surplus of butter is to some extent related to the shortage of beef. May I put this point to my noble friend—it is not always that I agree with everything which the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, says but I agree with him that this subject is full of complexities—would my noble friend ask his right honourable Friend the Minister of Agriculture if he would consider putting out a White Paper setting out the whole of this matter?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord looks at me in surprise. It is the custom of this House that when a question is put to the Minister, the Minister is allowed to answer it.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, that is a new point of order
36
to me. If the noble Lord will refer me to the point, either in the Companion or in the Rules of Order, then I will look at it, but it is quite common practice for more than one question to be put before the Minister replies. May I repeat my question? Would my noble friend be good enough to consider publishing a White Paper dealing with the many complexities which arise out of this subject?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I will certainly see that my noble friend's point is drawn to the attention of my right honourable friend. I can tell my noble friend that the House will receive copies of the E.E.C. regulations which are necessary to implement the conclusions which have been arrived at.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, asked particularly about butter subsidies. Under the system of arrangements that exist in the Common Market, if there is to be a subsidy from FEOGA to this country, we contribute 50 per cent. and FEOGA contribute the other 50 per cent.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm, with reference to the encouragement of agriculture in the poorer areas, that farmers in receipt of hill farming grants or suchlike grants at the moment will broadly be able to benefit from such a FEOGA subsidy?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, my understanding is that the encouragement given to farmers in hill lands and poorer areas will continue, but that the Exchequer will receive the advantage of the subsidy from FEOGA; therefore, it will be a direct advantage to the Exchequer.
LORD WIGG: My Lords. I am sorry to trouble the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, further. I put a question to him about the possibility of a White Paper setting out the negotiating positions of the Nine in terms of what they asked for and what they got. Lord Nugent was kind enough to say that on this occasion he followed the path of righteousness, that he agreed with me, and he then proceeded to put forward something for which I did not ask. I entirely agree with him, but a White Paper which set out all the complexities would probably resemble the Bible, in length if not in small print.

37
I am asking for something quite simple, on behalf of the people for whom I think I am speaking, that they be given an opportunity of knowing what this is all about. The only way in which they can understand it is by seeing what the Nine asked for and what they got. Then the professional economists can come in and we can compare. Would the Minister be kind enough to say that he has at least listened to what I have said, because if he does not he will hear it on another occasion?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I have listened to every word that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has said. The only reason why I did not give a categorical assurance to pass on his request to my right honourable friend was that I thought there was much less chance of his request being acceded to than that of my noble friend Lord Nugent. The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, admitted that it would be the size of the Bible, and I would think that that would be an underestimate. But I will certainly see that the noble Lord's request is passed on to my honourable friend.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, I am afraid the noble Earl completely misunderstands. What I said was that if he does what his noble friend Lord Nugent asks him to do, covering all the small print and all the detailed account of what has gone on, it will be a very lengthy document. I have asked for something comparatively simple—what were the negotiating positions of the Nine when they started their marathon and what was the position at the end? One could then make a subtraction or addition, as the case may be, between what they asked for and what they got. That is something quite simple.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. My only feeling was that his suggestion would result in something 10 times as long as what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, wanted. He requested only the conclusions. The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, requested the conclusions plus the nine different points of view which determined the conclusions. But I will certainly see that his request is passed on.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, on a point of information, I believe it is a fact that it is out of order for the representative of any one Government to give a detailed account of what happened in what are supposedly confidential negotiations. If that is so, it would be impossible to have a White Paper giving the bargaining position of every member during the negotiations. Personally I should like that to happen, but I believe the convention is that that does not happen. Perhaps the noble Earl could confirm that?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, it was for that reason that I did not wish to say that this would happen. I think it is highly unlikely, even if I pass on the request of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, it would be agreed to. However, I have said to the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, that I will draw his request to the attention of my right honourable friend.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the West German Parliament has a representative at the Council of Ministers and that that representative is able to pass on, and does pass on, all the information of what takes place at the Council of Ministers? In that case the West German Parliament is in a much more knowledgeable position as to what has been negotiated. Would the noble Earl not agree that this sort of system is something which this Parliament would very much welcome?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I wonder if I might intervene. I think we have a debate down in the not too distant future on European institutions, and I think some of the suggestions which are being made might be more appropriate to that. I would rather like to suggest to your Lordships that we should now leave this fascinating subject of whether the Bible of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, or that of my noble friend is the longest, and perhaps move on. I think we have had a fair crack at this. I see that my noble friend and noble Lord have been on this subject for 41 minutes. I would suggest to your Lordships that we might now move on to other business.

HEAVY COMMERCIAL VEHICLES (CONTROLS AND REGULATIONS) BILL
4.27 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Champion, I would express gratitude to my noble friend Lord Bethell for the way he so lucidly explained this Bill. Despite the very powerful words of my noble friend Lord Lucas, this Bill is essentially a modest and, I think, a useful measure, designed to balance the conflicting requirements of catering for the essential needs of commerce and industry, indeed society as a whole, for the transport of goods, and the legitimate desires of all of us for a cleaner, safer and better environment to live in. There can be no doubt that people generally feel that heavy lorries do intrude too much on their private lives and that this intrusion is increasing. We can all cite horrifying examples of what happens when things go wrong, when lorry operators or drivers do not have adequate regard to the feelings and convenience of other people. I believe that such examples represent only a very small minority, that most vehicles are courteously and sensibly driven, and that the safety record of heavy lorries is extremely good. Nevertheless, because of their size, lorries are intrusive, and it is quite uncivilised to operate on the basis that vehicles should be allowed to go wherever they can physically force a passage through.
The other side of the coin is our dependence on lorries for our daily wellbeing. Eighty five per cent, of all our goods travel by road, and this is really inevitable, because of the short distances in this country, the relative dispersal of collection and delivery points, the extreme flexibility of direct door-to-door service, and the relative speed and reliability of delivery that road alone can at this moment provide and which commerce and industry increasingly require. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, said, simply unrealistic to believe that by far the greater part of this traffic could travel other than by road. Your Lordships have heard before that a doubling of rail freight, for example, would only reduce
40
the road traffic by considerably less than 5 per cent. What we therefore have to do is to learn to live with the lorry, by civilising the lorry itself and by providing it with the necessary facilities, notably the roads, to take it where it needs to go, without intruding into the areas where it need not be and where it does not desire to be.
The Government are doing much to tackle these problems. We are working to produce safer and less noisy lorries and we are continually tightening constructional requirements. We are also tightening enforcements on those who offend against safe loading and maintenance requirements. At the same time, we are pressing ahead with building the national road network needed to cater for road traffic, with a comprehensive motorway and primary road network of some 3,500 miles of high quality roads, to be completed by the early 1980s with direct links to all major ports and progressively by-passing towns and villages, especially those of historic interest. We are planning to associate with these roads a national lorry park network to cater for lorries on through journeys at night. As we provide facilities for heavy vehicles, it will become necessary to protect the areas through which lorries now travel because they have no alternative.
But we cannot afford to be complacent and, clearly, we cannot do nothing until all these roads are completed. These are pressing problems already in urban areas which need to be tackled and that is why I welcome this Bill. I also welcome it because, while it attempts to do something to improve conditions for people suffering unnecessarily from the intrusion of heavy lorries, it does not overlook the continuing need for lorries or the disasters that would happen if we simply tried savagely to ban all lorries over a certain size from wide areas of the country or from towns. What this Bill does, in essence, is simply to extend the powers of local authorities in making traffic management orders, so that they can take account of amenity requirements, without, however, disregarding the requirement to pay regard to the reasonable needs of access. It lays on the new local authorities a duty to draw up by 1977 comprehensive freight plans within their transportation programmes. In addition, it tackles the problem of parking by heavy lorries on

