Lords Sitting of 20 June 1975

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.
The Viscount Portman—Took the Oath.
The Lord Geddes—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY LICENCES
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why the Civil Aviation Authority are phasing out their responsibility of licensing aircraft engineers; whether they will reconsider this decision in the interests of flight safety; and, if not, what safeguards have been made to ensure a level of training among airline operators compatible to the unified standards, demanded by the approved maintenance scheme.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority to decide and Her Majesty's Government have not yet received any recommendation from the Authority. The Authority, however, do not intend to phase out their responsibility for licensing aircraft engineers. The proposed changes which are intended to contribute to safety, while providing for a change from individual to corporate responsibility for the overall maintenance task, would also introduce substantial safeguards by way of control by the Airworthiness Division of the Authority over those organisations which would achieve CAA approval for this task. Such safeguards would include for the first time minimum CAA licence qualifications for all engineering staff employed by these organisations, which provide certification required by the Air Navigation Order.
1080
Further, a meeting has been held between the Airworthiness Requirements Board, who are by Statute the advisers to the Authority in such matters, and representatives of aircraft maintenance engineers. At this meeting some suggested amendments were proposed which are now being considered by the Authority. The Authority have not come to any final decision on the matter. It is hoped that a decision will be reached within a few months.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Does he agree that there would be very genuine concern if there were any lowering of the present maintenance standards and, indeed, of the qualifications of the engineers? As the present proposals are almost identical to those which were being considered in 1968, can the noble Lord say what are the changed circumstances? Secondly, can the noble Lord say whether, if it is decided to proceed with the changes, an order will be laid before the House to amend Article 9 of the Air Navigation Order?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as regards standards, the intention is to raise not lower them. Regarding the technical points about re-laying Orders, et cetera, may I write to the noble Lord about the matter?
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, finally may I ask the noble Lord whether the British Airline Pilots' Association will also be consulted during the consultation period?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I imagine that all the people concerned will be consulted.

ELECTORAL REFORM
11.10 a.m.
Lord ALPORT: 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 when, following Lord Harris of Greenwich's statement in the debate of 23rd April, it is intended to institute an examination of the reform of the electoral system by means of a Speaker's Conference or otherwise.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, the Prime Minister hopes shortly to initiate consultations between the leaders of the Parties about reconvening a Speaker's Conference, and one of the matters for consideration will be whether such a Conference should examine the question of electoral reform.
Lord WADE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is now widespread recognition of the need for electoral reform? In the light of this, should not the first step be a clear statement of principle in favour of reforming the electoral system, and would it not then be appropriate to set up some body—not necessarily a Speaker's Conference—to study the details and to report to Parliament without delay?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the noble Lord will recall that this matter was debated in the House on 23rd April. On that occasion the matter was gone into in very considerable detail, and I do not wish today to add anything to what I said then.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that when the noble Lord talked about "widespread support" he was talking about a widespread propaganda campaign which is being waged at the present time in favour of electoral reform? Also, will he bear in mind the very great danger that under such a system as the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches proposes, it might turn out that a very small minority Party in this country could wield the ruling power in Parliament?
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask the Government whether they realise that this is not a pure propaganda campaign, but that there is very widespread feeling throughout the country that this matter should be examined? It would be a great mistake to take the point of view of the noble Lord who has just spoken, and take a pre-judged view of the matter, until it has been properly examined.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I have noted the views expressed by the noble Lord opposite who initiated the debate in April, and by my noble friend. However I repeat, in the light of what I have said today, that I do not
1082
think it is appropriate for me to add anything.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is taking into consideration the effect of different kinds of representation in other countries, the unfortunate result of which is that in some of them the direct representation of the people in the constituencies is very severely damaged by other methods, and that our method is as good as any that you can find anywhere?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, this is no doubt one of the matters which could be discussed at the Speaker's Conference.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, had not we all better keep open minds if the matter is to be examined?
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, are the Government aware that in Scotland there is a very strong feeling in favour of proportional representation to be applied to the proposed Assembly?

BEEF IMPORTS FROM BOTSWANA
Lord HALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the maximum allowance for the current allocation period for exports of beef from Botswana to Britain under the Lomé Convention, what amount is estimated to be imported, what is the gross amount of the levy and by whom it is initially paid.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the present arrangements for trade in beef between the European Economic Community and the countries covered by the Lomé Convention allow Botswana to send a maximum of 7,567 metric tons of beef to the Community in the period up to and until 31st August 1975. The whole of this allocation has now been licensed for import. The latest estimate is that around 3,200 tons have been imported. About £1 million has been paid in levy so far by the importer.
Lord HALE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, and

1083
being grateful for the re-assuring answer given by my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts to the observations of my noble friend Lord Brockway in the debate on Wednesday, may I ask whether he realises that there appears to be some apprehension about the Lomé Convention? Does he realise that it is reported that the cattle ranchers are being called upon to pay the levy in advance and to have it repaid later—no easy matter in a country with a population of about three per square mile and limited communications—and that it is of the greatest possible importance, in view of the important developments taking place in Botswana and our very old association with the President (not invariably happy, but that was not his fault) for us to take every step to provide a re-assuring organisation to a country whose production of beef is liable to be very seriously affected by drought?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, of course we note carefully what my noble friend has said. Her Majesty's Government are fully aware of the problems caused by the present arrangements. Indeed, that some action might be required was foreseen by the Lomé Convention. We believe that the Community has a moral obligation to ensure a rapid and satisfactory solution. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will be raising the matter at next Tuesday's meeting of the Council of Foreign Affairs.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, is it not the case that we can now bring pressure to bear in the Community to iron out anomalies of this kind, now that we are staying in?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords. I am sure that what my noble friend has said is right.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while welcoming the fact that the Government are to take up this matter with the European Community, may I ask the Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the apparently authoritative statement in the Press that Botswana has not been paid for its beef imports since last March? In view of the distress among the farmers in Botswana, if this is true can Her Majesty's Government expedite the payment?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I will certainly look into what my noble friend has said. My information is that about £1 million has so far been paid in levy by the importer and that this is about half of Botswana's total return.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, can the noble Lord give any indication whether the current allocation of beef—to which the original Question referred—is greater or less than it was before Botswana had the advantage of the Lomé Convention?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the quotas are based on the quantities sent by each country to the Community countries in their best year over the period 1969 to 1974.

EGYPT: SUPPLY OF ARMS
11.16 a.m.
Lord SHINWELL: 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 a request has been received from the Government of Egypt for a supply of military weapons and equipment and with what result.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, it has not been the normal practice of successive Governments to discuss individual requests or reports about the sale of British defence equipment.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the provision of arms to Egypt in the present situation is a clear departure from frequent declarations by successive Wilson Governments since 1967 that they would not interfere to upset the balance of military strength in the Middle East? Is he also aware that President Rabin made a brief visit to London the other day to make a protest to the Foreign Secretary, and also that the British Board of Deputies has made a protest? Am I to understand that these submissions will not be considered?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: On the contrary, my Lords, we are always

1085
most meticulous about considering anything which the Israeli Government, and indeed the distinguished representatives of the Jewish community in this country, have to say to us. Our over-riding objective in the Middle East is a lasting settlement of the dispute between Arabs and Israelis. We remain completely committed to Resolution 242, the purport of which my noble friend understands very well, and also Resolution 338 which calls for meaningful talks leading to a comprehensive settlement. I have taken full note of what my noble friend has said and can assure him that there is no departure at all from the consistent, even-handed policy which successive British Governments have adopted in this matter.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that following the 1967 war, when a request was made by the Israeli Government for military weapons for which they had actually paid, the request was refused and those weapons were only delivered long after the war was over?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I do not wish to engage in a discussion of details of this kind of exchange and this kind of contract. However, I would repeat that we consider requests for arms from the Middle East, from whatever quarter the applications come, only in accordance with our policy of seeing that any supplies we make available do not endanger the achievement of a solution in the light of our judgment of the long-term policies of the State in question. This policy has been enunciated in close detail in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of State, particularly on 10th June 1974.
Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of us who are deeply concerned about the survival of Israel are by no means anti-Arab? Is he also aware that we understand the pressures on the Government? But will he, in return, make clear that he understands the pressures on Israel and the Israeli Ministers, and if we look at the balance of power in the world at the present time—the enormous strength and wealth of the Arab world, and the
1086
pressures that are being put on Israel from America? Does the noble Lord not feel that the Israeli Government had some justification in believing that the balance is being tipped against them?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I welcome the tone and content of what the noble Baroness has said. I can assure her and the House that Her Majesty's Government fully understand the proper concern of the Israeli State and people for their survival within secure and guaranteed boundaries.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, will my noble friend take into consideration the fact that Egypt has obtained a large supply of arms, from both the East and the West? It surely cannot be for the purpose of defence, because Egypt has no fear of any attack, certainly not by Israel. Is he aware that, in the circumstances, any supply of arms would be regarded as a real attack on Israel's situation? Might I also ask my noble friend whether, in the deliberations that take place, it would not be proper for Her Majesty's Government to suggest that the vast flow of money going into Arab States from the oil blackmail at the present time might be used for the benefit of the people of Egypt and the other countries, instead of for the purpose of proliferating wars?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Janner is fully entitled to take the view he does and, to some extent, we would all agree with him. Certainly, I think we would all agree with the latter part of his observations. It is far better, in the Middle East as elsewhere, that whatever wealth there is—and there is considerable wealth—should be devoted to constructive purposes on the basis of toleration in that country.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, does my noble friend realise that his answers to this Question have been ambiguous and unsatisfactory, for which I hold him blameless. I blame the Government as a whole. Is he aware that one gets a little tired and a little disgusted at the frequent declarations of friendliness by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary for the State of Israel, which, in view of what has happened, seems to me to amount to sheer hypocrisy?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I very much regret that my noble friend, for whom I have great respect, should take this view of what my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have said. I should think it is perfectly clear—and has been for years—that there is full sympathy and support by my right honourable friends and, indeed, by this Government, as by their predecessors, for the survival and security of Israel. This cannot be achieved by a one-sided attitude. It can best be achieved by a comprehensive settlement based on an evenhanded approach to this difficult and complex question.
Lord BYERS: Nevertheless, my Lords, will the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, accept that there are many of us in this House who are distinctly worried about the recent turn of events, and the upsetting of the balance of power in the Middle East by the action of Her Majesty's Government in supplying arms to Egypt?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has said. However, it is not our intention, nor do I think it will be the result of our attitude and policy, that the balance of power will be disturbed through any action of ours.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend this question, and I do so as one who is not a friend of Egypt? If Egypt wants to buy arms, is it not desirable from a diplomatic point of view that she should buy them from us or some other Western country, rather than from Soviet Russia, with all that that means?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, there is a very great deal to be said for that view.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, is one right in understanding from an earlier reply to a supplementary that any request from a country in the Middle East for arms to be supplied will be considered, and that no request will not be considered simply because of the place from which the request is made?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the noble Earl put more precisely what I endeavoured to say in
1088
answer to an earlier supplementary. We shall consider every request from whatever quarter, against the background of our policy and intention that anything we do in this matter will not endanger the prospect of a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, will the noble Lord say to what extent the terms of payment are taken into consideration when requests are received for the supply of arms?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, to an appropriate extent. But I repeat that the main consideration is what effect any decision we take will have on the prospects for a general settlement in the area.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Earl of Selkirk to advance the Second Reading of the Divorce (Scotland) Bill from Friday the 27th to Thursday the 26th of June.—(Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WILD CREATURES AND WILD PLANTS PROTECTION BILL
11.27 a.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Earl of Listowel in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Restriction on killing etc. protected wild creatures]:
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, leave out (", takes or reduces into possession ") and insert (" or takes").
The noble Lord said: With this Amendment, by leave of the Committee, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 2, 4, 8, 9, 10 and 11. All these would delete the reference to the offence of reducing into possession from the provisions of Clauses 1 and 6. I am advised that the expression "reduces into possession" for all practical purposes does nothing to the meaning of the word "take". Therefore, it is unnecessary and should be deleted throughout the Bill. This would bring the Bill into line with the legislation covering birds, seals and badgers, all of which use the term "takes". I beg to move.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: This is a very appropriate Amendment, and I hope the Committee will agree to it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT: I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, leave out (",take or reduce into possession ") and insert (" or take ").—[Lord Melchett.]
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 11, after (" shown ") insert (" by him ").
The noble Earl said: This is a purely drafting Amendment, intended to make explicit what is now implicit in the Bill. It is a little tidier. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: I thank the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, for accepting my Amendments, and return the favour.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MELCHETT: I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 11, leave out from (" killed") to (" otherwise") in line 12 and insert (" or taken ")—(Lord Melchett.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord HALE: I have not spoken on the Amendments because they were all slight improvements. I am strongly in favour of the objects of the Bill and grateful to those responsible for it for
1090
introducing it today. But I should like to make one observation about the minatory character of all this. Taking the last paragraph of the clause, which is a standard clause for protection of the farmers, I have been a poultry farmer myself—my only venture in agriculture—and I came to know a lot about poultry diseases, and not much else. I wonder what it is for. We have just been talking about taking into possession.
Let me come back to poultry first, if I may. What threat to poultry is involved in the blue butterfly or the wild orchid; how can it possibly have any relevance to the provisions of the latter clauses of the Bill? What are the animals in Schedule 1 which can in any circumstances be a threat to poultry? The Bill seems to have a mass of exceptions which completely eliminate the major offenders. I do not know whether I am in order in pursuing this point. It always seems to me more convenient to put one collective point at the appropriate stage than to keep popping up and talking about the toad and the blue butterfly which is a rather special type. The Bill is full of clauses in which we are told of the powers of a police constable, who has probably never seen a large blue butterfly in his life, because that is one of the rarest of all the species. It cannot be much protected by preventing the slaughter of the butterfly, because its own development depends on the presence of wild thyme and of ants to assist in incubation, a most elaborate and fascinating process which is very rare.
What about "take into possession"? We are told that every effort is to be made to educate children in the love of flowers and animals; that is being done now, and, I hope, being done well. I am not quite sure whether it assists very greatly if their attention is focused on the very rare species which stimulate the desire to collect. Classes are given in herpetology where lads are encouraged to prepare aquaria at home to collect some of these animals. So the first victim of prosecution is likely to be a lad who picks up the wrong kind of toad or the wrong kind of snail. This very unhappy form of toad seems to lead the most miserable life and existence. It is nonselective in its habitat because it has not now got the courage to select the