41
pavements and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, pointed out, it plugs a small gap in the law dealing with overloaded vehicles. The powers have been drawn very flexibly, so that individual schemes can take full account of local needs.
I am aware that great anxiety has been expressed by operators of lorries, that the power to deny access on grounds of amenity could have dramatic and calamitous effects on goods delivery if orders are made banning all lorries over 3 tons unladen weight. I do not doubt that the effects would be damaging and costly if such blanket requirements were imposed, but I do not believe that this is a realistic possibility. I am sure that local authorities will have full regard to everything that has been said about the need to cater for delivery and collection by lorries larger than 3 tons unladen weight. The Bill's flexibility will enable a higher weight limit to be specified in orders denying access, to take account of local circumstances while retaining the lower limit for preventing parking on pavements. Similar powers to those which the Bill would give to all local authorities are also possessed by the G.L.C., and there has been no sign of their leading to the dire consequences prognosticated by the prophets of doom. In the last analysis, moreover, the Secretary of State will have ample reserve powers, though I do not believe that he will have to use them. The regulation of local traffic is essentially a local matter, which should be left to local authorities able to take account of local circumstances, and this is what the Bill recognises.
In short, the Government believe that this measure will be a useful addition to, and an extension of, the traffic management powers of local authorities and that it strikes a fair and reasonable balance between environmental needs and those of the transport of goods. There have been particular reservations expressed and questions asked by noble Lords, such as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and my noble friend Lord Lucas, on various aspects of this Bill, which I think can be more fully and profitably discussed in Committee. They do not detract from the essential merits of the Bill, and I would advise your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
4.35 p.m.
LORD BETHELL: My Lords, I should like to thank all those noble Lords who have spoken and who have given approval, qualified or otherwise, to this Bill, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, referred to the definition of a heavy vehicle and the proposal to include in that definition a vehicle with an unladen weight of 3 tons, and he asked why the Secretary of State should have power to vary this limit in any particular case. The sponsors of this Bill and their advisers have taken into consideration the fact that there may be certain towns where there are no proper facilities for the unloading of heavy vehicles nearby, and it may be that in certain specified cases it will be necessary to allow vehicles of a rather heavier unladen weight than 3 tons to go in and unload. My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth mentioned, in particular, the problem in the area of Southampton and Portsmouth where there is, apparently, a shortage of land and of unloading facilities. I do not know the details of that case, but it could be that the Bill will cater for problems such as that and I suggest to your Lordships that it is on points like that that the Bill shows itself to be flexible and good.
In a robust and interesting speech, my noble friend Lord Lucas raised a large number of points, some of which were answered by my noble friend Lord Inglewood. But there is one point on which, with the very greatest respect, I should like to take issue with him. He suggested that local authorities already have ample powers to deal with matters of amenity. This Bill gives the Government and local authorities greatly increased powers and I would mention two of them. The first is the power to restrict the access of heavy goods vehicles for more than eight hours in 24 hours. Under present legislation, a restriction can be placed on grounds of amenity only for up to eight hours. The second power which is given by this Bill is that to restrict or prohibit the access of heavy commercial vehicles to zones, as opposed to single streets. I hope that almost everyone in this House, even my noble friend Lord Lucas, will agree with me

43
that there are certain areas where heavy commercial vehicles should not be allowed to penetrate, such as cathedral areas and areas where buildings are old and frail, where there is a severe danger of vibration.
My noble friend might say that there are very few of these areas and that such prohibition orders should be issued very sparingly. This brings us down to a matter of degree and not to a matter of principle, but I think that even my noble friend will agree with the principle involved. I should like to thank him for saying that he did not want to be unreasonable, and for agreeing that it is essential to try to strike the right balance between amenity or environmental considerations and commercial considerations. I am sure that the other points which my noble friend made will arise again in Committee, if your Lordships see fit to give this Bill a Second Reading. I am also sure that, with his great knowledge of the subject, he will be able to make a most valuable contribution and certainly those who support this Bill will be willing to consider Amendments.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BADGERS BILL [H.L.]
4.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 [Taking, injuring or killing of badgers]:
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, after ("control") insert ("(a)").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, noble Lords who were here at Committee stage will probably remember that I then put down an Amendment the substance of which was to do what I want to do by means of this Amendment. When I put down my Amendment at Committee stage the noble and learned
44
Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, pointed out that it had defective English, and of course he was quite right. I have now altered the English, and I sincerely hope that the noble Earl, Lord Arran, and Her Majesty's Government will look with favour on the new wording, because I think I am right in saying that at Committee stage neither the noble Earl nor Her Majesty's Government had any objection to the meaning behind the Amendment; I had merely got the wording wrong.
My Lords, I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to speak on the first two Amendments together; it will certainly save time. Perhaps I might read Clause 1 as it would read should my Amendment be accepted. So amended, the clause would read:
"If, save as permitted by or under this Act, any person wilfully kills, injures or takes, or attempts to kill, injure or take, any badger or if any person has in his possession or control

(a) any badger recently killed or taken; or

(b) any pelt from a freshly skinned badger which is not shown to have been killed or taken",

et cetera, et cetera. That is the clause that I should like to see in operation. I explained at Committee stage that my object in putting down such an Amendment is to close a loophole in the Bill. As at present drafted, the Bill allows a man to kill a badger and to skin it, to bury the carcase and then to have the skin in his possession for sale or for his own use. The only value in badgers, apart from having them as pets, is of course their skins. It is true enough that there are rogue badgers. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Mansfield is here to-day; I do not think he is. He appears to be rather beset by rogue badgers.
I quite agree that if a man had in his possession the pelt of a freshly skinned badger and it was also found that he had some tongs and a terrier with him, that would probably be sufficient evidence to convict him under the Bill as at present drawn. But he might have only a pelt from a freshly skinned badger, and it might then be difficult to prove that he had in fact killed the badger. He could easily say that he had bought the pelt from a stranger whose name he could

45
not remember. I hope that the noble Earl will accept this Amendment, because if the object of this Bill is to protect badgers I really think that it closes a loophole in the Bill as now drawn. It is not a very big loophole, but it is a loophole, and the Amendment closes it. I therefore beg to move.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, for my part, and subject to the attitude of Her Majesty's Government in these matters, I gladly accept these Amendments, which will in fact help to achieve a restriction on the killing in this country of badgers for their pelts. In illumination, I might add that I am told that in the Cheviots a badger pelt goes for £12. I am also told that toothbrushes made from the skins of badgers—possibly obtained from abroad; I do not know—are now being sold in the major chemists' shops throughout the country. Subject again to what the noble Baroness says, I feel that the noble Viscount's Amendment will do much to help.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, the object of these Amendments is to make it an offence for any person to have possession or control of a pelt from a badger. My noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard moved a similar Amendment, with the same object in mind, at the Committee stage of this Bill, which he then withdrew because, as he himself has said, the drafting was defective. In this particular case I think it would be true to say that the drafting is not ideal, but it meets the case, and the Government have no objection to these Amendments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, Amendment No. 2 is consequential on Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, after ("taken") insert—
("or
(b) any pelt from a freshly skinned badger").—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ARRAN THE EARL OF ARRAN moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("against this Act").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is the first of a series of drafting Amendments. I am advised that nowadays the phrase "against this Act" is regarded as being otiose. If the House accepts this and similar, related Amendments, this will bring the Bill into line with the way it is drafted in Clause 7. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Offences of cruelty]:
4.48 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN THE EARL OF ARRAN moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 12, leave out ("cruelly") and insert ("with cruel intent").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that we had a considerable amount of discussion about this during the Committee stage. I have been told that the use of the words "with cruel intent" rather than the word "cruelly" would establish the point of mens rea with clarity. On the other hand, I am told that it will not. I will not say that I hope the House will accept this Amendment, but I hope that our legal experts will have a word or two to say about it. To me it is all the same as long as what I wish to see achieved is achieved. I beg to move.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene upon this Amendment, and I had hoped that we should have had with us to-day the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and indeed the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, who raised this matter at the Committee stage. I would ask my noble friend to reconsider this Amendment, because I think it only introduces unnecessary confusion into the situation. The words which appear in the Bill now—that is,
"If any person shall—
(a) cruelly ill-treat any badger",
et cetera—are words which have in fact been used in Acts concerned with the protection of animals running back as far as the Protection of Animals Act 1849. They were used again in the Act of 1911, the main Act, and they have been used ever since. During the course of that long period of time the courts have had the opportunity of pronouncing what those words really mean and the matter in my view is really beyond doubt. There is no sort of doubt as to what those words mean.