1091
habitat with the care and the precision which is shown by the more intelligent toads. It is liable to be killed by a motor car if it crosses the road. Its favourite habitat is the South Devon and Dorset Coast, which is also mine; it cannot go down there, because, of course, the whole place is being dug up and built on, and I cannot go there because I have got no money; so we suffer in a similar way.
Later on we come to the blue butterfly, which is not found in most parts at all now; indeed it is fair to say that it is so reduced that there is very limited habitat. A constable can wander about a field; see a shapely young lady handling a net; arrest her on reasonable grounds of suspicion for pinching a blue butterfly; search her in her country clothing on the spot. This is not a humorous contribution; I am trying to speak with the greatest possible gravity. All the constable has to show is that he has reasonable cause. Well, many people have reasonable cause for searching young ladies. If you are really going to take that case to court, and she is going to say "It was a hairnet "—
Lord MELCHETT: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, I shall be moving an Amendment, No. 17, which will to some extent deal with the points which my noble friend is raising on the Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part. I wonder whether he would like to come back to this when we reach Amendment No. 17.
Lord HALE: Yes; and I am grateful to the noble Lord. What I was going to say is that the spirit of some of this Bill is like taking the Leeds football enthusiasts and giving them lessons on how to stroke railway carriages and make a pet of the cushions. It can be counter productive. I passionately share the desire of the authors of the Bill to protect every rare species that we can and to take whatever reasonable steps that can be taken. But I do not think that having the clerk of the county council examining everything, duties being spread and new offices being created, is necessary. I should have thought that this was the real model of a Bill I have been hoping to see all my political life in which we say, "We are going to give new warnings; we are going to pass menacing Statutes, but we are not
1092
going to lug in the police court and have anti-nature societies financing appeals to the Court of Appeal, and the Court of Appeal considering whether the constable had reasonable cause, or considering whether the man knew that it was this odd type toad or this rare kind of butterfly when he took it away ".
The EARL of CRANBROOK: I do not know whether your Lordships would wish me to make another Second Reading speech on whether the clause shall stand part. I would merely remind the noble Lord that the dangers against which this clause is directed are those of the deliberate taking and killing without reasonable excuse, and are aimed at the professional, either paid or unpaid, collector. If some small boy takes the wrong toad or the wrong butterfly by mistake, I do not think he would be prosecuted. if he was, I think the words "without reasonable excuse" would probably cover him. The point made by the noble Lord is one which could be made about absolutely every conservation measure which protects any wild creature or any wild plant of any sort. I do not believe the dangers which he fears really do exist. I think this is the best way of dealing with the problem we have to face.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I will not detain the Committee very long. Adding a little to the clarification of whether the clause shall stand part, looking at Clause I. lines 15 to 20, all it means, in very simple English once again, is that a farmer or anybody will not be guilty of any of these offences if he is, in his belief, preventing serious damage to land, crops, chickens—I use the word "chickens" because I think that is clearer—or any other form of property. Take that one phrase, "any other form of property ". On my little smallholding in West Wales which I was once interested in, the problem was the hedges and ditches. If a badger had holed up in any of those, I would have been able to kill, shoot, or maim any wild creature at will. Consequently, this clause is wide enough for a juggernaut—and we see so many of them—to run through. Finally, all this talk about little boys picking up toads. Most little boys today, in this materialistic system of society in which we live, never have the joy which I had, of putting a toad in teacher's pocket. I am also quite sure that a good many do not know what

1093
a toad is, because we are building a system of society so materialistic that the nearer to the sky the buildings the further from heaven do the people living in them become. Consequently, we want to have some other philosophical discussion some lovely Friday morning to develop the wonderful argument raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hale. I think the Committee has listened to me enough, and I will sit down.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Restriction on sale of protected wild creatures.]:
11.40 a.m.
Baroness BERKELEY Baroness BERKELEY moved Amendment No. 5.
Page 1, line 24, after (" Act ") insert (" or any skin or skeleton of such creature")
The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Somers, who is unable to be present today, I beg to move the Amendment standing in his name, to include the words "or any skin or skeleton of such creature." If these words were added better protection would be given to the wild creatures listed in the Schedule. This is necessary as there is a good deal of trade in rare animals. High prices are paid by collectors who may not be too particular in the way that they add to their collections of rare species, either alive or dead, skeleton or skins.
This kind of trade is most undesirable, and it is to be hoped that the clause in the Bill will do much to restrain and control this type of sale, if not entirely stopping it at once. I hope that my noble friend Lord Cranbrook will agree to the addition of Clause 2, as I think it would strengthen the Bill. I trust that Her Majesty's Government will see fit to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: As the noble Baroness has said, this Amendment will restrict the sale of the skin or skeleton of any creature of a species specified in Schedule 1 of this Bill. As the clause stands, the sale of live or dead creatures is restricted.
But it seems likely that stuffed animals and skeletons would not be covered because they would be regarded as part of animals rather than as whole animals. There may well be some trade between
1094
dealers and collectors in stuffed creatures of protected species, so it seems desirable to close this loophole. There is a similar provision in the Protection of Birds Act 1954, to restrict the sale of the skins or plumage of wild birds. The one reservation I have is that I am not sure that we have the most elegant form of wording in the Amendment of the noble Baroness, but if necessary I will undertake to bring forward a Government Amendment at the next stage. In the meantime, I would urge your Lordships to accept this Amendment.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: I ask the Committee to give a little further consideration to this Amendment. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, said that this Bill was mainly for collectors, but in fact it must affect a large number of the general public. The Amendment refers to anyone who,
" without reasonable excuse sells, offers for sale or has in his possession for sale … any skin or skeleton of such creature "—
or reptile mentioned in Schedule 1. I am not very knowledgeable as to where the smooth snake lives or what are its habits, but I know that if I find a snake, smooth or rough, on my property it gets a good knock on the head.
Someone goes into a shop and buys a snakeskin purse, or a snakeskin pair of shoes—perhaps from the snake that has been knocked on the head on my property. So far as I can see, under this clause that member of the public would be guilty, and equally the taxidermist who sells it would be guilty. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, shakes his head. I hope that he will be able to reassure me on this, because otherwise we are imposing on the public the possibility of committing an offence, which they would do innocently and because of the undue width of the proposed Amendment.
Lord MELCHETT: I wonder whether I could clear up a point. As I understand it, the "without reasonable excuse" provision in Clause 2 would provide a defence for actions arising from mistaken identification. In case somebody else raises it, maybe it would be helpful if I add that anyone in possession of skins before the passing of the Act would not commit an offence. Perhaps I can reassure the noble Lord and tell him that

1095
smooth snakes are not poisonous, and there is certainly no need for anyone to hit them on the head.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: That is no real reply. I am not concerned with someone who already has a skin before this Act is passed. I am concerned with the possible commission of a misdemeanour by someone who buys a smooth snakeskin fabricated into a particular appliance. I do not object to the skeleton part of this Amendment, but I think that the skin part goes far too far, and I trust that the Committee and the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will consider whether it would not be wiser to omit "skin" while leaving "skeleton" in the Bill.
Baroness GAITSKELL: The Minister said that no one need hit on the head a snake which is not poisonous. I once found a snake in my dustbin and I hit it on the head because I did not know whether it was poisonous or not. It happened to belong to a collector next door, and I was mortified when I found that it was not poisonous.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: The sort of reaction which some people have in response to a snake, "Here is a stranger. Heave half a brick at him ", does not seem to me to have any reasonable excuse for it. I am glad that the noble Baroness has learned by bitter experience that it is a most unreasonable thing to do, and I hope that my noble friend will learn the same. As to the possibility of somebody buying a pair of shoes made of snakeskin derived from a smooth snake or any of the creatures which could be protected under this Bill, if it becomes an Act, I would remind the noble Lord that the creature is not more than an inch in diameter. I suppose it would make an admirable finger stall, but you would need to have so many and the skin is so tender that if you bought a pair of shoes made of it, or even a lady's handbag, it would probably disintegrate before you got home. I think that "reasonable excuse" covers the matter, and I hope that noble Lords will agree with this Amendment.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: I find it a little difficult to understand why there should be any serious objection to this
1096
Amendment, because the noble Baroness has made it perfectly clear that its purpose is to deal with trade in the skin or skeleton. The Bill itself says:
" … any person without reasonable excuse sells, offers for sale or has in his possession for sale …"
That surely does not include the person who happens to have something in his house, because he is not offering it for sale. It is stated clearly in the original Bill that it is the sale which is being prohibited, or the intention to sell. I should have thought that the noble Baroness's Amendment is perfectly sensible in bringing in just that little extension to this clause which will, or may, prevent unscrupulous people from actually intending to sell the skin or any other part of an animal.
Lord MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: I think that my noble friend Lord Balfour's worry about the skins in this case is not necessary. I quite agree, and I imagine all your Lordships would agree, that as Schedule 1 stands at the moment it is unlikely that this point is going to arise. One of the beauties of this Bill is that the Secretary of State is able to add to it at any time other creatures which may at some time or other become in need of protection. It could well be that an animal which had a more attractive skin for commercial purposes might have to be added. Therefore, I strongly advise the Committee that "skin" as well as "skeleton" should be in, in case another animal is included later on.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
11.50 a.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 27, at end insert—
(" (3) Where by virtue of an order made under section 7 of this Act certain members only of a species of wild creature are specified in Schedule 1 to this Act, subsection (1) of this section shall not apply in the case of a member of that species which is not so specified.')
The noble Lord said: Perhaps your Lordships would consider this Amendment in relation to Amendments Nos. 13 and 18 which deal with the same problem. The three together fill a gap which now exists in the Bill, the necessity for filling which was brought to my

1097
attention shortly after the Wild Creatures Bill was first presented in this House, when it was pointed out to me that it was the considered opinion of most scientists that the pearl mussel, which has a wide distribution throughout Northern Europe, was becoming exceedingly rare not only in this country but throughout the whole of Northern Europe, probably by pollution to a considerable extent but also by over-exploitation, and it was suggested to me that it should be added to the Schedule as a protected species.
When I looked into the matter I found that the position was not quite so simple because there has been a pearl fishery in this country since Roman times and, having consulted my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, I was able to look it up in the original Latin and eventually to find a crib which enabled me to translate into English a number of references to it, but I will not trouble your Lordships with that. The Romans did not think very much of British pearls, which they looked on as being largely yellow or lead colour and nothing like so good as those in the Red Sea. Nevertheless, there has been a small pearl fishery in this country for the better part of 2,000 years and I was able to see a pearl fisher doing his work. I was interested to see that he was probably using the method which his ancestors, who were doubtless covered with wood at that time, used in Roman times, picking them off the bottom of the river with an ash plant cut from a neighbouring hedge and split down the middle so that it made a pair of pincers.
What is interesting about what the professionals do is that they pick the animal from the bottom of the river open it, feel for pearls and then chuck it back and the poor thing dies, but they do not take the smaller ones, those under three inches long. It is obviously a highly destructive fishery because the animal is inevitably killed, but the smaller ones, which they say do not often contain pearls, are sufficient to maintain the population. I have little doubt that with the amount of pearl fishing which takes place at the moment, if that were universally done, the industry at its present very low level could continue without much trouble.
Unfortunately—I received this information from a number of people in Scotland and I daresay that noble Lords who come from North of the Border will be able to confirm this—this has now become a sport for amateur skin-divers. Your Lordships will know that where amateur skin divers have started doing this kind of thing in other countries—I suppose the worst examples are the Mediterranean, the East coast of Malaya, the East coast of Africa and various areas like that—incalculable damage has been done and all those countries are having to introduce legislation to control it. If there is continued predation by people who do not know what they are about and who take all the smaller mussels which the professionals have been throwing back, the animal could be reduced to a very low ebb and perhaps be in danger within a very short time. Once something like this becomes fashionable an enormous number of people take it up and the damage is done very quickly.
These three Amendments will allow an animal not to be protected entirely but to be protected by size or sex, and if it is found that skin-diving increases to the extent which I fear it may, protection of the smaller ones should do the trick and the status of the animal will be prevented from deteriorating. There is a gap in the Bill in this respect and I hope your Lordships will agree to fill it.
11.55 a.m.
Lord MELCHETT: It might be helpful if I gave the Committee a preliminary idea of the Government's view of this series of Amendments. The Bill already allows the Secretary of State to add all members of a species to Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 by Order. The effect of Amendment No. 13 would be to allow him in suitable cases to add only such members as may be described by reference to their size or sex. Amendment No. 18 would require the Nature Conservancy Council to offer appropriate advice in these cases. Amendment No. 6 would amend the provision restricting sale by making it legal to sell such members of a species as are not protected by the Order. This Bill has been described by several speakers as being a simple specific measure designed to afford strong protection to a limited list of truly endangered species. These Amendments

1099
extend the Bill significantly by introducing the concept of partial protection. I am afraid that such a facility may prove complex to operate and will add to the already considerable problems of enforcement, which I think have been acknowledged throughout the Bill's passage in the other place and on previous occasions when we have discussed the measure in your Lordships' House.
I have sympathy with the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, in his aim to make the Bill as flexible as possible to deal with future eventualities. But I do not find it easy to conceive of situations, apart from the one the noble Earl mentioned, either real or hypothetical, where such a facility would be useful. It might be useful to the Committee if the noble Earl would provide some examples of other instances where he thinks this series of Amendments would be used. As your Lordships will have gathered, I have some strong reservations on these Amendments and similarly on the concept of protection for certain periods of time, which we have yet to discuss, but I will listen with interest to the views of other Members of the Committee.
Lord CRAIGTON: I hope your Lordships will accept the Amendment and that the Minister will think about it again. If this Amendment were applicable to the public as a whole, I would agree entirely with what he said, but we are making a Bill not for today but for tomorrow to protect species which may not be threatened at present but which may be threatened. We do not know entirely what will happen and all that my noble friend is asking is that the representations made by societies and bodies to the Nature Conservancy Council should be slightly widened and that instead of having their hands tied as they are now, the Nature Conservancy Council should have a slightly greater latitude in the representations they make to the Secretary of State. This is simply a widening of the representations made by the Nature Conservancy Council to the Secretary of State. It is not a widening of the law in any other respect and though, for example, I could refer to Omers in Jersey, which is a case such as that my noble friend mentioned, it is not right that we should ask for
1100
examples; we should think ahead of the possibility of there being examples of which we know nothing and I hope that the noble Lord will reconsider his decision.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I have only a few comments to make on what my noble friend the Earl of Cranbrook said in respect of the question of sex and size, particularly in relation to shell fish. I am not intimate on this subject but I can give one example; the oyster starts out life as male and when it is fully grown becomes female. Therefore in the case of the pearl mussel, by merely removing the biggest one could, if there are very similar species, be removing the female of that species which could affect the future of that type of crustacean. I think the provision of both sex and size in a number of cases needs to be carefully considered and I, too, ask the Government to look at this question again.
Lord LEATHERLAND: The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, in moving Amendment No. 6, linked with it Amendments Nos. 13 and 18. Both of those Amendments introduce a factor regarding the size and the sex of the animals concerned. Presumably those animals of one sex may be exempt from this measure, while those of the other sex may come under it. I feel that that is making the Bill far too complicated. What happens if a person like myself, not widely versed in matters of sex, encounters a greater horse-shoe bat as specified in Schedule 1? Perhaps I would be able to take that animal, perhaps not; it would depend on its sex. What measures am I to take in order to determine the sex of the greater horseshoe bat, and whether or not I am able to take it? It might be said that I could seize the animal and examine it, but with my knowledge that would not get me very far. But by the mere act of seizing that animal I should have contravened Clause 1 of this Bill which says that no animal may be taken.
A similar problem arises in the case of the natterjack toad, because with my limited knowledge I would not be able to determine between a male and a female. I might in all innocence be committing an offence. I think this Bill as originally drawn was very sensible, and was one which certainly commanded my

1101
wholehearted support, but the more we attempt to embroider it and add modifications the more we detract from its real value. I sincerely hope that we shall pass this Bill as nearly as possible in its original form.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: I am slightly puzzled by what my noble friend Lord Leatherland has just said. As I understand it, this Amendment does not write into the Bill specific provision for anything being illegal on the grounds of the sex or size of the animal. It says that the Nature Conservancy Council in advising the Minister may suggest that it is desirable to do it in this way. They will presumably consider at the time whether it is practicable. It is then up to the Minister, with his expert advice, to consider further whether it is practicable. In other words, we are not writing anything into the Bill except a permissive statement to a clause allowing the Nature Conservancy Council to advise the Minister in a way which they could not do at present, and for the Minister to take action by order, which apparently at the moment he could not take. It seems to me that this is quite different from saying that we are writing into the Bill all sorts of new prohibitions. As I understand it, that is not being proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. Rather it is granting permission primarily to the Nature Conservancy Council.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: I am in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, in his interpretation of what my noble friend is trying to do. I have a certain amount of experience of the South Esk and Tay rivers. Amateurs occasionally read in the local paper, "Pearl found worth £10,000 ". The following Sunday you can be assured there are literally hundreds of amateurs out taking the oyster shells, and in the case of the South Esk they do not throw them back into the river; they throw them on the bank where they eventually create a rotten smell and look very ugly. There could be a problem here, but I should have thought that this Bill was educational, amongst other things, so I do not think this clause can do any harm.
The EARL of CRANBROOK: Before the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, replies, I was asked to mention some other animal
1102
which is likely to be affected by this clause. During our debates on this Bill, the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and the noble Earl Lord Arran, both mentioned the decrease in the number of common frogs and toads, which is apparent to almost everybody who lives in the country. The example given by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, was probably due to pollution or to the filling up of ponds, drainage from silage pits, slurry in ponds and the like. Those are the factors which are having a major effect, but which one cannot deal with under a Bill of this nature. Both frogs and toads are much in demand in biology classes in schools, and to a lesser extent, I believe, in universities—though I never went to a university so I do not know. In some parts of England there is a considerable trade in them.
At the moment, the population in the areas where there is trade—and "for sale" advertisements appear in trade papers—seems to be sufficiently large to be able to sustain it. But if that trade increases—and there is every possibility of its doing so, because it is a relatively new market which started only in the last decade or so—a serious position could arise and we should have to start defending what we have always looked upon as two very common animals. None of us would want to see little boys branded as criminals because they took some frog spawn or tadpoles and put them in a jar to keep them. It is not possible to raise animals on a commercial scale in that way, so the commercial people would not do it. In that case it would be necessary to protect only the adult animals and not the juveniles.
Lord MELCHETT: May I say that I have been much impressed by the arguments put forward in favour of these Amendments by noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber and by the further examples which have been given to indicate the way in which they might be moved. However, I still feel that we may not have thought through all the ramifications. To give one small example, will the Amendments allow protection to adult insects and not to the pupae, and if so is this desirable? If the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, would be prepared to withdraw this series of Amendments, I undertake seriously to consider the whole question, particularly in view of what has been

1103
said this morning, and if appropriate to move Amendments at the next stage of the Bill.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: When my noble friend is giving further consideration to this matter, whether or not the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, agrees to withdraw the Amendment, I hope that difficulties of enforcement will not of themselves disqualify a clause of this kind from a place in the Bill. For example looking back over the Race Relations Act, and considering the Sex Discrimination Bill as we shall shortly do, we see that in these days we are passing a good deal of legislation in Parliament as much for educational purposes as for law abiding purposes. After all, the clauses in the Sex Discrimination Bill may be riddled with causes for cynical comments about difficulties of enforcement, but we shall no doubt retain them in the Bill because they will be necessary to convey the message from Parliament to the people.
Obviously, there are always difficulties of enforcement in a matter of this kind. We are dealing with wild life and the activities of many different kinds of people, some commercially motivated but others quite innocent—children as well as adults. We must bear in mind that this is a Bill to protect wild creatures and the bias must be in favour of the protection of the species and not the protection of human beings who, on the whole, can protect themselves quite well. If there is difficulty in dividing up a species for protection as between sex and size, then I think one should protect the lot. That is the purpose of the Bill.
I sincerely hope that my noble friend will take into account the underlying purpose of the Bill, and the need in these days to err on the side of strictness rather than laxity in matters of protection. The access of people to the countryside, the opportunity for the motorist to go anywhere, the person who is unsophisticated and ignorant about country life and about species—all these constitute serious additional dangers to wildlife and to plants in this country. One of the notable features of your Lordships' House is that it gives so much care and attention to this part of the heritage in this country.
Baroness GAITSKELL: I wish to support my noble friend Lord Leatherland on this matter. I am not very well educated in the matter of wildlife and I think that the Bill may be educational. But it should not make too great demands, as it will affect many people who, like myself, do not know a great deal about wildlife. Today I learned a very interesting fact, when a noble Lord opposite said that the oyster started life as a male and ended up as a female. I think that until today I have considerably underrated the wisdom of the oyster. I still support my noble friend Lord Leatherland.
Earl FERRERS: I wish to introduce only one possible note of discord, that is to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I hope that when the noble Lord and my noble friend reconsider this matter, they will consider whether the proposal will be enforceable. I do not believe that it is right or sensible to produce Acts of Parliament which contain a whole minutiae of offences and no one knows whether or not he is committing them. The noble Lord referred to the fact that these days we are introducing Bills which are as much to educate people in their way of life and thinking as they are to prosecute them for the offences they commit. I believe this to be a very real danger, and that we are cluttering ourselves up with Bills and laws which are totally unenforceable and which render the individual quite incapable of knowing whether he is on the right or the wrong side of the law. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will consider very carefully whether any Amendments to this Bill will be practicable and enforceable. Of course we all want to protect the wild species, but we do not want to make life so intolerable for the average person that he does not know what he is doing.
Lord CRAIGTON: If my noble friend who has just sat down is correct, then all the Acts concerned with the protection of birds, which work so well today, would have failed in their purpose, which they have not.
Lord HALE: I was returned to Parliament on behalf of the people of Oldham, not on behalf of the natterjack toad. I

1105
disagree entirely with the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I have listened now to something like six different interpretations of the Amendment, and with my own limited faculties I have not been able to decide what it means. I agree with every word spoken by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I do not know how a constable, who is already grossly overworked and dealing with major crime, will be able to enter into all these botanical studies. I do not want to make a false argument. I appreciate that there can be designated officers and I accept the noble Lord's intent to try to stop a trade in rare flowers and animals.
I could not follow the arguments about sex. This is a difficult matter. The only case that I ever remember that determined the sex of an animal dealt with a human being. In that case, of the Chevalier d'Eon, the greatest of the Lord Chief Justices, Lord Justice Mansfield, gave a ruling on law which he afterwards admitted to be wholly wrong and which he reversed. The jury made a finding of fact which a post-mortem on the Chevalier d'Eon proved to be truly and wholly wrong, too, because he was found to be virile, although not very much so.
The noble Earl who moved the Amendment has a point in which he sincerely believes, and which he regards as being of importance in a certain sphere. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, says that Amendments have been made, that there is to be a Report stage and we shall have an opportunity of looking at this again. If we are to look at it again, I think that the noble Earl should accept the noble Lord's invitation to put his Amendment in a form in which it will be more intelligible and less liable to misapprehension.
Lord ROBBINS: Those who are suggesting the withdrawal of the Amendment have failed to put to themselves the critical question of whether in this instance this permission is likely to be overdone. After all, the recommendations are likely to be made by experts. They will be assisted, as regards enforceability, by the high officials of the Home Office advising the Secretary of State. In general principle I am entirely in favour of the sex discrimination proposals, but one can argue too much by analogy. It may be
1106
that in the latter cases I have mentioned it can be overdone. I should not have the slightest fear that it would be overdone in the case which your Lordships are now considering.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: I must confess that I am not convinced by any of the arguments produced against this Amendment. All that the noble Lord. Lord Melchett, could say was that he did not quite know whether or not it could be applied to pupae, but quite obviously it can. That is the size of the animal and I should have thought that it could perfectly simply be applied to it.
Other noble Lords have expressed fear at an extension of a Bill, but they have failed to see that this is only a permissive extension, as the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, made clear. It gives the Nature Conservancy and the Minister a greater width at which to look at a problem, and it if leads to any unnecessary Orders, then the Orders are subject to control of both Houses of Parliament; and if we find that the Nature Conservancy is too often advising a Minister to make extensions we can always stop it.
I feel strongly about this matter and I think that the general feeling of the Committee is with me. I do not propose to withdraw the Amendment, but I should be very happy indeed to look at any Amendments to it which the noble Lord produces at a subsequent stage. We want to establish the principle that we wish to make this a Bill which will last and which will be useful, and I think that the best course would be to establish that now.
Lord MELCHETT: I had hoped that the noble Earl would withdraw these Amendments. When I asked him to do that I said that I had listened very carefully and had taken on board all the points which noble Lords made about this matter. I accept many of the points made in favour of the Amendments. I readily acknowledge that fact. However, these Amendments lay a duty on the Nature Conservancy Council, for example, to advise the Minister, in particular respects rather wider than any duties laid on them so far by the Bill. I would have hoped that the noble Earl, in view of the assurance that I have