47
May I first quote from a case of 1899 which was that of Duncan v. Pope, a case stated in the Divisional Court, or whatever it was called at that time. The court was called upon to pronounce upon the meaning of the words in the 1849 Act:
"If any person shall … cruelly beat ill-treat"—
et cetera.
The judgment of Lawrence J. was very short. He said:
"The magistrates have decided that there had to be an intention on the part of the defendant to be cruel."
And Lawrence J. disposed of the matter in this way. He said:
"In this case the magistrates have taken an entirely erroneous view. They have considered whether there was an intention to commit cruelty. The question is whether there was cruelty in fact. This act was about as cruel as one could conceive. There is no doubt that there was gross and brutal cruelty. The intention does not matter."
That was reinforced years later by a very powerful Divisional Court which was called upon to decide the meaning of the same words as expressed in the 1911 Act. That was a Divisional Court consisting of Lord Chief Justice Hewart, Mr. Justice Avory (as he then was) and Mr. Justice Shearman. I should like to quote one brief passage from Mr. Justice Avory's judgment. He said:
"The expression 'cruelly ill-treat' applies where a person willfully causes pain to an animal without justification."
Mr. Justice Shearman, in his judgment, said:
"It appears to me that upon a summons under Section 1 of the 1911 Act one has to consider what is cruelty. I do not think that it can be better defined than as causing unnecessary suffering. It is necessary in some cases to cause suffering. It seems to me that what the justices have to look at when a man is charged with cruelly beating or ill-treating is whether he is doing something which it was reasonably necessary to do."
It is clear from those quotations, I hope, that as the law stands at the moment, and as it has stood for something like 130 years, the questions which the court has to ask itself when somebody is charged with cruelly ill-treating an animal are purely objective questions. They have to ask themselves, first, what in fact was done to the animal. Did this involve suffering? They have, secondly, to ask
48
themselves whether it was done wilfully and not accidentally; and then they have to ask themselves whether the suffering was necessary or with justification. Those are purely objective tests.
If my noble friend's present Amendment is accepted, it will introduce a further element into this offence which will be of a subjective nature; that is to say, what was going on in the mind of the person who is alleged to have committed the cruel act. That introduces a wholly new test and I believe it is going to bring confusion into the situation. It is a subjective test which ought not to be introduced into the law after all these years. I submit that the present state of the law is perfectly clear and it will merely be causing quite unnecessary confusion if this subjective element is introduced into the offence at this very late stage. I very much regret that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, is not here because at Committee stage he expressed a view on this matter that the test ought to remain objective, as I have been trying to explain to your Lordships this afternoon. I do not know if there are any other lawyers in the House who will come to my aid on this, but I think that we should be making a serious, if minor, mistake if this Amendment were accepted.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I am not a practising lawyer, but I believe that if we pass this Amendment it will in fact weaken the Bill because it will be something further which has to be proved. Intent will have to be proved, if I am right in this. I think that the Bill should remain as it is.
LORD CAMOYS: My Lards, I have bothered your Lordships before by speaking on this subject. I am a preservationist. I do not belong to the society which is against cruel sports. If people want to hunt, it is up to them; if they want to shoot pheasants, it is up to them. I watch badgers. I have three setts and I have watched badgers for 35 years. I know that a badger must be frightened when you put in a terrier at each end of its sett. Eventually it comes out and is cleaved with a special spade across the back of its head or neck. It is anti-British, cruel and, I think, very stupid—and the practice is growing. Unless you count the wild goat as indigenous,

49
and that is doubtful, the badger is our fourth largest mammal. There is a great increase in the digging of badgers as a so-called sport (and to me it is not a sport) in the West of England.
I want to support the noble Lord who has just spoken and the noble Earl, Lord Arran, and to express the view that we should prevent people from digging badgers. There are rogue badgers; but in all my years I have known only one out of perhaps scores. He is very old. He got under a chicken hut, pressed the boards up, got in and just like a fox killed a chicken and ate it. You will get the occasional rogue. If necessary that situation must be dealt with, but it is very rare. The badger does 95 per cent. good and 5 per cent. harm. The only harm it does is to run up a hedge, smell out a partridge nest and when the partridge is about to hatch he will take it as an hors d'oeuvres. He eats rats, 75 per cent. earthworms, mice, small voles and young rabbits. I hope we are not going into too much technical detail as to what is cruel and what is not cruel. To me it is deliberate cruelty to put in dogs and to dig out a badger and to smash his head when he comes out.
5.0 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, when a somewhat similar Amendment was considered at Committee stage we had, if I may say so, a lengthy and very learned legal discussion on whether the offence of cruelly ill-treating a badger would involve mens rea and, if so, whether it would be necessary to prove in the courts an intention to be cruel. On re-reading the proceeding of the Committee stage, and on taking advice on this point, I am told that this Amendment puts the matter beyond doubt by changing the wording of the provision to make it an offence if any person shall, as the Amendment says, "with cruel intent" ill-treat any badger. I said during the Committee stage that I am not a lawyer and I think that it would be unwise of me to go beyond the official advice that I have been given. I am advised that this will put the meaning beyond doubt and I am glad to support the Amendment.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for what she has just said. Like the noble Lord, Lord Foot, I am always sus-
50
picious when words are proposed to be changed. I know what impelled the noble Earl, Lord Arran, and the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, to put down this Amendment. They felt that it would clear up the situation. But whenever I have taken part in a debate on a Bill I have been told by the Government of the day that if words have been used and have come to be understood in the courts for any length of time, simply to change them would create doubt in the courts. I have no doubt that had he been present to-day the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, would have had something to say about this matter, but I understand that he has an engagement elsewhere which it was impossible for him to break. If the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is saying that the acceptance of this Amendment would improve the situation, I am willing to accept her explanation. I am certain that she is acting on the best advice. Otherwise I should have been prepared to accept Lord Foot's interpretation of the law. But, as I say, I accept the noble Baroness's explanation, and so I support the Amendment.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I am not entirely happy about this point. During the Committee stage we had diametrically opposite advice from two eminent lawyers and I asked whether this issue could be resolved, but it was not. As I understand it, the question still has not been resolved. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that she preferred one version to the other, but the legal point has not been dealt with. I should like to know whether my noble friend Lord Foot is correct in saying that under the various Acts to which he referred mens rea is not required to be proved. It is a perfectly simple problem: either it is or it is not. If it is not, the present situation is all right, but if it is, then we reed the Amendment. I do not consider that we have been fully informed and I think that we should be before we make a decision.
LORD HOY: My Lords, if I may intervene again, may I say that I accept the word of the noble Baroness that it is not a personal opinion that she has expressed but an opinion given to her by the lawyers who advise her Department. If the noble Baroness could make

51
that clear, I would reiterate what I said earlier.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, if I may speak again with the leave of the House on this matter, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, for putting that question to me. I think that I should be in a most dangerous position in any circumstance if I intervened with my own personal legal advice. The fact is, as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, has said, that contradictory legal opinions were expressed during the Committee stage and this matter has been looked at again. The advice I have received from the Home Office is that this Amendment would put the question beyond doubt. For that reason I said that the Government have no objection to the Amendment.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, if the advice that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has been given is correct and these words must now be used, what is the position with regard to all the other Acts of Parliament which use the word "cruelly"? Does it not mean that they are all in doubt?
LORD BIRKETT: My Lords, I am sorry to pursue this matter, but it seems to me that here we have a situation where on the one hand we are told that the Amendment will make things clearer and on the other hand we are told by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that it will not. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, explained carefully why it would not, but nobody has explained why it will. I know that there is a great deal of opinion which says that it will, but no one has yet explained how, and I find myself in a situation where I desperately wish that someone would tell me how the Amendment would make the situation clear.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I think that now I ought to say what I did not say at first: that the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has chickenpox and is unable to be present this afternoon. He fully accepts the phrase "with cruel intent". But, clearly, there is some doubt or perhaps one might almost say there is complete confusion, in the minds of your Lordships as to what is the correct phrase. I hate to postpone the matter once again,
52
but I am wondering whether we should not leave it in suspense now and on Third Reading try it out again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.6 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN THE EARL OF ARRAN moved Amendment No. 5.
Page 1, line 12, leave out ("or")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this subject gets really complicated. There are 31 Amendments in the Marshalled List and I shall find it very hard, first not to weary your Lordships and, secondly, to get things even approximately right. This Amendment, to leave out the word "or" in line 12 on page 1, is a paving Amendment for the next Amendment, and perhaps it would be convenient if we discussed those two Amendments together. The purpose of the second Amendment, in line 14, is very important. It is to make the digging for badgers an offence unless, as is provided for in a later Amendment, an authorised person can show that he had to do it to protect his property or to prevent the spread of disease. I repeat, I regard this as an extremely important Amendment and if it is accepted I think that it will help to bring about the end of digging for badgers as a so-called sport. My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient if I spoke to this Amendment and to the next one. As the noble Earl, Lord Arran, has said, there is a strong body of opinion in the country in favour of the total abolition of badger digging. If accepted, the two Amendments would, in effect, mean the end of badger digging for sport, if the Bill becomes law. If later Amendments are carried, which make provision in respect of an authorised person, it would enable an owner or occupier to dig out a badger in the course of the essential control of his property if there was no other effective way of dealing with the matter. I understand that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is satisfied that this Amendment would not hinder the taking of necessary control measures, and therefore the Government have no objection to it.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I feel that it would be