1107
given about accepting a lot of the argument and reconsidering his Amendments carefully, would withdraw the Amendments if only to give us a further opportunity of discussing them with the people who will have to carry them out.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: We can do that. I should be happy to join in those discussions.
Lord MELCHETT: I was asking the noble Earl whether he would withdraw his Amendments so that we could have these further discussions.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his request and have the discussions after we accept it.
Lord MELCHETT: The other advantage in asking the noble Earl to withdraw his Amendments at this stage is that we will be able to get the details right with the Nature Conservancy Council and, if the Amendments are acceptable to the Government, put down Government Amendments at the next stage. There will be nothing to stop the noble Earl from putting down Amendments at the next stage if I do not come forward with suitable Government Amendments.
In view of the co-operative spirit in which this Bill has passed through the other place and here, and in view of the very late stage in this Bill's passage—we have discussed it, I think, twice before—I hope that the noble Earl will not now press me at this stage to accept these Amendments but would accept the generous (I think) assurances that I have given and will withdraw his Amendments at this stage and allow us to consider them very carefully before the next stage.
Lord FOOT: Before the noble Earl replies, may I say that I am a wholehearted supporter of this Amendment but I would ask him to consider what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said; because I think it would be most unfortunate in a Bill of this kind if this matter were brought to a Division. I think it would introduce a spirit of animosity into our discussions. I am sure that we can rely on the assurance given by Lord Melchett that this will be seriously considered and that he will be coming forward with
1108
something of this kind at the next stage of the Bill.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: By nature I am an obstinate man; but I will try to be unnatural and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
12.24 p.m.
Lord STOW HILL: I should like to raise one point on the question of whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill. It is for Parliament to decide what ought to constitute a breach of the criminal law and I speak as one who has great sympathy with the purpose of the Bill. I do not want to create any difficulties in its coming on to the Statute Book, but I should like to call attention to the words in Clause 2:
" any person without reasonable excuse ".
It is an absolutely fundamental principle, surely, of our legislation that the citizen should know whether he is committing a criminal offence, what is the criminal offence which is set up by Parliament, and that it should be in language which is clearly and easily understood by the citizen.
Clause 2 makes it an offence, and quite a serious offence, for an individual to offer for sale or to have in his possession for sale live or dead creatures of a particular type. It is an offence for him so to do unless he has a "reasonable excuse" for so doing. A learned judge sitting on the Bench with a case under this clause before him has to ask himself what is, in the circumstances of this case, a "reasonable excuse". What criteria is he to apply in answering the question whether an excuse put forward by the accused person is a "reasonable excuse" within the meaning of the clause or not?
I am perfectly conscious that the expression "without reasonable excuse" appears over and over again in legislation setting up criminal offences. The expression appears again in this Bill in a number of succeeding clauses, for example in Clauses 4 and 5. Learned judges are told that when they try to answer a question of that sort to themselves they must look at the language of the Act that they are applying, conceive its general

1109
purpose and try to set a reasonable, sensible meaning on the expression. But I should have thought that it really was extremely difficult for any learned judge, with the best will in the world, to apply that sort of criteria in the case of Clause 2. I am not a judge and I have never sat on the Bench, but I think it would be extremely difficult to decide in an individual case whether what the accused person asserts on his own behalf does or does not constitute, within Clause 2, a "reasonable excuse ".
I am very fond of toads—not the human sort, but the other sort. If asked what was a natterjack toad, as set out in Schedule 1, I should have no idea; nor would I know any more of what a natterjack toad was if I looked at the Latin description and found it was a bufo calamita. Let us suppose that I appeared before a learned judge and I sold toads of that sort—and the noble Earl who introduced the Bill discussed a moment or so ago the circumstances in which toads are sold. Suppose that I said that I had never heard of the expression "natterjack" but that I sold toads, and I still do so, that I make a lot of money out of it; but that otherwise I am a poor man and have no means of livelihood except by carrying on my business of selling natterjack toads and similar creatures. Would I have a reasonable excuse? I would not know, if I were a learned judge, how to answer that question. It is wholly contrary to our whole legislative tradition, I submit, to put a learned judge in the position of, in effect, having to decide according to his own ideas as to what was reasonable and what was not reasonable and whether or not the accused person has transgressed against the criminal law.
I raise this point simply on the Question, Whether this clause shall stand part of the Bill, because not only is it fundamental to this clause but it occurs later, and I cannot find any indication from the general language and purport of the Statute which might afford me, at any rate, guidance if I am trying to construe those words in the conduct of a case from the judicial Bench. I hope that the noble Earl will give some consideration to that between the present stage and the next stage of the Bill. I assure him and the Committee that I am not desirous in the least of being obstructive and that my
1110
intention is exactly the opposite. But what is one doing in this clause? One is setting up a number of rather serious criminal offences. If one looks to see what the penalty is, one goes to Clause 11. The penalty is £100 on summary conviction; and if you commit a number of such offences each is to be treated as a separate offence; so that if you sell 12 natterjack toads, for example, the maximum fine is £1,200.
These are serious offences. In any event, surely it is part of our democratic instinct that it is always serious to transgress the criminal law, that one should not do so, but that one should live within it. I believe, as I hope the Committee believe, in the rule of law being supreme in this country and that this is a principle sacred to it and one which should always be maintained so far as we can. I can assure the noble Earl that I am not trying to be obstructive—and I hope that he and the other members of the Committee will accept that—but I raise this as a matter of principle for it seems to me that it requires further consideration.
The EARL of CRANBROOK: I would be very grateful if the noble and learned Lord could produce Amendments with a phrase better than "without reasonable excuse" which, as he said, is a common form in a great many Acts of Parliament. For that reason it is in this Bill. I am not learned in law; I have sat on a Bench for many years and I have had many excuses put before me. I have had to decide whether or not they are reasonable. But if he thinks that this is a difficult point, perhaps he will consider this between now and the next stage and let us have an Amendment in place of it. It is intended to protect people who have a reasonable excuse, whatever that may be, and who have done something without any criminal intent. One wants to find something which covers that.
Lord STOW HILL: I will certainly give the matter thought to see whether I can find a form of language which may be more acceptable. I am only too glad to help in any way I can.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: Will my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill consider a simple Amendment to delete the words "without reasonable excuse"? Everybody will then know where they are, and adequate protection

1111
will be given. Otherwise, if the reasonable excuse is so wide that any excuse is reasonable, there will be no protection at all.
Lord LEATHERLAND: I sincerely hope that my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill will not accept the suggestion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. We see from the Schedule that one of the creatures to be protected is the smooth snake. Let us assume that I am walking through Epping Forest and a serpent comes wriggling towards me. I stamp on its head because I think it is an adder. But subsequent inquiry descloses that it was a smooth snake. I have no reasonable excuse. I cannot go before the Bench and say, "I thought that was an adder ". That is no excuse at all. I will be fined £100 or sent to prison—probably in default. My noble friend's suggested Amendment is not going to meet this case.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Protection of rare plants]:
12.34 p.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert—
(" Provided that, if an owner or occupier of land within a site of special scientific interest, who has been informed in writing by the Nature Conservancy Council within the previous twelve months of the site within that land on which a protected plant is growing, carries out work which results in the uprooting or destruction of that protected plant, he shall be guilty of an offence under this section unless he has given notice in writing to the Nature Conservancy Council of his intention to carry out such work not less than twenty-eight days before the commencement of the work.")
The noble Earl said: In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who has to be in Strasbourg, I beg to move this Amendment. This proviso was in the wild plants Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, introduced last year. He said on the Second Reading of the present Bill that he would move an Amendment to introduce it into this Bill at Committee stage. A large number of the rare plants which are in the Schedule are in Sites of Special Scientific Interest, most of them in mountainous districts,
1112
rough grazing, and the like, and most of those SSSIs were chosen because they had colonies of those plants in them. Rare plants tend to be found in discrete colonies as opposed to wild animals which even if rare, tend to be spread fairly widely over their natural habitat. So if you destroy several acres of land you may not kill more than one or two animals, but if you destroy the colony of rare plants, then you have destroyed them all.
Until recently in areas of that kind, on which very small agricultural operations took place, such as herding flocks of sheep or cattle, and the like, you were unlikely to do any damage to a colony of rare plants. Recently, a new spray was introduced to kill bracken, which is a pest on many areas of that nature. The only way in which you can kill bracken economically is by spraying from an aeroplane—inevitably a relatively inaccurate method—and, either by drift or misfortune, it is possible that the spray could fall on to a colony of wild plants and exterminate the lot.
That raises a problem which the new clause in the noble Lord's Bill was intended to meet: but provided the Nature Council, which had declared the place an SSSI, gave notice to the owner or occupier every year of the site on which the rare plant was growing and exactly where the plant grew, the owner or occupier would be expected to give 28 days' notice before he undertook arty operations which were likely to damage it. At the moment the only operation one can think of is spraying from the air. It is not an onerous burden; on receiving his notice certificate at the beginning of the year, he can write back immediately and say: "At some time during the year, 28 days after today, I hope to spray the bracken ". The Nature Conservancy Council can then either make some financial arrangement with him, or others, that he does not do it, or if the colony is small it can be covered with a plastic sheet, or in the last resort the plants can be dug up and replanted in an exactly similar habitat, where they will continue to flourish. Those are the reasons which led the noble Lord to include them in this Bill, and those are the reasons for asking the Committee to include them in this one. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: As the noble Earl has explained, this Amendment would require owners or occupiers of land within a site of special scientific interest who had been informed in writing by the Nature Conservancy Council within the previous 12 months of the presence of a protected plant on that land to notify the Council in writing 28 days before commencing any work that would destroy that plant.
When we debated the Wild Plants Protection Bill last November, your Lordships will remember that I reserved the Government's position on an identical provision. There was no equivalent provision in the original print of this amalgamated creatures and plants Bill as it was introduced in another place. As your Lordships will know, these sites of special scientific interest are declared under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, but their only legal effect, at present, is that the local planning authority must consult the Nature Conservancy Council before giving planning permission for any development. The landowner is not placed under any legal obligation at the present time.
I can appreciate the need to try to strengthen the protection afforded to protected plants. But this Amendment would place a legal obligation on owners which was not envisaged when the sites were first notified. The Nature Conservancy Council fears that such a provision would upset the friendly relationships which they have built up over the years with the owners of over 3,000 sites. As an alternative to the proposal, the Council have devised a voluntary scheme which may offer the strong protection which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, are seeking. The Nature Conservancy Council are inviting the sponsors of the Bill to supply a list of locations where protected plants and creatures—and I stress the inclusion of creatures—are known to exist. The Council would review the list. It is highly likely that those locations which are not already within national nature reserves and sites of special scientific interest would then be notified as SSSIs. The Council is prepared to write to all landowners and occupiers of SSSIs who are known to have a protected species of plant or animal on their land and
1114
to seek their co-operation in the vital task of safeguarding them. The Council is also willing to undertake with the sponsors a review of the effectiveness of these voluntary arrangements after a reasonable period of time.
I stress that, in our view, voluntary arrangements are likely to be at least as strong as the statutory proposals put forward by the noble Earl, both because the Nature Conservancy Council has undertaken to cover both plants and creatures within the voluntary scheme, and also because of the nature of the problem and the nature of the obligations which we are seeking to place upon the owners of land. I feel that noble Lords on all sides will agree that something which is entered into voluntarily by both sides is much more likely to work in practice. In view of the successful voluntary arrangements which already exist between the Council and owners and occupiers of SSSIs, I hope that the noble Earl will be able to accept the proposals which I have just outlined as a satisfactory alternative and will not feel obliged to press the Amendment.
Lord CRAIGTON: I am a little worried about this. I understand the point of view of the Nature Conservancy Council and of the Minister. I might make an obligation and adhere to it, but I might equally let my land and then I could not be sure that it would be kept to. Also, as the Minister knows, there are uncooperative owners, to put it mildly. Such people have deliberately taken action against precious wild life on their sites. I would not for a moment make a suggestion to my noble friend as to what he should do, but I feel that we in this House should let the Nature Conservancy Council know that we should be prepared to strengthen their hand if they thought it posssible for that to be done.
Lord CAMOYS: I had intended to move an Amendment to the Bill but, owing to circumstances beyond my control and relating to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, about which I do not propose to go into detail, I was not able to do so. However, your Lordships permitting, I intend to move a "blanket" Amendment at Report stage covering many of the points that have worried certain Members of this House. I hope to draft it so that people can understand what is intended. For example, one cannot move wild

1115
orchids nor the wild pasque flower. You cannot replant them; it never works. I shall try to make my Amendment as clear as possible, and add to it certain things that have been left out of this Bill. I also hope to have an opportunity of discussing the case of the otter.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: I am not too happy about the Amendment, because I think that, in certain cases, it may deprive plants of protection which they might otherwise enjoy. That would be so in the case of an obstructive landowner who was determined to take no notice of the Nature Conservancy Council or anybody else. His arm will be strengthened by the fact that all he has to do to justify the destruction of a plant or a colony of plants is to tell the Nature Conservancy Council that he intends to do so. Then it will be all right and the Council cannot stop him. I believe that my noble friend Lord Camoys was almost certainly right in saying that one cannot move wild orchids, and I do not believe that one can move any plant totally regardless of the season. I should hesitate to say that one could do so. So I doubt whether there is much protection there. However, the chief danger seems to be that the really awkward landowner can do exactly as he likes as long as he says he is going to do it.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: The noble Earl has my sympathy. I feel that the voluntary co-operation of landowners and farmers is far more likely in the long run to achieve the object of the Bill. I can think of ways in which plants might be endangered other than those suggested by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. I can conceive of areas where landowners might decide to plant trees on bare patches where some of these rare plants flourish. I believe that that is quite likely to happen. Barren areas are being reclaimed. I feel that, on the whole, co-operation would be better, the more so as the Nature Conservancy Council does not seem to want these powers.
The Earl of CR ANBROOK: I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord that a voluntary scheme of this nature is very much better, though the trouble is that one is a little cynical about voluntary arrangements because, so far as archae-
1116
ological sites are concerned, there has always had to be the ultimate sanction that the Department was able to step in when a site was in danger. I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, would do well to consider the difficulties of archaeologists in relation to important sites and the occasions when a legal sanction has had to be invoked.
Fundamentally, what is important, not only with rare plants but with scheduled houses, is that there ought to be some obligation upon a statutory body to remind the owner that he has the plant or house in his possession. All too often, an owner of a site forgets that he has a rare plant or something of the sort, especially if he is not particularly interested in it, just as he may forget that one of the houses which he owns or the house in which he lives is scheduled. We want to make quite certain that, whether legally or by voluntary arrangement, people are constantly reminded of what they have and of their obligation to maintain it. However, I am satisfied with what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [General exceptions]:
12.48 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11:
Page 2, line 18, leave out (" reduction into possession or ").
Page 2, line 19, leave out (" reduction into possession or ").
Page 2, line 21, leave out (" reduced into possession or ").
Page 2, line 22, leave out (" reduced into possession or ").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 with Amendment No. 1 and I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Variation of Schedules]:
The Earl of CR ANBROOK: Amendment No. 12 is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 34, leave out (" and ") and insert (" or ").—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: Amendment No. 14 is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 37, after first (" or ") insert (" any ").—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
Lord MELCHETT: I had understood that this Amendment was contingent on the acceptance of Amendment No. 6. I may have misunderstood that point. I wonder whether the noble Earl would let me look at this matter again before the next stage, because we had understood that it was likely to be moved only it' the noble Earl's Amendment on restrictions according to size and sex was accepted.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: I believe that this Amendment is purely drafting.
Lord MELCHETT: I would repeat to the noble Earl—
The Earl of CRANBROOK: I am happy to withdraw. Perhaps if the noble Lord thinks it is unnecessary he will reconsider it. I thought it effected emendation of the English. However, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 39, at end insert—
(" (2) An order made under this section may be made so as to have effect either at all times while the order is in force or during such period or periods as are specified in the order.")
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is not exactly consequential upon the Amendments we have already discussed. It relates to a different problem. I referred to it when we were speaking about frogs and toads and protection being necessary against commercial exploitation only during the breeding season when they congregate in ponds and are therefore very vulnerable. We have of course the same problem with seals, which congregate on islands during their breeding season when they are very vulnerable, and they are protected in exactly the same way. I do not think I need say any more than that. The intention of the Amendment is fairly obvious. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: As the noble Earl has said, this Amendment would enable the Secretary of State to make an Order
1118
that would be in force for a specified period or periods of the year only. Amendment No. 19, which I think is consequential on this one, would require the Nature Conservancy Council to offer appropriate advice. Once again, I have some sympathy with the aims of these Amendments, but the drawbacks which I mentioned when we were discussing partial protection by size and sex would seem to apply to some extent here.
There is one additional point. Protection by periods of time is tantamount to the imposition of close seasons. Such a measure is normally aimed at keeping stocks of common species high for sporting purposes rather than at preserving rare species. But again it would be helpful if the noble Earl could give us some examples, even if only hypothetical ones, of the cases he is thinking of. In view of the full debate on the Amendments designed to allow conservation on the grounds of size and sex, it would be a good thing if the noble Earl would withdraw his Amendment to enable us to look again at this one as well. I should be happy to hear the views of any other Members of the Committee who have something to say on this Amendment.
Lord CRAIGTON: I made a short interjection before. I make the same one again. I hope that the noble Lord will look at this point because, even if we cannot find a sound reason now, within the next 10 or 20 years there are to be so many sound reasons for a close season.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: With the leave of the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Power to grant licences]:
12.55 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 3, line 37, at end insert (" after consultation with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the National Farmers' Union, the Conservation Society and the World Wildlife Fund (United Kingdom)").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, requiring consultation with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the

1119
National Farmers' Union, the Conservation Society and the World Wildlife Fund (United Kingdom). This Amendment arises from a comment I made on Second Reading about the need to require the Minister to have proper consultations with those who can advise him before he makes an Order for the destruction of any species, covered by this Bill, which might be endangering the health of other species or of human beings. Unfortunately, I thought that by my Amendment I was protecting the badger, but I found, on the advice of the noble Earl, Lord Arran, and of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that I had protected everybody else but not the badger. Happily, they made good my omission by a similar Amendment to Clause 16, which I shall warmly support in due course.
I have a profound suspicion that Ministers do not always read the papers put in front of them, or do not read them carefully enough, or have not taken enough advice about them. I know the pressure under which Ministers work, and one knows what is stuffed into their red boxes when they go home weary, red-eyed and tired at night. I want to make sure that before an Order is made for the destruction of species under this Bill the Minister has consulted bodies which have greater leisure, probably more concern, and certainly a wider experience than most Ministers will have who are called upon to make Orders under this Bill. So I thought of those whom we might require the Minister to consult. He is not, of course, bound to take their advice. He may have some overriding public interest in mind which he thinks must take precedence over the advice of such responsible bodies as those named in the Amendment.
If there are any other bodies which should be consulted, I should be glad to add their names to the list. If there are any in the list which your Lordships think are not qualified to give the Minister advice, I would carefully consider their deletion. But a serious point is involved here. I end my remarks by saying that I believe we are reaching the stage when conservation must be more than permissive; it must be mandatory, and in my opinion it has to be very strict. If we envisage this country, indeed the world, in a few years' time, with the
1120
present rate of population increase, tourism, travel, mechanical devices and powers of destruction, we see that the perils are enormous. We should provide adequate safeguards before we begin to destroy species protected by this Bill. When we reach Clause 16 I shall be able to reveal my profound affection for the badger, which is perhaps a little deeper than my affection for some of the species covered by the Amendment I am now moving; nevertheless, I am very glad to be of service to them as well.
Lord MELCHETT: I wonder whether it would help the Committee if I gave an indication of the Government's view on this Amendment at this stage. The Amendment, as my noble friend has explained, would require the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, or in Scotland the Secretary of State, to consult'. the list of bodies named in the Amendment before granting a licence to kill or take protected wild creatures to prevent the spread of disease. It is not normal practice to mention the names of non-statutory bodies in Bills, because it would be so difficult to update the legislation to conform with changes of name, mergers and so forth between such bodies. And it would seem invidious to select some names to the exclusion of others. If formal consultation were thought appropriate, it would be better to follow Clause 14(2) of this Bill and oblige the Secretary of State to consult such bodies as he considers appropriate. This Amendment would, however, impose a requirement to consult before any licence could be issued. Proper consultation would take perhaps two to four weeks at a minimum and the situation could well arise where much more rapid action was required to stamp out disease. Therefore, it appears that statutory consultation of this type is not a practical proposition in this situation. I hope to have more helpful comments to make on the rather similar Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, to Clause 16 which I understand is the clause which my noble friend hoped to strike up with this Amendment. In view of that undertaking, I wonder whether my noble friend would consider withdrawing his Amendment.
Lord CRAIGTON: May I ask the noble Lord whether consultation with the Nature Conservancy Council would come

1121
under not being mentioned or whether it should be specifically mentioned because it ought to be consulted.
Lord MELCHETT: This underlines the point that I made about the difficulty of coming up with any list. There are two difficulties. The first is that it is very difficult to get the right list; anybody who is left out is likely to feel offended. Secondly, as bodies other than non-statutory bodies change or merge, or their character changes as the character of voluntary societies will change over the years, the Act will become seriously out of date and legislation would be needed to amend it. That is the objection to listing any particular bodies.
Lord CRAIGTON: Including the Nature Conservancy Council?
Lord MELCHETT: The Nature Conservancy Council is a statutory body and it is to them that the Minister would be likely to turn for advice when he needed it. But it would be better in the case of any such provision as was considered necessary—and I hope I have made it clear why the Government do not think it is appropriate—for it to be left to the Minister's discretion as to whom he consults.
Lord HALE: The noble Lord is giving the Government's views before he has heard the comments of the Committee. I rose and then sat down as a matter of courtesy when the noble Lord rose and I shall listen intently to the observations that are made by anybody on the other side of the Chamber. However, from this side of the House may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, that it is suggested from time to time that the Civil Service is increasing in numbers and should be diminished. Secondly, I think that the arguments which were put by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in favour of his Amendment were the precise opposite of the impression which he intended to convey. He made a plea about red-eyed Ministers going home at the dead of night with a box full of papers, so intent and absorbed that they left secret papers in the train despite the fact that they had a carriage to themselves. He said that the way to deal with this is to add four completely useless papers to their box. It is quite obvious that the Government will be in constant con-
1122
sultation with the Nature Conservancy about every problem raised in this Bill. In my experience, the RSPCA almost always entirely disagree with the National Farmers' Union on any point about animals. There are to be four more consultative papers which the Minister will have to consider. There will be a note on them saying, "You need not take any notice of this, but we must be polite ", but they will add to his labours and will make no contribution. It is open to these four bodies to make representations whenever they like. To embody a special clause in the Bill saying that the Minister has to do that seems to me to be wasting Parliamentary time and adding to his statutory troubles.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: I was surprised at the omission in the Amendment which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. The National Farmers' Union is included both here and in the later Amendment dealing with the protection of badgers. If the National Farmers' Union are included, they are largely the employers. In these days of industrial democracy and worker participation I am shocked and surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, did not include the Union of Agricultural Workers, because I think that they have an equal say with the National Farmers' Union in the interests which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, defined. If the Amendment were withdrawn and the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, were adopted, I have no doubt that we should revert to the Secretary of State having complete power to consult all interests. No doubt he will be able to assure us that the point I make about the Union of Agricultural Workers will be taken into consideration. However, I was deeply shocked that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who takes such an interest in labour relations, did not include the Union of Agricultural Workers.
Lord BALERNO: I was even more shocked that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has completely forgotten Scotland. We have a separate Farmers' Union and a separate society for the prevention of cruelty to animals.
Earl FERRERS: If one goes on like that one can say that one is equally

1123
shocked that the Farmers' Union for Wales were not considered, or, indeed, the Country Landowners' Association.
Lord MELCHETT: While I was pointing out technical difficulties in the Amendment of my noble friend, as we see it that is not the important point. A Minister who is to make an order to prevent the spread of disease under this clause will wish to consult as many people as possible. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, that the Nature Conservancy Council will be one of those bodies. However, the important point to remember is that in a case where it is necessary to prevent the spread of disease the Minister may have to act so quickly that he will not have time to consult. This is the fundamental objection to the Amendment and it would be wrong to place the Minister under a duty which would prevent him acting quickly to prevent the spread of disease. For the moment this is an entirely hypothetical case because nobody has yet suggested any diseases which any of the animals currently in the Schedule would be capable of spreading.
Lord FOOT: I appreciate the difficulties in this Amendment as it is drawn which have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. However, I still hope that something may be saved of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and that its object may be fulfilled. As the Bill is now drawn—I am referring now to Clause 8—when the Minister decides to issue a licence for the taking or killing of a protected animal there is no requirement upon him to consult anybody. If I understand correctly the point of the noble Lord's Amendment, what he is worried about, and what worries me, is that a Minister should be protected against himself and protected against the possibility of making an error because he has not received the necessary advice from the people who know best. The situation is not met by Clause 14 to which the noble Lord referred. In subsection (2) of Clause 14 we read:
"The Secretary of State shall not make any order under Section 7 of this Act except after consultation with such bodies … as he thinks fit".
1124
Section 7 is an order adding an animal to the Schedule.
Lord MELCHETT: I think that the noble Lord has misunderstood the point I was making. I was saying that if an obligation were to be laid on the Secretary of State or the Minister, the wording to be used would be more appropriate if it followed the wording in Clause 14. I was not suggesting that the existing provision in Clause 14 covers the point which my noble friend was attempting to cover.
Lord FOOT: I was coming to that and I was going to ask whether the Minister would be prepared to consider an Amendment to Clause 8 requiring the Minister to consult before issuing a licence with such bodies as he may think fit, including, it may be, the Nature Conservancy. That would go some way towards meeting the difficulty and the concern of myself and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, regarding the protection of wild creatures. Later on, I hope to introduce a somewhat similar protection for the badger. I will not speak about that now, but I wonder whether the Minister would be prepared to consider at a later stage of the Bill an Amendment of the kind that I have suggested.
1.10 p.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: I should like to intervene for a moment because I think a number of noble Lords have been unnecessarily suspicious. On this Amendment they are concentrating entirely on paragraph (d). There are four other paragraphs which vitally affect a great number of people in so far as they authorise the Minister to drive a coach and horses through the Bill. A number of people feel very strongly about this. In the experience of those of us who are members of scientific authorities and the like before any of these things are done the Minister always consults with the appropriate body to find out whether it is a sensible course to take. I have had very little experience of consultations to prevent the spread of disease, but in connection with the recent controversy about badgers. I attended at least two, possibly three, meetings of quite a number of

1125
bodies—I represented one—who were consulted by the Minister about this difficulty regarding badgers. I do not move in Ministerial circles and never have done but concerning conservation, though not the point which is worrying noble Lords, I have always assumed That the Ministers consult the appropriate bodies before they make any order under this sort of clause. For that reason I should not have thought of including it in so far as it refers to the conservation clause.
Lord MELCHETT: I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, whether I could consider something along the lines he suggested, and I may have misled the Committee by stressing the problems about the list of bodies, which I do not think is fundamental. In this case the fundamental problems seem to the Government to be these—and I stress that I am speaking about this Amendment and not the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, which we shall come to later—and I stress again that this is hypothetical: were a disease to arise where it is necessary for the Minister to enable animals listed in the Schedule to be destroyed it may well be that the Minister would have to act very quickly. Noble Lords all know that under the Rabies Act Ministers are required to act very quickly in order to prevent the spread of disease, and only by acting quickly are they able to prevent a large number of animals and possibly human beings being made very That is the fundamental point which would have to be seized of in any suggestions noble Lords might wish to make to replace my noble friend's Amendment.
Lord BALERNO: May I suggest to the Minister that he might consult with his experts as to whether or not rabies could possibly be spread by certain of the specified animals, because if that were the case it would be essential that the Minister should act at once without consulting anybody else.
Lord MELCHETT: Again I may be guilty of misleading noble Lords. I mentioned rabies as an analogy, but of course the Rabies Act would not be overridden by the provisions of this Bill unless that were done specifically. So in the case of rabies Ministers will be able to act as they do at the moment.
The Earl of ARRAN: I wish to give my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, my fullest support. The die is seemingly cast, and what we now have to do is to ensure, so far as we conscientiously can, that we are doing the right thing. I was in South Gloucestershire last week with a Member of the other place—
Lord MELCHETT: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl but I have a suspicion in my mind that he is going to address the Committee on the subject of badgers. I had hoped that we could take the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and there are some points of which I have been given notice which my noble friend wishes to raise on Clause 16. I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we could take all those points together.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: I am sure we want to get on and I will try to help, without prejudice to later discussion on badgers on Clause 16. I will endeavour to think of something better for a later stage in our proceedings. We have to bear in mind that at the present time we are talking about the species set out in Schedule 1. We are not under this Bill dealing with rabies but with natterjack toads, and so on, and the same urgency may not arise. Nevertheless, I do not wish to go further into the matter now. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, entirely without prejudice to the Amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, will move on Clause 16.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Enforcement]:
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 4, line 18, leave out from (" search ") to (" of ") in line 19 and insert (" that person if, with reasonable cause, he suspects him ").
The noble Lord said: the purpose of this Amendment is to remove a possible ambiguity in this clause. As drafted, it is not clear whether the "any person" referred to in lines 18 and 19 must necessarily be the same person as the "any person" in line 16. The Amendment would make it quite clear that a constable's powers of search are conditional