53
extremely difficult to overrate the importance of this Amendment. It brings us back, in a sense, to the crux which we reached during the Committee stage, when it was proposed by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook to change this from a Bill to protect badgers into a conservation Bill, and that was not permitted by the Committee who actually declined to accept my noble friend's Amendments. Shortly we are coming to those Amendments which are in exactly the same form. But what has changed, what it is proposed to change this afternoon, leads my noble friend to think that those Amendments which we rejected during the Committee stage may be acceptable to-day. The answer is that this Amendment, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Arran, is almost a master subsection, in my opinion. It abolishes, or makes illegal the digging of badgers. As I see it, though I do not necessarily think that everyone else will see it in the same way, the greatest benefit that this Bill could bestow would be to make the digging for badgers illegal. To me that is the whole object of the Bill. I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Arran, would go so far as that. That is a measure of the importance of this Amendment. I greatly hope it will be carried. If it is not then I, for one, would oppose the other Amendment of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. If it is carried, then I will go wholeheartedly along with my noble friend and hope we may carry all the Amendments and have an excellent Bill as a result.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, it was in order to make my objective perfectly clear to the noble Earl that he and I put this Amendment down together, and I regret that my noble friend on my right did not associate me with it when he was criticising me for my other Amendments. It was just because we were able to put down this Amendment, which I would have put down at an earlier stage had it entered my head, that I feel able to do what I hope to do in a moment and re-present Amendments which your Lordships did not like last time.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, Amendment No. 6 is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 14, at end insert:
("or,
(c) subject to section (Exemptions for authorised persons) (3) of this Act, dig for any badger,").—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.12 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN THE EARL OF ARRAN moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert:
("or
( ) use for the purpose of killing or taking any badger any firearm other than a smooth bore weapon of not less than 20 bore or a rifle using ammunition having a muzzle energy of not less than 160 footpounds and a bullet weighing not less than 38 grains,").—(The Earl of Arran.)
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am sorry to have to weary your Lordships—I too am getting rather weary. This Amendment, by which I set great store, is modelled on a similar provision in the Conservation of Seals Act and is intended to ensure that only weapons of an adequate size and power will be used in shooting badgers. If the House accepts this Amendment it will be illegal to use an air rifle, which in any case would be futile against badgers. I have had a letter and have spoken to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, who I am sorry not to see here to-day, and I was asked to move certain Amendments on his behalf. He feels strongly that if we go into details about bores, calibres and shots and those kind of things, we shall so confuse the Bill and so confuse the persons that it will not be worth having. As he puts it, the Bill will be a dead letter with no one bothering to enforce it. I personally do not agree, but some of your Lordships may feel that the noble Viscount is right. If so, perhaps some noble Lord will say so. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I do not see that this Amendment can do any harm to the Bill. It may not be enforced because people will not go round to check on the rifles. But if there is a clear case of a gun being used which is inadequate for the purpose, this would be a very useful Amendment, and I cannot see why the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, should feel that

55
it complicates the Bill. It will only complicate matters if one has a case where there is some obvious breach and where this has to be discussed. But in the vast majority of cases I do not think this will arise, so why not put it in?
LORD MARGADALE: My Lords, I have listened throughout all the debates on this Bill and this is the first time that I have opened my mouth. I should like to support the last speaker in what he said. I support the Amendment. I think it can do no harm and may do good. I have not heard anybody mention the use of a humane killer and I venture to think that in some instances that would improve the Bill—for humanity and the safety of all concerned—and I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Arran, who has already referred one matter to Third Reading may consider doing something about this matter also.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I thought a humane killer had to be placed against the animal. If the noble Lord would put a humane killer against the head of a badger he is a braver man than I am.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I wonder whether it is right to pass Amendments to a Bill unless we are certain what we are passing. I do not know whether many noble Lords know what sort of a weapon has a muzzle energy of not less than 160 foot pounds and a bullet weighing not less than 38 grains. I think the noble Earl, Lord Arran, ought to explain this before we pass the Amendment.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, perhaps I can explain. I have been concerned with this matter in the administration of the Conservation of Seals Act. This would allow a 0·22 rim fire solid long rifle bullet, and of course a 20 bore is perfectly straightforward. The solid long rifle bullet will smash a badger's skull without any difficulty, whereas a hollow pointed one would probably break up on impact and might only wound it.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, noble Lords who have followed this Bill with such great interest and so closely will realise that Clause 1 makes it an offence wilfully to injure any badger. There is no relaxation of this particular prohibi-
56
tion, and therefore anyone who sets out to shoot at badgers with a weapon which he knew was of insufficient power to kill them would probably be guilty of an offence of injuring them. Clause 2(a) also makes it an offence to ill-treat any badger with cruel intent and it might be held that deliberately to shoot at badgers with a weapon of inadequate power would be an offence under this provision. However, the minimum size of shot-gun and the prescription for the minimum power of a rifle bullet in the Amendment are in line with the shooting recommendations for badgers included in the book Predatory Mammals in Britain drawn up by a Working Party of experts in the sporting and naturalist field and it is therefore unlikely that anyone who wished to control badgers by shooting them would choose to use weapons of lesser power.
The view of the Government is that although the Amendment does not appear at first sight to add anything to the Bill they have no objection to it remaining in the Bill and their attitude is one of complete neutrality in the matter.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and would also wish to thank my noble kinsman Lord Margadale for his most helpful suggestion. The humane killer had struck me as an obvious weapon to use and I cannot think why it had not been introduced so far. Would your Lordships be willing to introduce and add the humane killer on Third Reading?
LORD BIRKETT: My Lords, is the humane killer a firearm?
LORD MARGADALE: A firearm with a captive bolt so that if it goes off in the wrong direction it cannot hurt anybody.
LORD BIRKETT: It is legally defined as a firearm and therefore would come under this clause.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("against this Act").—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Selling of live badgers]:
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 19, leave out ("against this Act").—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Restriction of marking and ringing]:
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, this is a further drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 24, leave out ("against this Act").—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.21 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 4 insert the following new clause:
Special Protection for Badgers
".—(1) Where after consultation with the Natural Environment Research Council it appears to the Secretary of State necessary for the proper conservation of badgers he may by order declare any area specified in the order to be an area of special protection for badgers.
(2) Any order made under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament and may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order made in like manner."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment, which it is true I presented to your Lordships on the Committee stage, has to be taken in conjunction with Amendment No. 12 which stands in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Arran, and myself, the second clause of the Bill and the definition of an "authorised person", which comes in Amendment No. 25; to that the noble Earl has down two Amendments, Nos. 28 and 29, which when the time comes I should be happy to accept. We shall then, I think, be in the position that the noble Earl and and I hope all who support the noble Earl, are in agreement that we can divide the country up into two categories of places: one where badgers are so rare that the provisions of the
58
Amendment which I am now moving have to be applied in order to give the animal complete protection, save for the occasional "rogue" who is doing damage to crops, property and life; and secondly, other parts of the country where badgers are common, and where, as with any other large mammal which does not, like a bird, migrate, you can on occasions get a population explosion which leads to those creatures tending to do damage.
Your Lordships may remember that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, I think on Second Reading, referred to an experience he had when a farm worker went out night after night returning on almost every occasion, I think the noble Lord said, with a dead badger. Those of your Lordships who have experience of badgers will know that, by and large, you do not meet badgers if you are going for a casual walk through the woods with a gun on your arm: you have to wait outside the sett until the creature comes out, and if you shoot one you alarm his neighbours and they tend to go on to another site. That is not something you can, normally do night after night, and if you can, it means that there has been a considerable population explosion in the neighbouring badgers, probably resulting in their having to come out earlier than usual because the normal food supply is becoming insufficient for the population which exists. The next step with any large mammal is that it starts to do damage which it does not normally do, whether it be one of the larger predators, like a lion or a tiger, which when their natural food is not available turn to cattle or man-killing. In those cases, the person who will be authorised to take the appropriate steps will be the man whose property is likely to be damaged, as defined by the Amendment which I put down, as amended by the Amendment to my Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Arran.
During the Recess I was fortified in my feeling that this is the right way of dealing with badgers, because I went to a conference of the British Mammal Society where there were no fewer than 39 badger fans, and myself, and we went through this Bill clause by clause, and the Amendments which I knew were going to be moved one by one. We had there,