1127
upon his having reasonable cause to suspect the person not only of committing or having committed an offence, but also of having evidence on his person of the committing of an offence. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Amendment of s. 9 of Badgers Act 1973]:
1.19 p.m.
Lord FOOT Lord FOOT moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 7, line 22, after ("inserted") insert—
(" (a). at the end of subsection (2) the words "after consultation with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the National Farmers Union, the Conservation Society and the World Wildlife Fund (United Kingdom)", and
(b).")
The noble Lord said: Some rather different issues arise here other than those we were discussing on the earlier Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, because the object of this Amendment is to introduce into the Badgers Act the words printed on the Marshalled List requiring the Minister to consult with these various bodies before he issues a licence for the taking or killing of a badger in order to prevent the spread of disease. In dealing with the earlier Amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, made two points about it: first, that he thought the choice of these bodies was invidious and, indeed, there were objections to non-statutory bodies being brought into consultation and being nominated in the Bill. I see the force of that objection, but he himself said that it was not the main ground of objection. The real ground was that he thought that if the Minister was required to consult before issuing a licence that might in some cases impose unacceptable delay.
Whatever may be the situation with regard to other wild animals, I suggest that that requirement of urgency cannot arise, or is very unlikely to arise, in the case of suspected diseased badgers. I say that for this reason: the right honourable gentleman the Minister in the other place has already made it clear in correspondence and otherwise, that if and when the Minister is given the power to issue a licence for the gassing of badgers, the
1128
procedure which will be followed is that there will first be the taking of specimen badgers in the suspected affected areas. These specimen badgers will then be subjected to an autopsy. If there are found to be traces of bovine tuberculosis, then, and then only, will the Minister consider issuing a licence to someone to exterminate the badgers by gassing.
If that is the procedure which will be followed—and, of course, that seems to be a very sensible procedure—it will allow longer time, will it not, for the Minister, between the time when he takes a specimen badger to see whether there are traces of tuberculosis and, the time when he issues the licence for the use of gasssing, to consult with such bodies as it would be proper for him to consult. Therefore, I suggest that the objection which the noble Lord himself said was the major objection to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, does not apply in the case of my Amendment to Section 9 of the Badgers Act.
I accept, as I did just now, that there are manifest objections to consulting these bodies. Indeed, I am not at all sure that, for example, the Conservation Society deals with matters of this kind at all. They paint with a very wide brush and cover a very vast field. Whether they would be a proper body for the Minister to consult with, I do not know. I should have thought it was possible to devise a form of words which would at least require the Minister to consult, in the case of badgers and before issuing a licence, with such other bodies as he thinks fit, including the Nature Conservancy Council. Obviously, I am not going to carry this Amendment to a Division, because as it stands it is defective on those grounds. But would the Minister be good enough to indicate whether, between now and the next stage, he is prepared to consider the Amendment on the lines I have just outlined? I beg to move.
The Earl of ARRAN: I give my strong support to my noble friend Lord Foot—support I also gave to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, although his Amendment was not directly concerned with badgers. After the badgers, the die is seemingly cast. We must now ensure that insofar as we conscientiously can, we are doing the right

1129
thing. Last Saturday I was in the South of Gloucestershire, with the honourable Member of that constituency. A map was shown to me of the area to be covered and the action to be taken. Believe me, the Minister has set himself an awesome task—an inevitable task, he thinks, but none the less awesome for that. I pray that his efforts may be crowned with success. I pray also that, above all, we have chosen the right animal. The thought that we may not have done so is too terrible to contemplate. I would not care to have on my hands the blood of perhaps 1,000, perhaps 10,000, innocent animals, nor do I think the Minister, who is a humane man, would care for it. I beg the Committee to pass this Amendment or, alternatively, I beg the Minister to reply to it in a satisfactory sense. The Amendment carries the clearest assurance that in introducing the top animal welfare bodies, we may say to ourselves, cold-bloodedly if you like, that the badger did not die in vain.
1.25 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: I strongly support this Amendment and any action which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, may decide to take upon it. I hope that we can get from the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, some assurance or explanation of what the Minister may have in mind when this Bill becomes law. The noble Earl, Lord Arran, has just referred to the map of the area over which this destruction might be proposed as soon as the Minister is free to make the order for that to be done. There is death and destruction of badgers waiting to be done under this Bill—let there be no mistake about that. It is perhaps the most serious clause in the Bill, because it is the most immediate in its action. It is to modify a Bill passed by both Houses of Parliament only very recently for the protection of the badger. It is going to be a strange state of affairs for the protection of badgers, if a Bill passed by both Houses of Parliament is applied, after many years of agitation to get the badger protected, and is then undermined more by the Minister than by anyone else.
Of course we understand what this destruction is intended to do. It is intended to reduce the risk of further
1130
infection in cattle by tuberculosis. It appears that there are some doubts among the experts as to whether the cattle infect the badgers, or the badgers infect the cattle. I want two things from the Minister. First, I want an assurance that whether it is in this form of words or in any other, the obligation to consult shall be in the Bill. It would be unlawful for the Minister to act without consultation under the terms of the Bill, as I hope it will eventually be passed. It may be that we do not achieve our purpose, but run into difficulties such as those explained by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, a little while ago, that if one specifies bodies one probably leaves out some which should be in. There is also the difficulty of organisations changing their name, or fresh organisations being created which might claim to be brought within the ambit of consultation.
understand these difficulties. It may be a form of words which will combine the obligation to consult before granting an order with not necessarily only such bodies as the Minister sees fit, but such bodies having an interest in animal welfare as he sees fit. Otherwise, he might consult, as he sees fit, with some body which many of us would not regard perhaps as important as others.
For example, I would not think it enough for the Minister to consult the British Medical Association or the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. I would not regard that as completely adequate for the form of consultation which we ask the Minister to undertake. This is a very serious matter. I sincerely hope that the Minister understands that it is not an easy proposition to ask your Lordships' Committee to undo what we have previously done to protect this animal, and to permit its destruction by methods not permitted under earlier Acts of Parliament. These are two most serious breaches of what the House originally intended. I can say quite definitely that if my area of Surrey were within the area of possible destruction on these grounds, which would bring the gassing equipment and the people on to land near where my badger setts are, I should feel deeply emotional and deeply indignant about it. I should want to be fully assured that this was really necessary in the public interest, and not merely in the interest of a small

1131
area of grazing land or something of that kind.
One has to consider the relative priorities here. Cattle are more easily replaced than badgers and have no more right to live, except on commercial grounds. There is a great deal of hypocrisy in our attitudes towards animals. We do not have our sense of priorities right; we do not have our relationships between one species and another right, nor do we have our relationships between animals and human beings right. I believe that if the world is to survive for the centuries ahead this will be one of the biggest issues which will be a condition of the survival of the world as we now know it, and not only for human beings.
I hope that this can be taken very seriously and that before we finish with this Bill we shall have something in it which will tie the Minister quite definitely to the obligation to have reasonable consultations. He will not be asked to act in a hurry, but even if he is he can have consultations very quickly. After all, bodies which are well acquainted with the problems, ecological, scientific and medical, of these issues are just as easily obtainable for consultation as the Minister's own officials. There is no difficulty about that. Ministers who want to consult quickly can do so. They have been known to consult in the middle of the night in order to decide some question of extreme urgency.
Do not let us hear from the noble Lord, I bee of him, that the Minister may have to act so quickly that he will not be able to get hold of the people who can give him proper advice. That, if I may say so with great respect, is sheer nonsense, and I speak with Ministerial experience on these matters. I hope, therefore, that we can get an assurance. I hope the noble Lord will be able to assure the Committee that when the Minister gets authority to make an order we may know something about it.
My final plea is, that the area of destruction should be as small as is consistent with testing the value of destruction, for the purpose of eliminating cattle disease. Do not let us have an overkill here, a much bigger overkill than is necessary to achieve the purpose. The areas
1132
of this map probably ought to be very much smaller, for a year's test or longer, to see whether the destruction of the badger reduces the degree of infection of cattle there. Do not let us have the badgers destroyed in the bottom half of Britain, and then find that, after all, perhaps it is not the badgers which are responsible. I beg of the noble Lord to give the Committee some assurance that the Minister will confine the orders to the minimum area necessary to provide adequate grounds for a test to be made on a matter upon which there is some veterinary doubt.
Earl FERRERS: This is an important Amendment. Nobody wants to see badgers destroyed. That is absolutely basic to people, whatever views they may have about this Amendment. But the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, rested the whole of his argument on the fact that there should be consultation. Whether or not this Amendment is accepted, he said there should be consultation before anything is done about the destruction of badgers. I do not believe that the powers which the Government will have under this Bill are wrong or too extensive. What we are considering here is whether, if there is an argument about badgers having tuberculosis, there should be a destruction of those animals in order to prevent the spread to cattle and thereafter to human beings. I do not believe that this is a matter for consultation. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was right when he asked: if you consult where does consultation end? We had a few examples of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, said that this is not really a very important point, because you can always cut down the amount of people whom you consult. But I would put this point. If there is a disease which may be transmissible to cattle, and thereafter to human beings, is it right that the Ministry, who have the right to protect—as Governments have the right to protect—people from disease, should consult with other people whose motives may be different? I do not think they should. Of course, the Ministry of Agriculture has always had fairly stringent powers with regard to disease. If the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, were here, she would have things to say—and indeed she has—on

1133
the question of brucellosis and how this can be transmissible to man, and how the Ministry has never taken enough action to cure that. Yet brucellosis can be transmissible by foxes. What about swine vesicular disease, swine fever and foul pest? The Ministry of Agriculture have very sweeping powers over all these diseases in order to control and contain the disease.
It is sometimes necessary to take very strong action against other people's animals which do not have the disease. Then we come to foot and mouth disease. Again, the Ministry have very wide powers in order to stop that disease. I do not believe the powers which the Government have under this Bill as it stands are unreasonable. Certainly, we would not wish to see the wholesale destruction of badgers, but if it were a fact that there were badgers which had TB and which could infect other animals in an area, and could then in turn infect human beings, I do not believe that would be an occasion when consultation should be required. I believe it would be an occasion when the Government should have power to take the necessary action.
Lord BALERNO: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Ferrers very much indeed. I think he has made the case most clearly for leaving things as they are under the control of the Minister of Agriculture. I should just like to add this to noble Lords who have proposed this Amendment. In the long run, it is to the benefit of the badger population that tuberculosis or other disease should be eliminated. Otherwise, these diseases may well become endemic in the badger population and the situation of the badger population will be worse than it was before.
Lord MELCHETT: I should like to agree wholeheartedly with what the noble Lord has just said. The fact is that bovine tuberculosis is endemic in badger populations in a limited part of the South-West of England. That is why the Government wish to have the power that we are taking under this clause. I spoke at considerable length on Second Reading on the position of bovine tuberculosis in badgers, and I do not intend to reiterate today everything I said then. However, I am in the unhappy position of being able to give the Committee some more
1134
information about bovine tuberculosis in badgers since I last spoke. It is an unhappy position from a personal point of view, because I am afraid that further evidence tends to support what we have been saying all along.
Experimental laboratory work has shown that the virulence of the organism isolated from badgers is similar to that isolated from cattle. Badgers infected with bovine tuberculosis have been found only in those parts of the country where breakdowns in cattle have persistently occurred. Examination of the records from 1971 in, for example, a larger area of North Avon in Gloucestershire shows that 105 out of 150 breakdowns have occurred within a half-mile radius of places where infected badgers were found, and a further 15 within a one-mile radius. I think that those figures emphasise that this is a local problem in the South-West of England, and it is something I shall be returning to rather later.
During a recent survey of a part of that area, 170 occupied setts were noted, of which 95 were in fields or hedges accessible to cattle. At two locations only a mile apart in another part of the area, 31 infected badgers have been found, and nine herd breakdowns have occurred. At yet another location eight infected badgers have been found and 21 herd breakdowns have occurred. The carcases of many other wild creatures and birds, the majority of which come from the problem areas, have been examined for the tubercal bacillus, but this bacillus has been discovered only in four; that is in two moles and two rats. I think that this was the point which the noble Earl, Lord Arran, raised as to whether we were going to be killing the right animal. The post-mortem findings in these four cases—the two moles and two rats—showed that the disease was not progressive, indicating that the two species have a high resistance to bovine tuberculosis.
It is considered from the evidence accumulated up to the present that apart from badgers no other wild species is involved in the spread of this disease. I should like to stress that unfortunately it appears that badgers are extremely susceptible to the disease. Referring to something my noble friend Lord Houghton said, I quite agree that badgers