59
I suppose, with the exception of myself, 39 of the greatest experts on badgers in this country, and they were unanimously in agreement with the Bill as it will be if your Lordships agree to this Amendment and those which stand in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Arran, and in my name. I find that confirmation really valuable, and I hope that your Lordships will find it valuable, too. I beg to move.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, since the noble Earl has mentioned my name, I should like to say that I do not think there was any population explosion in the case which I mentioned. The man took a dog with him, which probably helped to bring the badgers up. But, in any case, whether there was or was not a population explosion in that case, it is a fact that animals tend at times to overbreed, and if one is going to preserve animals one must bear in mind that one also has to control their numbers. Therefore, I wholeheartedly support this Amendment.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I do not want at this stage to talk about the definition of the "authorised person"—which is dynamite, or was on the last occasion. The House will remember that during the Committee stage this Amendment was defeated largely because it was linked to an unsatisfactory definition of "authorised person". One way or another, I am now satisfied that the Bill has been sufficiently tightened up, notably by a prohibiting provision, and it will be further strengthened if the House accepts my Amendments to Lord Cranbrook's Interpretation Clause. I am therefore happy to advise your Lordships on this occasion to accept this Amendment, and the next Amendment, though I must stress that I am only prepared so to advise your Lordships on the basis that the House will later accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Cranbrook, is prepared to recommend, my suggested Amendments to his Interpretation Clause.
5.28 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I understood my noble friend Lord Cranbrook to say that he was speaking to this Amendment No. 11 and the following one, No. 12, and therefore I will take the opportunity to speak to both of them, because I think this will be for
60
the convenience of the House. Last time, as the noble Earl said, we had a long debate on both these Amendments, and particularly on Amendment No. 12. On considering the matter afterwards, I thought that perhaps I had not made it sufficiently clear to all noble Lords who have shown such a deep interest in this Bill that these two Amendments are some of the most important Amendments to the Bill, and particularly Amendment No. 12, which deals with authorised persons, because it is that Amendment which removes the Government's main objection to the original Bill as it stood. I should like to make it clear that both of these Amendments have the Government's full support, and I would recommend that the House should support them.
I do not think there is any need for me to say anything further on Amendment No. 11, which is quite clear, but perhaps I should elaborate the point about the "authorised person". Under subsection (1) of the Amendment an "authorised person"—which, by virtue of a definition that is included in a later Amendment, would include an owner or occupier—acting on the land that he owns or occupies would be permitted to kill or take badgers other than in areas of special protection. So by preserving owners' and occupiers' common law right to control wild animals on land they occupy, this Amendment would remove the Government's principal objection to the Bill. However, subsection (2) provides that such a person in an area of special protection shall have a very good defence to any charge of unlawfully killing or taking a badger if he can show that his action was necessary for the purpose of preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property, or for the purpose of preveting, the spread of disease. This is a completely acceptable defence.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, if I might interrupt the noble Baroness for a moment, am I right in thinking that the onus of proof would lie on the person?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, my understanding is that if an owner killed the badger in a protected area he would have a good defence if he could show that it was necessary for the protection of crops or for preventing the spread of

61
disease. That would be his defence. These provisions in subsections (1) and (2) follow the precedent in the Protection of Birds Act, under which an authorised person is permitted to kill wild birds listed in Schedule 2 to that Act, consisting of those species which may be harmful to agriculture but which are not in any way in danger, and he has a good defence against a charge of killing a protected bird, other than certain named species of very rare birds, if he can show that his action was necessary to prevent serious damage to crops or property.
Subsection (3) is really a reference to an earlier Amendment which has already been agreed to this afternoon. The Amendment moved to Clause 2 made it an offence to dig for a badger, subject to the provisions of this new clause. Subsection (3) of this clause provides that an authorised person shall have a good defence to any charge of unlawfully digging for a badger if he can show that his action, again, was necessary in order to prevent damage to land or crops. I have spoken at some length on this subject because I wish to make the position absolutely clear—that is, the legal position, as I understand it, and the position of the Government—so that there can be no possible misunderstanding on this point.
LORD BIRKETT: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Arran, has suggested that we should accept this Amendment and the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has said he will have no objection to Amendments 28 and 29. It is on that basis that we have a recommendation from the noble Earl, Lord Arran. Would it be quite out of Order to ask the noble Baroness whether the Government would have any objections to Amendments 28 and 29, so that we might all know exactly where we stand in relation to this Amendment?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I am not at all sure that I am not completely out of order in speaking on Amendments that have not yet been moved and on which we have not had any discussion, but I have no reason to suppose that the Government would have objections to these two Amendments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.32 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 4 insert the following new clause:
Exceptions for authorised persons
".—(1) Except within an area of special protection established by any order made under the foregoing section an authorised person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 1 of this Act by reason of the killing or taking or attempted killing or taking of any badger or by reason of injuring any badger in the course of taking it or attempting to kill or take it.
(2) Within an area of special protection established by any order made under the foregoing section an authorised person shall not be found guilty of an offence under section I of this Act by reason of the killing or taking or attempted killing or taking of any badger or by reason of injuring any badger in the course of taking it or attempting to kill or take it if he satisfies the court before whom he is charged that his action was necessary for the purpose of preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property or for the purpose of preventing the spread of disease.
(3) An authorised person shall not be found guilty of an offence under paragraph (c) of section 2 of this Act if he satisfies the court before whom he is charged that his action was necessary for the purpose of preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property or for the purpose of preventing the spread of disease."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I believe we have discussed this point already, but I should like just to stress that in both these cases the burden of proof that the taking or killing of the badger was necessary would, contrary to the other clauses of the Bill, lie on the person taking or killing the animal. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [General exceptions]:
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, in the absence of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, I trust I shall be in order in moving the Amendments standing in his name. They are drafting Amendments and they seem to improve the Bill very considerably. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, leave out from ("it") to end of line 6.—(Lord Allerton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 14:
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 8, after ("be") insert ("so").—(Lord Allerton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Licence to take badgers]:
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 20, after ("sell") insert ("or to have in his possession").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment and the following one are intended to meet the difficulty raised by the acceptance of an Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, on Committee stage, making it illegal to have a live badger in one's possession. These two Amendments would allow a licensee licensed by the appropriate Government Department to have a live badger in his possession. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, at the Committee stage Clause 3 was amended so as to make it an offence for any person to have in his possession a live badger. As my noble friend Lord Cranbrook has explained, there are some circumstances in which the possession of live badgers ought to be allowed, particularly for scientific purposes or in zoos. It is therefore necessary to provide that licences may be granted to authorise the possession of live badgers for certain purposes, which object is achieved by these two Amendments. I am glad to support both of them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I beg to move Amendment No. 16.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 23, after ("sell") insert ("or to have in his possession").—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.36 p.m.
LORD BURTON LORD BURTON moved Amendment No. 16A:
Page 2, line 39, leave out line 39.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must apologise for entering the fray at this late stage, but I was in Australia when the Second Reading debate took
64
place and was unable to come in Committee. Even now I am afraid that my Amendments are not on the Marshalled List but appear on a separate sheet. There are three Amendments, all of which are designed to ensure that this Bill should not apply to Scotland. The noble Earl, Lord Arran, asked me this morning why I had put down these Amendments. I think the reasons can be summarised on grounds with which your Lordships would all agree. First, we should not have more restrictions, rules or regulations than are absolutely necessary in this country; and secondly, the laws that are made should be so reasonable that one can reasonably expect the majority of people to comply with them.
Most of your Lordships are badger lovers and I agree that badgers are attractive creatures and should be reasonably preserved. However, the situation in Scotland is different from that in England. I am not aware of any badger digging in Scotland: few of us who live there have time for such an operation because we spend far too much time working. Then there is the question of badger numbers. Though I cannot speak for every part of the country, I suspect that numbers have markedly increased in Scotland. Certainly there are badgers now in many areas where there were none a few years ago. I believe that less than 100 years ago there were no badgers at all in Scotland. However, I must qualify that statement. Although I have no scientific proof and can go only by my own observation, I believe that the badger population fluctuates considerably from year to year. If one has a mild winter, the populations of mice, frogs and beatles upon which the badger feeds increase because they have not been killed off by severe weather. In the following spring Mrs. Brock will be in good condition after feeding well, and she will rear a large litter. But after a hard winter the food supply is diminished and one is left with a hungry badger population. However, barring annual fluctuations, the badger population in Scotland has increased, and therefore to introduce legislation to protect them would only mean unnecessary rules and regulations.
My second reason for putting down these Amendments is that I feel it would be unreasonable to apply the provisions of the Bill to many hill areas, and the law would almost certainly be widely broken.

65
Your Lordships may ask: "Why"? Some noble Lords may remember that a few years ago I moved an Amendment concerning a gin trap for otters. It appeared to have no ill effect. The same Act banned the gin trap for foxes in Scotland as from April 1 this year. I wonder whether April 1 was a significant date, because it certainly seems to have been a foolish thing to have done. Already during the last month there have been lambs and poultry unnecessarily killed by foxes. However, the legal methods left to us for fox destruction are few. Probably the most effective method, and in some cases the only one, is to destroy them in their dens (or "earths" as they are called in England) in the spring, when they have their cubs. Now the foxes are inclined to use the same places each year, so the search for them is limited, which as the spring is a busy time with lambing, et cetera, is, to say the least, fortunate. However, if badgers are busy on these hill areas they dig out fresh places for the foxes, and it may be long enough before they are found.
I remember one instance when for two years foxes were killing our lambs near the stalker's house and we could not find the den. Then one day, when one was out stag stalking, it was necessary to crawl up a burn, and there, only yards from the path, was an old badger sett which the foxes had been using. One could not see that from the path. Another complication which arises in the hills is when one is searching for foxes in the spring and the terriers go to ground where there are badgers. I know of a fox trapper who lost three terriers in one day as a result of injuries from badgers. I will not regale your Lordships with the gory details of this episode; but the terriers did not die quickly, and such a happening is not uncommon. The trouble is that usually the best terriers for foxes are the first to suffer, as they are usually the boldest. You can imagine the setback to fox control that such a loss of terriers can produce in an area. Thus, through your kindness and the love of the badger, if my Amendment is not accepted you may in fact increase cruelty.
My Lords, you can scarcely blame these hill men if they kill some badgers, and it scarcely seems right that they should be branded as criminals for merely protecting their livelihood, even if as a result of
66
today's Amendments it may be possible for them to prove themselves innocent. The noble Earl, Lord Arran, in introducing his Bill, said that it was a conservation measure. But with there being no argument on conservation grounds in Scotland, I cannot see the point of including Scotland in the terms of the Bill, Northern Ireland is not included—
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. I said it was a conservation measure and also an anti-persecution Bill. It has two purposes, two prongs, each one as important as the other. Perhaps the noble Lord may be forgetting the second part.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I am not forgetting the second part. I said that there is need for the badgers to be preserved but they cannot be persecuted in Scotland. One of the biggest causes for the deaths of badgers in England is the motorways. Regrettably, we are sadly short of motorways in Scotland. Frankly, I have never seen a badger which has been run over in Scotland; maybe there are a few. But the badger population has increased out of all proportion. As I said, I do not think there were any badgers a hundred years ago, but now they are all over Scotland. They are in areas where they cause trouble through no fault of their own, but they cause considerable trouble. Fox destruction is now becoming a serious problem for us and it will be considerably aggravated if we comply with the law and are not allowed to kill badgers in these hill areas.
5.43 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, perhaps it would not be inappropriate if I were to say something in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Burton. I did not like his opening argument when he said it was all right for England and Wales to have more rules and regulations but please do not apply them to Scotland—it is all right for the Sassenachs, but do not bring them North of the Border. That seemed to be the main contention of his argument. Then he said he was not aware that digging had been done in Scotland. He is not aware of it; but he is not unaware of it either. It may well have happened when he was in Australia and when we were dealing with this Bill. It is just that he was not here. I can tell him from more intimate experience that it

67
does and can happen. Also there is a danger of its happening.
I could not understand him when he said that the numbers fluctuate and because they fluctuate we should not do anything about it. I know a little about the noble Lord and I admire him in many ways. I can also think of how he rules his domain in the Highlands; I should like him to apply the fluctuation rule to deer and salmon. They fluctuate, but I have never known the noble Lord give us permission to pick them out and pull them out. Yet it is quite logical to apply that argument to badgers—and badgers only! I could not understand his argument that badgers might leave their setts and foxes might go in and, as a consequence, badgers present a threat to the countryside. I know a lot of good landlords who vacate their homes and give them over to tenants who are not quite so good, but I do not condemn the landlord because of that.
What the noble Lord is trying to do is convey to your Lordships that because the badger has given up his sett and foxes are going in, we should get rid of badgers. I cannot think of anything much more illogical than that. The badger has not done harm in Scotland: the noble Lord cannot say to your Lordships' House this evening that it has done harm. There are many of us in Scotland who have looked at badger setts and at the badger. Maybe they do a little harm; but that harm is infinitesimal so far as the countryside is concerned. Every account, every argument that the noble Lord put forward, is a very good reason for not accepting a single one of his Amendments.
5.46 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, I hesitate to interfere in a private war between two Scots; but as my mother was a Scotswoman perhaps I have some claim to take part. I find the noble Lord's argument almost totally incomprehensible. What does this Bill provide? Under Clause 2 it provides that you shall not be unnecessarily cruel to badgers. That must apply all over the United Kingdom, I hope. It provides that people shall not sell live badgers to be pets. We want that to be applied to both sides of the Border; we want restrictions on ring-
68
ing to be applied both sides of the Border. I should have thought that all the points that the noble Lord made are met by the clauses which we have agreed to this afternoon: where damage is being done, or likely to be done, the owner or occupier has a right to take the necessary steps to prevent its being done. The only places where he cannot kill badgers (save in the most important circumstances) is when it is thought by the Nature Conservancy that the badger is so rare that it needs total protection. I cannot believe that there are not parts of Scotland where badgers are rare and do not want total protection. I cannot see that it can do any more harm than in Scotland, however many badgers there are there, than it does in the counties of Wiltshire, Dorset and the like, where there are just as many badgers as there are, I imagine, anywhere in Scotland. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment and that your Lordships will not accept it if he does.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I should have thought that this Bill should extend to Scotland. But may we hear what Her Majesty's Government have to say about this matter?
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, since I was sitting here listening, doing nobody any harm—like, I understand, most badgers do nobody much harm—I was fascinated, as the lately much regrettably rejected Member for South Derbyshire, in listening to the noble Lord, Lord Burton, addressing us. If there was ever an absent badger which had left his sett, it must indeed be the noble Lord, Lord Burton, because he, or one of his predecessors, established a sett in South Derbyshire and used the water from the River Trent to produce a beer, and it appears he has now gone away, sometimes to Scotland and often to Australia, and arrives back and says that we must not allow the badger who has gone away to leave his sett unoccupied. On behalf of my ex-constituents—who, may I say, I do not love half as much as they say they love me—I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Burton, that it might have been better had he stayed at home and minded his own estate instead of dodging away and then quarrelling about who should do what with his badger setts.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I do not want to detain your Lordships but I gather than the Amendments—of which I have not been able to get a copy—exclude Scotland from the Bill. Why that should be so, I do not know, and I do not think there are any grounds for excluding Scotland. There are some things in the Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Burton, may not like, but the Bill certainly does a lot of good in regard to the publicity surrounding the cruelty of badger taking. This publicity and popular opinion will be far more forceful than any fines imposed under this Bill. I really do not see why we should tolerate this Amendment.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Arran, asked what would be the attitude of the Government to these three Amendments, and as I think I made clear on the Second Reading of the Bill the Government's attitude to a Private Member's Bill of this kind is one of neutrality. If I may say so, having listened to the recent exchange I think I should be wise to stay on that point. However, if the House decides, as a result of the passage of this Bill, that extra protection is necessary for the badger it would seem to be much more sensible to extend this throughout Scotland as well as England and Wales.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: And Australia, my Lords!
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, my advisers have consulted the Scottish Office and their advice is that it should extend to Scotland. Perhaps I should comment on the argument adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Burton (if I understood it correctly), about the need of farmers and landowners to protect their land. This point seems to me to have been well met by Amendment No. 12, which deals with authorised persons. As my noble friend Lord Cranbrook has said, owners and occupiers have a right to protect their property, and in an area of special conservation if their crops were being damaged, under this Amendment they could of course kill or take a badger. I think this entirely deals with the point and I can only tell the House that the attitude of the Government on this is that there is no reason at all for excluding Scotland.
LORD CAMOYS: My Lords, may I remind your Lordships and the noble Baroness that the badger does 95 per cent. good and 5 per cent. harm?
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I apologise, as it would seem that I must have been incoherent when moving my Amendment, but I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, deliberately took my comments considerably out of context. With regard to the fluctuation of numbers, I referred to an overall increase although the numbers might go down in some years, and I never said that although it was all right for England it was not all right for Scotland. I gave various reasons why it was not suitable for Scotland. In particular I pointed out the serious trouble that we experienced with the killing of terriers, and I quoted one particular instance. I have no doubt as to your Lordships' feelings in this regard and naturally I shall not press the Amendment, but there will be a considerable problem in the remote areas. The noble Lord opposite is shaking his head; I should like to know how often he has been out fox killing in the West Highlands. The noble Lord, Lord Brown, called me an "old badger". I have never been called an old badger before although I have been called an old fox.
LORD HOY: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I never did him the privilege of calling him an old badger.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, again the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, has misinterpreted my remarks. I said that the noble Lord, Lord Brown, had called me an old badger.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brown, is not here. He will be furiously angry. I was only saying that a fellow whose father and grandfather took the water out of the Trent, did nothing to it and made millions, and left their sett behind them—which is what is left of the Trent—is not the fellow who should be arguing about the badgers leaving their empty setts behind them. That is all I said—and may I point out that my name is not "Lord Brown".
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, Amendment No. 17 is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 45, leave out ("against this Act").—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Offender may be required to quit land]:
5.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, when this Amendment was accepted during the Committee stage of this Bill, the noble Baroness indicated that it might be desirable if all the penalties were contained in one clause. This Amendment and Amendment No. 22 are drafting Amendments for the purpose of achieving this. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 8, leave out from ("offence") to end of line 9.—(The Earl of Arran.)
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, as the noble Earl has just said, this matter was discussed at Committee stage and I then indicated that it would be better to have a separate clause for offences rather than to have one of them, as it were, as a sentence at the end of another clause dealing with something else. Amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 22 meet this point and I am glad to support this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, as the noble Baroness has suggested, I propose to move Clause 7 to a more suitable place; namely, after Clause 4. Your Lordships will realise that it is taken from a Bill which is before another place at this time. It is the trespassing clause, and it seems to fit very suitably with the offences clause, rather than where it at present stands in isolation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Transpose Clause 7 to after Clause 4.—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Enforcement, penalties, etc.]:
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move Amendment No. 20.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 11, leave out ("against") and insert ("under").—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, this is another drafting Amendment which is designed to improve the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 12, leave out from ("or") to ("and"), and insert ("article which that person may have with him",).—(Lord Allerton.)
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I strongly support this Amendment. We can put all the animals, vehicles, and so on under one umbrella phrase. It is a simplification.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, this is a very neat drafting Amendment and one which the Government are glad to support.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.0 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, Amendment No. 22 again is the Amendment to which the noble Baroness referred, intending to bring the penalties under one clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 19, leave out from ("offence") to end of line 20, and insert—