1135
have an equal right to live with cattle. I personally would much rather see a badger than a cow. But our very strong feeling is that to eradicate populations of badgers in limited areas where the disease is endemic in the badgers is going to be for the good of the badgers as well as for the cattle. I said that deliberately before coming on to give the Committee some figures, because I do not want anybody to feel I am stressing economic factors and thinking only of the good of the cattle—though of course, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, pointed out, that is extremely important—if for no other reason than that in some circumstances the disease is transmittable to humans through cattle.
Noble Lords may like to know that during the year ending 31st March 1975 compensation paid for breakdowns in the South-West region reached a total of nearly £210,000 compared with only £82,000 for the whole of the remainder of England and Wales. That compares with the figure I gave on Second Reading for the calendar year 1974, in other words a slightly earlier period, of £90,000 for the whole of England and Wales, to about £200,000 for the South-West. The figures indicate not only the size of the problem but also that it appears to be getting worse.
To turn from the general points to Lord Foot's Amendment, I would say, first, that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture has consulted widely with interested organisations before introducing the Government's Amendment, which is now Clause 16 in this Bill, and will be prepared to do so again if any radical change in approach were contemplated in relation to badgers. Although I cannot accept the Amendment, and I do not want to reiterate the technical reasons for that, my right honourable friend would welcome the views of persons with a legitimate interest in this matter. Accordingly, he is prepared to set up an appropriate form of non-statutory consultative panel comprising among its members six independent persons who can speak with authority on such matters as, for example, badger biology, bovine tuberculosis, farming interests, wildlife conservation, veterinary science and animal welfare. My
1136
noble friend will be pleased to hear that. This could keep under review the general question of tuberculosis in badgers, and its relationship to tuberculosis in cattle and the use of the proposed licensing powers.
I might say to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who said that he did not think that consultation on a statutory basis was necessary, that we would agree with him so far as that is concerned if there was a statutory obligation before issuing licences. We do not think that that would be practical. But this consultative panel, with a wide range of interests, which I think all noble Lords would agree covers all the main points which need to be covered, would have a slightly different function in that they would be able to keep under review the progress of the use of the powers which the Government are taking under this clause.
We have always agreed that there is not conclusive evidence that badgers give bovine tuberculosis to cattle. There cannot be conclusive evidence by the nature of the problem. What we have said is that only by trying out the extermination of badgers by gassing will we ever know whether this is the source of the problem or not. I hasten to add immediately that we are absolutely convinced that this is the cause of the problem, but by the nature of the evidence we cannot claim that it is conclusive. I think that noble Lords will agree that because of the way in which disease is transmitted, we are very rarely able to come up with conclusive proof about these things. I would remind the Committee that the original decision to slaughter cattle affected with brucellosis was taken on the basis of circumstantial evidence that they were transmitting the disease to human beings, and the result of that policy has caused a dramatic decrease in the incidence of the disease in human beings. I think that that covers the points that the noble Earl raised in objection to having any consultation.
Earl FERRERS: If I may interrupt for one moment, I do not have objection to consultation if the consultation is concerned with what is the best method in general of dealing with the situation. I think that that is perfectly right. But

1137
will the noble Lord confirm that the Minister will not be obliged to consult with this body before taking action?
Lord MELCHETT: Yes, I would confirm that. The non-statutory consultative panel which my right honourable friend has now given an undertaking to set up would be for the purpose of keeping under review the general question of tuberculosis in badgers and its relation to tuberculosis in cattle, and the use of the proposed licensing powers, so that it would be a question of keeping the operation of this clause under review.
To turn to the point made by my noble friend Lord Houghton, the evidence for the transmission of tuberculosis from badgers to cattle is now so strong that we feel it would be irresponsible not to take action in individual cases outside the control areas where herd breakdowns occur and badgers in the locality are established to have the disease. I think I referred on Second Reading to this as being akin to fire brigade action. The initial control area which he asked me about will be a pre-selected part of Gloucestershire Avon up to about 40 square miles in total. This area is bounded in the west by the River Severn, in the East by the M5, in the South by the M4, and in the North by the Little Avon River. My understanding is that in this area control operations will, as it were, start in the centre and work outwards, and it is likely in the end that probably only about half the area will actually be covered by gassing operations.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: I am afraid this is a very ignorant question. I have kept cows, but I have not kept badgers. How does the tubercular germ get transferred from the badger to the cow? Is the badger a grass-eating animal? I did not think that it was. How does the transference come about?
Lord MELCHETT: I am glad to hear that the noble Baroness does not keep badgers, because I think we all agree that they are happier not being kept, but living wild and free. I went into this in great detail on Second Reading, when I explained, and I reiterated it today, that we cannot say exactly how the disease is transmitted, but the circumstantial evidence is very strong. If the noble Baroness would care to read what I said
1138
at Second Reading about the habits of the badger and the incidence of herd breakdowns in relation to badger sets, and in particular the behaviour of badgers which have bovine tuberculosis, I think she will see that the evidence we have of the fact that the disease is transmitted is very strong indeed. I hope that that answers her question without having to take up more time than I already have done on this point.
Lord BALERNO: It is most probably the droppings of the badgers.
Lord MELCHETT: I was hoping to avoid that, because I did not want to get into a technical discussion about where badgers normally leave their droppings, but diseased badgers tend to behave rather differently from healthy ones in this respect, and the noble Lord may be right.
I was intending to say, as an assurance to my noble friend, that blanket extermination of the kind of the spectre he raised, at least by inference, would in our view be premature at this stage and will not be undertaken and unless and until experience has shown this to be fully justified. I think that the undertaking I have given to have a consultative panel looking at this and advising the Minister makes this a very worthwhile assurance. As I say, experience has shown this to be fully justified, for example from the results of work in this control area. I do not expect that any blanket gassing operations will take place outside the control area, the details of which I have given, until we have at least a year's experience of operations in the control area on which to draw.
When I speak of "blanket extermination" and "blanket gassing ", I want immedately to emphasise to all noble Lords, to all wild life lovers, and in particular to all farmers all over the country, that I am talking only about blanket extermination within limited areas in South-West England where bovine tuberculosis is proved to be endemic in wild badger population and not anywhere else where badgers are to be found in the United Kingdom.
If one message were to go out from your Lordships' House as a result of our discussion of this Amendment today—and I hope that this one message is taken by the noble Earl, Lord Arran, who has

1139
such an interest in badgers—it will be to emphasise and emphasise again all over the country that this is a limited problem, limited to a particular area and that the blanket gassing operation will be carried out within a maximum of 40 square miles bounded in the way I have described. It is vital that farmers in the rest of the country do not get a mistaken impression, which I am afraid they have because of the very real worries of noble Lords and Members of another place about this clause. I am afraid that it is undoubtedly true that farmers and others throughout the country have the impression that this problem is a lot more widespread than it actually is and that the action we intend to take is more widespread than it actually is. I hope that these assurances will settle any doubts in noble Lord's minds and that we can go from here, all of us who care for badgers, to make absolutely sure that no misunderstanding about what we are proposing remains in anybody else's mind. I hope, therefore, that my assurances will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and that he will see fit to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord FOOT: I am sure that the whole Committee is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for his very full explanation of what the Government have in mind, what they have been doing and the way in which they propose to proceed. I will read the Official Report of the noble Lord's speech with great care tomorrow. I found it most reassuring as I listened to him, but I ask whether, if some of us had not campaigned on behalf of the badger, we should have got these assurances which he has been able to give today. Indeed, as I understand the noble Lord, he is saying that it is proposed to set up this non-statutory consultative board or body; that it will remain, as it were, in permanent session keeping under review the destruction of the badger in this control area; that the destruction of the badger by gassing will be limited to this area; that it will be an experiment which will be carried out over a period of time working from the middle outwards, and that at the end of a year the situation will be reviewed before any further licence is granted either for another area or for any other part of the country.
Lord MELCHETT: The noble Lord is right with one exception, which I hope he will not feel is too important. It is that we have all along said, and it still remains the position, that where isolated herd breakdowns occur—again, this is only likely in this region of the South-West, and I emphasise that—and bovine tuberculosis is found in the local badger population, in those isolated incidents licences will also be issued, because we feel the evidence is so overwhelming that it would be quite irresponsible of the Minister not to act to control the spread of the disease in those isolated breakdown situations. I might add that it would be irresponsible for us, from the badgers' point of view as well, because if we were to allow the disease to remain endemic in isolated pockets outside the control area, the likelihood from our past experience is that the disease would spread among the badgers and make the situation worse.
Lord FOOT: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that further explanation, and I find it reassuring, too. The argument on this matter—I say this particularly to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers—is really on a narrow basis. We do not in any way object to the Minister taking powers to control, kill and issue licences for the taking and killing of badgers where the disease exists, because that may have to be done for the sake of the badgers themselves, quite apart from the cattle. Nor do we object to the method of gassing, which is to be made lawful under Clause 16. Indeed, although I am not an authority on this, we accept that gassing by cyanide may be the most humane way of dealing with badger setts in infected areas. We are not arguing about that.
What alarms and worries us is what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, was saying. The assumption is that where one finds bovine tuberculosis in cattle, and in the same area one finds that some of the badgers are infected, that statistical fact is claimed to demonstrate that it is the badger which communicates the disease to the cattle. Perhaps it does not much matter for practical purposes whether the badger transfers it to the cattle or the cattle to the badger; one must exterminate the cattle and the badger. That is why I say that perhaps

1141
it does not matter very much for practical purposes, but this is the risk as we see it: if in fact that is only a statistical connection and it is not the badger which is the carrier to the cattle, the Government will be off on a wild goose chase and they will not be applying their mind to discovering the real cause. There may be some reason for bovine tuberculosis occurring in the limited areas and infecting the cattle and the badger which we have not yet ascertained. Our worry is that one might have the wholesale slaughter of badgers all based on a false premise and all avoiding the discovery of what may be the real cause of the infection of the cattle.
As the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will know, there is a good deal of statistic evidence to suggest that the badger is not the carrier. Again, it is statistical; it is not proof—it is cause and effect. It is not positively proven that the badger does not convey the disease, but there is quite a lot of statistical evidence to suggest that there has been bovine tuberculosis in cattle in areas where the badgers are entirely unaffected. If that is the case, then those cattle cannot have been infected by the badger but must have been infected by something else. However, I will not go into that question now.
Reverting to what the Minister has been good enough to tell us about the consultative procedure he proposes to follow, I take it that he does not want any words written into this Bill requiring the Minister to consult before he issues a licence. May I take it that although he will resist that it will be the normal course for the Minister, before he issues a licence other than in this control area, to go through the procedure I was talking about; that is, to take specimen badgers and conduct an autopsy? Will the Minister agree that if that procedure is followed before gassing is used there will be ample time to confer with this non-statutory consultative body?
Lord MELCHETT: I do not think I have quite grasped the point which the noble Lord is making. Certainly I can give him the assurance that gassing will be undertaken only in those areas where it has been proved that the wild badger population has the disease. Obviously, to achieve that it will be necessary to
1142
catch specimen badgers and have the carcases analysed. I am not sure whether the noble Lord was asking about further blanket operations over a considerable area, or to what I have referred to as "fire brigade" operations.
Lord FOOT: As I understand it, the Minister is saying that there will be this gassing operation in the 40 square mile area, and at the end of a year the matter will be reviewed and there is no intention of carrying out a blanket operation in any other area—only a fire brigade operation where there is an outbreak. In the case of this fire brigade operation, can the Minister give an assurance that there will be plenty of time for the results of the autopsy of the badgers that are taken to be considered by experts in the consultative body, before a decision is made to use gassing in that area? Different experts may give quite a different opinion.
If it was found that very few of the badgers taken were showing signs of affection by the disease, it might be the view of some experts that it would not be justified to destroy all the badgers there. If the incidence were much higher, it would be right to exterminate. I am merely asking for an assurance that this consultative body—of which I am very glad to hear—will be consulted at all times and, in particular, that there will be ample time in the fire brigade operations for this process of consultation to take place. I said at the beginning that I would not carry this Amendment to a Division, because I agree that the nominating of these bodies is obviously unsatisfactory. I feel that it is no use my asking the Minister to consider between now and the next stage writing something into Clause 8 about the requirement for consultation. Perhaps the most helpful thing for me to do would be to withdraw this Amendment.
Lord MELCHETT: It might be help ful to the noble Lord if I dealt with it now. I think that the idea behind the consultative committee is that they will review the progress of the main gassing operation in the experimental area. In the meantime, as I said it is our intention to carry out fire brigade operations when there are particular herd breakdowns. I have the feeling that it would