("(a) under section 7 of this Act shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £20.

(b) under any other section of this Act shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100:").—(The Earl of Arran.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, Amendment No. 23 is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 23 after ("under") insert ("paragraph (b) of").—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, Amendment No. 24 is again a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 27, leave out ("against") and insert ("under")—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 25:
After Clause 8 insert the following new clause:
Interpretation.
". In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the following meaning—
"authorised person" means—

(a) the owner or occupier, or any person shown to have been authorised by the owner or occupier, of any land on which the action authorised is taken;

(b) any person authorised in writing by the local authority for the area within which the action authorised is taken;

(c) any person authorised in writing by the Natural Environment Research Council or by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or, in Scotland, the Secretary of State;

so, however, that the authorisation of any person for the purpose of this definition shall not confer any right of entry upon any land;
"badger" means any animal of the species Meles meles."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is the Amendment to which I referred at an earlier stage and to which I do not think I need refer any more. It is self-explanatory as your Lordships read it, save perhaps for paragraph (b) which refers to a "local authority" and is to meet the case of certain commons, not the commonable commons which one finds in the North of England where probably the Lord of the Manor is the appropriate person, but there are certain commons where at the moment the rural district council is the appropriate authority. This will probably have to be amended in some way because the rural district councils will be responsible for it until April, 1974, when the new district councils will become responsible. That, I suspect, will have to be done by some method other than by this Bill at the moment, but it is to meet those cases that the words "local authority" are put in. I beg to move.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords, we now have Amendment No. 26, which is an Amendment to Amendment No. 25.
THE EARL OF ARRAN THE EARL OF ARRAN moved Amendment No. 26:
Line 2, at end insert (""ammunition" has the same meaning as in the Firearms Act 1968;").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I support the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, subject to my own Amendments Nos. 28 and 29. The noble Earl has defined "the authorised person". He (that is, the authorised person) is precisely what the Amendment states, subject to my own Amendments. In addition, the noble Earl has the denial of the right to trespass, which again I support. But now, on my own Amendments Nos. 28 and 29—are we discussing those Amendments?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Amendment No. 26.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: I am sorry, my Lords, we are discussing Amendment No. 26 now. That is consequential and I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, this Amendment in fact seeks to insert a paragraph which would prohibit the use of certain firearms and ammunition for the purpose of killing badgers, which is the Amendment which has already been passed; namely, Amendment No. 7. It is necessary, therefore, now that this has been agreed, to define the terms "firearm" and "ammunition" and this is achieved by these Amendments, to which the Government have no objection.
On Question, Amendment to Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY, moved as an Amendment to Amendment 25, Amendment No. 27:
Line 4, after first ("or") insert ("legal").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am told by an authority whom I should be inclined to accept without argument that this Amendment is unnecessary, but as it is on the Order Paper I should probably do well to put it to your Lordships. It is intended to insert the word "legal" before the word "occupier" in subsection (a) in my noble friend's Amendment so that it reads "the owner or legal occupier", the point being that, to my mind at any rate, an occupier may be a squatter, a gipsy or somebody who is simply occupying the land. On the other hand, for all I know it may be that "occupier" is itself a legal term and that to insert the word. "legal" would be an act of tautology and quite unnecessary. I think I am right in saying that my noble friend drafted these words into

75
his Amendment as a direct copy of words that appeared in the Protection of Birds Act. That does not mean that they are necessarily perfect. There may have been an error in that Act, for all I know. I should like guidance in this matter, perhaps from my noble friend on the Front Bench.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, I am informed that "occupier" is a perfectly normal legal word. It means what it appears to mean and comprises what it appears to comprise. This addition of the word "legal" is totally unnecessary. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, has now gone, so perhaps the noble Baroness would let us know whether I am correct in my assumption?
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, I am in full agreement with all these Amendments. Some of us are becoming slightly confused by the term "authorised person to kill badgers when necessary". As I see it, authorised people are owners or occupiers. I hope that one can have the assurance that a keeper or a shepherd would be an authorised person, because clearly they do it a great deal better than an owner or an occupier. Is that implicit in the Amendment by the noble Earl, Lord Arran?
LORD HOY: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, that it is always difficult, although I do not always agree that when we get legal opinion in your Lordships' House it is always correct. Very frequently their Lordships make mistakes the same as ordinary mortals. But I am certain that it would be to the benefit of your Lordships' House if the noble Baroness could give us the interpretation placed on it by the Home Office. Certainly it will help to clear our minds and certainly it will also take up less time if she were to do so now.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, my advice is that the term "occupier" is used in a number of Statutes and it is normally understood to mean the rightful occupier. It is therefore unnecessary to qualify the term. The expression "legal occupier" has no clear meaning and it would be much better to rely on the previous interpretation of the term "occupier", otherwise there could be
76
very considerable confusion. In fact, if my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery wishes to pursue this Amendment, the word "legal" ought to be put in the following line in front of the word "occupier" as well; otherwise he would be using "legal occupier" in line 4 and "occupier" in line 5. That would make for even further confusion. I should tell the House that this is not an Amendment that would be acceptable to the Government, and I hope that, my having explained this point, the House will understand why.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, would it be in order for me to answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, although we were talking on two different things? He asked who would be entitled to take a badger. The answer is that the owner or occupier of land, his servant and—if your Lordships accept my next Amendment—any person authorised in writing by the owner or occupier. I am sorry to break the thread of conversation, but I thought that I should make that quite clear.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, that is quite clear. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN THE EARL OF ARRAN moved, as an Amendment to No. 25, Amendment No. 28:
Line 4, leave out ("persons shown to have been authorised by") and insert ("servant of").
The noble Earl said: my Lords, this Amendment is connected with Amendment No. 29. It provides that the employee of the owner or occupier of land may act on his behalf, as would seem quite proper. In regard to Amendment No. 29—and the House will correct me if I am wrong in speaking to Amendment No. 29 also at this moment—I am particularly enthused by the words "new paragraph" which makes it necessary for an unauthorised person to get permission in writing—I say again, my Lords, "in writing"—from the owner or occupier. This will, to some extent at least, prevent the casual digger or taker from going about his fell work on the strength of a real or imaginary telephone call. It is, to my mind, an additional

77
deterrent, and I recommend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will accept these Amendments. They are an improvement on mine, and they are, I think, the one thing which has enabled us all to coo like sucking doves over this last stage of the Bill.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I wonder whether I might venture to make a point? Is it quite right yet, to say "servant of"? I am entirely in favour of the intention of the Amendment, and entirely at one with what my noble friend Lord Lovat said about gamekeepers and so on. But there are servants and servants. It seems to me that what is required here is something to make the point that the employee concerned—which I think is a better word—is acting with the authority of the owner who gives him the instruction. Otherwise it is possible for a man or a woman employed, say, as a gardener or a billiard-marker or whatever it may be, to persecute the badgers and to be justified in so doing under this Bill on the grounds that he is in fact a servant of the person on whose property the action takes place. That seems to me not to be the intention of the Bill, and it ought to be narrowed somewhat. Perhaps the noble Earl would consider holding this one in suspense.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, the effect of these Amendments is to tighten up the definition of "authorised person". The Amendments split into two parts the first paragraph of the definition of Lord Cranbrook's Amendment. The first would cover owners or occupiers of land on which the action authorised is taken and their servants, and the second would cover any other person authorised in writing by the owner or occupier of land on which the action authorised is taken. As I understand it, this would mean that anyone other than the owner of occupier or his bona fide employee would need to be in possession of a written note specifically authorising him to kill or take badgers on that land. I hope that will answer the point of my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery. Its effect would be to strengthen the means of enforcement against trespassers operating on land without proper authori-
78
sation by the owner or the occupier. But at the same time it would not detract from the owner's or occupier's freedom to authorise anyone he wished to kill or take badgers on his land. My information is that neither the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food nor my Department has any objection at all to this proposed alteration or to these Amendments.
On Question, Amendment to Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendment No. 29. I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
After paragraph (a) insert the following new paragraph—
("(aa) any person authorised in writing by the owner or occupier of any land on which the action authorised is taken;")—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Amendment to Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, Amendment No. 30 is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
After the definition of ("badger") insert—
(""firearm" has the same meaning as in the Firearms Act 1968;")—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Amendment to Amendment agreed to.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords, the Question is that Amendment No. 25, as amended, be agreed to.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, before we agree to this, which I may say I wholly accept, could I just make quite certain that this provides a means of controlling badgers where they have over-populated?
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, that is the intention. I should have thought it is bound to do it. It leaves it in the hands of the owner or occupier, who is the man who is most likely to be affected by too great a population, and he will be able to do it. I think we must bear in mind that it is possible for a man to allow animals which are becoming pests to increase so much that they become pests to his neighbours. The badger is not specified in the appropriate section of the Agriculture Act 1947 as one of those animals which the

79
Ministry of Agriculture can order a person to destroy if they are doing damage, but there is provision in that Act for the Minister to add other species to those specified in the Act at the moment. I have no doubt that the Minister or the Secretary of State has power to order a person who keeps too many badgers on his land, and doing damage to his neighbours, to destroy them, if he is refusing to do it himself.
On Question, Amendment No. 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 [Short title, extent and commencement]:
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I think it would be administratively inconvenient if this Bill, if it becomes an Act, were to come into force within one month. Many people might be engaged on many useful and important projects. I think probably the Home Office may feel that six months is necessary before the Act comes into force—I ask the noble Baroness. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 34, leave out ("one month") and insert ("six months").—(The Earl of Arran.)
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I hope very much that the House will agree to this Amendment, because Amendments have been made to the Bill prohibiting the possession of live badgers except under licence. Anyone, therefore, who has a live badger in his possession when the Bill is passed will have to obtain a licence, or dispose of the badger before the date when the Act comes into effect. One month is really a very short time for this to be done and for the licensing machinery to be set up. Six months is a much more realistic period. I therefore support this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

FURNISHED LETTINGS (RATEABLE VALUE LIMITS) ORDER 1973
6.18 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I beg to move the Furnished Lettings (Rateable Value Limits) Order 1973. This is a technical Order which is needed to enable the tenants of furnished flats and houses first entered in
80
the valuation list on or after April 1 this year to have access to rent tribunals where this was available to tenants of similar dwellings entered in the valuation list before the revaluation became effective on that day. It is Section 71(1) of the Rent Act 1968 which sets out the rateable value limits above which dwellings are excluded from the provisions of Part VI of that Act. Part VI is the part which relates to furnished lettings, and tenancies of dwellings outside its scope do not come within the jurisdiction of the rent tribunals. Below the limits tenants can apply to rent tribunals for consideration both of rent and of security of tenure. Rent tribunals can confirm, reduce or increase rents, and grant up to six months' security of tenure at a time, often by deferring a notice to quit. Such periods of security can be extended or renewed.
The rateable value limits at present set out in Section 71(1) of the Act are £400 for dwellings in Greater London and £200 elsewhere in England and Wales on the appropriate day. The appropriate day is defined by Section 6(3) of the Rent Act. It is either March 23, 1965, or whatever subsequent date the dwelling was first entered in the valuation list. As the tone of the valuation list had been maintained since the last revaluation in 1963, the figures of £400 and £200 maintained the same level of protection until April 1 this year. Anyone taking up a new tenancy after 1965 enjoyed the same protection as someone whose tenancy already existed on March 23, 1965. The rating revaluation which took effect on April 1 increased the rateable values of residential accommodation on average by a factor of 1 to 2·56. Thus, if a dwelling which was first entered in the valuation list on March 31 had a value of £400, it would typically have had a rateable value of £1,000 if first entered in the list on April 1. It follows therefore from this that, in order to bring properties first entered in the valuation list on or after April 1 within Part VI of the Rent Act on the same basis as if there had been no rating revaluation, the rateable value limits in Section 71 need to be amended with effect from April 1. To maintain comparability, the new limits effective from April 1 should be £1,000 in Greater London and £500 in the rest of England and Wales, in place of the old £400 and £200.

81
I should make clear at this point, to correct any misunderstanding which might arise, that making this Order to deal with new dwellings has no effect whatsoever on existing protected tenancies which retain the protection they have always had. To maintain the status quo for dwellings newly entered in the valuation list, it was necessary to amend Section 71(1) of the Rent Act 1968. Power was accordingly taken in Section 89 of the Housing Finance Act 1972 to alter by Order the rateable value limits for protection. This Order was to be made by September 1, 1973, after an Affirmative Resolution. The transitional provision included in the Order is simply to allow the continuance of Section 79 of the Rent Act 1968 under which, if owner-occupiers letting their property furnished on a temporary basis gave notice in writing before a certain date, they may be exempted from the security provisions in Sections 77 and 78 of the Rent Act 1968 dealing with Part VI contracts. That is not a very important point, my Lords. In these circumstances, a tenant cannot apply to the rent tribunal for consideration of security. While this Order maintains comparability rather than introducing any new protection, it has important effects. There is still a considerable market in furnished accommodation and it is common for newly converted flats with new rateable values to be let for the first time. This Order ensures that these tenancies will receive the same protection as similar existing tenancies, and to provide such protection. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Furnished Lettings (Rateable Value Limits) Order 1973, laid before the House on April 16, be approved.—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
6.24 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, the House will appreciate the careful explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, about the significance of this Order. It was very right and proper that that explanation should be given and should be available in the records of the House, because the Order as it is printed and, indeed, the Explanatory Note will be of very little help to the ordinary layman. Indeed, it strikes me as being almost double-Dutch.
82
But the noble Lord has given meaning to the words set out and we are grateful to him. One hopes that what he said will be noted outside the House, because although there are many features of the Housing Finance Act which we on this side dislike very much indeed, in so far as this Order gives relief where it is needed, we welcome it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

OVERSEAS PENSIONS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons on Wednesday April 18 last with Amendments; one of the said Amendments printed pursuant to Standing Order No. 48; the remaining Amendment (Privilege) agreed to.