1143
probably not be right to give any undertaking that the body will be consulted before those are carried out. No doubt the genera! principles on which action is taken in those cases will be a matter which the consultative committee is able to consider. I would certainly take that point on board. That would probably cover some statistical argument about what percentage of badgers caught would need to have the disease before it was felt that there was disease in the wild badger population. That general point might well be something on which the Minister would welcome the views of the committee. The point about the fire brigade operations is that they are limited and they are done very quickly. It is possible very quickly to snare and analyse badger carcases to discover whether or not the disease is present, and it would not be right to suggest that the committee could be consulted in all those cases. It will be able to review the general operation of the use of gassing.
There is one other point which I should like to make, and I am afraid I must disagree with the noble Lord. I cannot accept that there is any substantial evidence that badgers do not transmit the disease to cattle. I am afraid that there is overwhelming evidence that the badgers are responsible for transmitting the disease. It is not just a statistical link. For example, there is the link between the areas where cattle on farms get the disease and the areas where badgers are living. It would be misleading the Committee, and I think anybody outside the House, if I were to give the impression that there was not overwhelming evidence that badgers are responsible for giving the disease to cattle.
Earl FERRERS: The point which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, made was quite important. As I understood it, this consultative body would he a forum to consider the way in which this part of the Bill is working. I think that where there was to be an autopsy of badgers in special areas, and a certain amount of time was to elapse, the noble Lord, Lord Foot, wanted that time to be used for consulting that body. I hope that that will not be agreed to. There may well be conditions in which the Minister wants to take the opportunity of asking, but it
1144
would be wholly wrong if the Minister were to be committed to consulting such a body on every occasion before taking those measures. From what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said I gather that he would not be so obliged.
Lord MELCHETT: The noble Earl has understood me correctly. We have found from experience that there is not necessarily any great time-lapse where autopsies are concerned and that this is a procedure which can be done very quickly. Apart from any other considerations, it would probably be impractical for the Minister to undertake consultations when the majority of these isolated outbreaks occur. I believe that I have covered the general point which the noble Lord was raising.
Lord FOOT: Again, I should like to thank the noble Lord. I think he has been very fair to the House. He has made perfectly clear the extent of the Government's assurances and has not tried to cover it up at all. He has made it quite clear that he is not giving an absolute undertaking and that there will not always be consultations. I feel that we now understand the situation and I do not propose to continue the argument. I was going to say that it was evident that the Minister would not be prepared to consider writing in a consultative requirement and that it would not therefore be worth asking him to do so, but I hope that when we read tomorrow what the Minister has had to say, we shall find some cause for satisfaction and some real re-assurance that the badger will not be made the innocent victim of ill-thought-out attack. Therefore, I thank the Minister not only for telling us this but also for the great interest which he has shown in this matter throughout the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
2.10 p.m.
Clause 17 [Short title and extent]:
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 7, line 34, after (" the ") insert (" Conservation of ").
The noble Earl said: When this Bill was given its Second Reading, I said

1145
that, since it was based on the Conservation of Wild Creatures Bill, to which your Lordships gave a Second Reading six months ago, it would be more appropriate if the title contained the word "conservation" rather than "protection ". In fact, I believe that that is the wish of the entire conservation movement, which wishes to try to separate the two sides of caring for animals—conservation in the wild and protection.
The Bill is so drafted that it is a conservation Bill and it should please people like the noble Lords, Lord Stow Hill and Lord Hale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, who were nervous of having too many offences which people would find it difficult to know about. There is provision in a sensible conservation Bill that the list of protected creatures and wild plants is kept as small as possible and that they are only put in the Schedule if it is considered essential. That keeps the number of potential criminals to the minimum and I feel sure that your Lordships will welcome it. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: I should like to say that the Government welcome the Amendment.
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: I beg to move Amendment No. 22.
Amendment moved—
Page 7. line 35, leave out (" Protection").—[The Earl of Cranbrook.]
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Wild creatures protected by this Act]:
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 8, line 7, leave out—
(. Dormouse … Muscardinus avellanarius ").
The noble Lord said: The Amendment would delete the dormouse from the Schedule of wild creatures. I confess that it gives me no pleasure to move it. Though it appears that the dormouse is a declining species in this country, the Nature Conservancy Council has advised that it does not show the same degree of rarity as the other creatures which are to be protected by the Bill. There is some evidence to indicate that in past years the dormouse has been regarded as a pet and this may still be true to a
1146
limited extent. Nevertheless, it does not at the present time fall within the criteria set out in Clause 12, namely, that it has become so rare that its status as a British wild creature has become endangered by any action designated as an offence under the Act. I beg to move.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: I think there is some truth in what the noble Lord says. We know remarkably little about the dormouse. It is widely distributed but we do not know how thickly populated are the areas in which it is distributed. However, it is sufficiently widely distributed not to be in any danger unless the present tendency to take it for commercial purposes becomes stronger. The Mammal Society is making a survey of the creature at the moment. If that is found to show that it is very rare, it can easily be put back on the list. I am perfectly prepared to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
2.14 p.m.
Schedule 2 [Species of protected plants.]:
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 8, line 22, leave out—
(" Fingered sedge … Carex digitata ")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment would delete the fingered sedge from the Schedule of protected plants. Although this species is rare, it, again, does not fall quite into the same category as the other plants listed in the Schedule. The Fingered Sedge is known to exist on 25 sites, many of which contain a large number of individual plants. I am advised that there are at least four sedges which are more rare. The Nature Conservancy Council has therefore advised that this plant is not currently in need of the special protection which would be afforded by the Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: I find it more difficult to agree to this Amendment. The Fingered Sedge was introduced into the Bill as it went through another place by the promoter of the Bill, Mr. Hardy, MP, who feels very strongly about it. The Fingered Sedge occurs rather sporadically in his constituency

1147
and he is very anxious that it should be protected there. I must confess that I am not a botanist and such advice as I have been able to take leaves me equally balanced between the noble Lord opposite and Mr. Hardy. While I am not prepared to accept this Amendment, I certainly would not wish to divide the Committee on it.
Lord MELCHETT: In view of what the noble Earl says, it might be better to end on a happy note. Therefore I should like to withdraw the Amendment and reconsider it on the understanding that I shall be moving it at the next stage unless some further evidence is brought to light. On that basis I wish to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness BERKELEY Baroness BERKELEY moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 8, line 35, at end insert—
(" Spurred Coral Root Orchid—Epipogium aphyllum")
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move this Amendment, which seeks to add
(" Spurred Coral Root Orchid—Epipogium aphyllum")
to the list of protected plants. This orchid is sometimes referred to as the "Ghost Orchid ". Some of these species appear to have more than one name, which makes it somewhat confusing. This orchid has a curious root formation, said to be of scientific interest. It is very slow in growth as it is known to flower only once every three years. I understand that it used to grow in Herefordshire but is now found only in Southern England. Therefore it has become very rare and is obviously in need of protection. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will agree to accept this Amendment.
Lord MELCHETT: I agree with what the noble Baroness said about this plant. We accept that it ought to be included in the Schedule. The only reservation I have is that it is our view that the "Ghost Orchid" would probably be the correct common name by which to refer to it in the Schedule. But, again, in the interests of harmony it would he best to accept the Amendment on the understanding that I will probably move an Amend-
1148
ment at the next stage to change the common name by which the plant is known.
Baroness BERKELEY: I thank the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

MOBILE HOMES BILL
2.20 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to. House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord Maybray-King in the Chair.]
Clause 1
[Duty to offer agreements.]:
Baroness VICKERS Baroness VICKERS moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 11, leave out (" or main ").
The noble Baroness said: I consider that if this Bill is to be successful in helping the homeless, the overhoused and the young married couples, surely the mobile home must be the only home. It is for this reason I should like to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the Marshalled List. For 19 years as a Member of the House of Commons I had an interview session every Saturday and I learned, much to my sorrow, of the great problem of homelessness. It was not only that, but when there were debates in the House it seemed to me that this was a universal problem throughout the country. Various Acts of Parliament have, regrettably, stopped many people either from letting their house or from selling their flat. I believe very sincerely that from the moment children are born the whole environment begins to affect them. Overcrowding leads to wife beating, to baby battering, to divorces and also to vandalism because young people leave homes which are overcrowded. People are sleeping in undesirable places.

1149
Quite a number of times they are sleeping in vans—they have nowhere else to go—or in damp basements or in attics or women having to share kitchens. Many people have no shelter at night and sometimes they are found shelter by the local authorities but afterwards have to wander again.
As, in this Bill, it is to be the main and only home, I should like to know how it is to be judged, how many months have to be occupied in the main home? In my opinion, what are being created are second homes which I consider undesirable. Many people have homes and take the mobile home as a second home. I thought, perhaps wrongly, that this Bill was to help the homeless. I find that it will not do so unless this Amendment is accepted. If it is the only home and should the owner sell it at a profit he does not have to pay Capital Gains Tax.
A Minister recently put forward Circular No. 24 on housing needs and action from the Department of the Environment. It has been summarised as follows:
" To meet immediate needs mobile homes or other forms of housing which can be made available quickly should sometimes be provided or allowed and such proposals will be sympathetically"—
that is, by the Minister—
" considered for key sector loan consent.
" Local authorities are asked to speed the lengthy process of designing and building local authority dwellings, and in particular designs should avoid complexity intended ' to seek an interesting scheme '."
I think that this Circular to the local authorities should be helpful if it is carried out. The immediate need is for mobile homes and other forms of housing that can be made quickly available. I think that with this Circular from the Minister there is no reason why it should not be carried out.
In many areas there were "prefab" houses which were in good condition but, unfortunately, they were pulled down too soon. I think it unfortunate that in Clause 9 of the Bill "mobile home" regrettably has the same meaning as "caravan" in Part 1 of the 1960 Act as amended by the 1968 Act. I have brochures here but I cannot mention names; but I think that a mobile home is completely different from a caravan and should have a different distinctive title.
In Gibraltar for example, the Royal Navy was housed in these mobile homes. They preferred to have permanent homes, of course; but this was much better than them having to share, and it was better for the wives to be able to be with their husbands. In Devonport recently the Navy used "prefabs" while rebuilding on the site of "H.M.S. Drake ", and there are some nice "prefabs" in Wiltshire. There are plenty of sites and they will go on standing empty for economic reasons. Certainly roads will not be built. There is one road, where several hundred prefabs were pulled down in order for it to be made into a main road, which will not now be constructed, after all. With unemployment rising, a family could take a mobile home to a certain area, particularly Scotland where so many men have to work and leave their families behind. In America it is not unusual to see mobile homes being taken on a lorry from one place to another.
Who is to decide the meaning of "main"? I suggest that we take out "or main" but leave in "only" in view of the housing shortage. The expression "only or main residence "has been used in the Bill because of the expression in Section 29 of the Finance Act 1965 dealing with the exemption of capital gains. But if it is an only home and it is sold at a profit, capital gains tax will not be payable. My noble friend might consider some other phrase such as "usual place of abode" which I gather is used in Section 38(1)(b). of the Land Compensation Act 1961.
I am astonished that this Bill defines a mobile home and states that it has the same meaning as caravan. Surely to call this the Mobile Homes Bill is a misnomer. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, regarding the attitude of the Government to the Bill, said that the problem of mobile homes was the responsibility, in the main, of the Secretary of State for Trade. He also said that, in certain circumstances, the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection was involved, but that he would be keeping in close touch with both. How absurd can one become when the main desire is to create new homes for the people themselves! There is a

1151
waiting list for these sites of approximately 20,000 people who could be moved into mobile homes in the not too distant future. More sites could be made available. At least 10,000 houses or flats might be released.
If the noble Lord cannot accept this exact Amendment, I hope he will give me an assurance that he will look into this to see that this Bill creates new homes for the homeless, and that the other people who have another home somewhere else, can either have a caravan which they can tow, or provide themselves with a caravan site. We shall be doing a great service not only to individual people, but to the whole country if we can relieve some of the destitute people who are in need of homes. I beg to move.
2.28 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: I have listened carefully to the noble Baroness, but I am not sure I followed her argument or whether, with this Amendment, she was intending to probe the sponsors of the Bill to see if a more precise definition of the word "main" could be ascertained. As I understood what the noble Baroness was saying, the connection between the availability of mobile homes and the provisions of Clause 1 was not immediately apparent. Nor was it clear to me how, by striking out the word "main ", as she suggested, any additional sites were to be provided, and the waiting list of 20,000 people, to which she referred, was to be diminished.
The noble Baroness made an important point when she referred to the definition of main " in the Finance Act 1965, which applies to owner-occupiers of ordinary dwellings. She said that provision was made in that Act for exemption from capital gains tax where a person had two or more homes and had to choose one of them to which the exemption applied. That was obviously sensible because the Government and their successors would not have wished to extend that concession so that an unlimited number of houses were to come under it, if anybody was fortunate enough to have more than one place of residence. Precisely the same argument must apply in the case of mobile homes, although hitherto it has been very unusual for anyone to make a capital gain on dis-
1152
posing of his interest in a pitch. Of course, that position may change now under the Bill since the right of transfer of an agreement is written into a later clause and the occupier might have a capital asset of which he could dispose. In that case it would be very important, I suggest, that the provisions of the Finance Act 1965 should be extended to the capital gain which the occupier would then enjoy.
However, if one looks at Clause 1 in full one sees that it refers only to persons who are occupying, or intending to occupy, a mobile home on a protected side. The definition of "a protected site" is found in Clause 9, which excludes sites for which the licence is only for holiday use or, in equivalent terms, such as to allow occupation only at certain times of the year. Therefore, if the noble Baroness has in mind those sites which are entirely for holiday makers, they are already excluded and the person occupying a caravan on one of those sites for two weeks of his annual holiday, or even for much longer periods of the year, would not qualify for the protection given to others under this Bill. So that leaves to be dealt with sites which are entirely residential, and there are a few where the licences allow a mixture of both holiday and residential use. We have a minor problem here, and perhaps the Minister can say something about the number of places on sites which are not specifically residential or holiday but have a mixture of the two uses, where the respective numbers are not clearly laid down in the licence.
What the noble Baroness is saying is that on those sites where the occupation is incontestably of a residential nature—and, after all, the person has to sign a declaration that this is the case the protection conferred on everybody else under the Bill will be denied to an occupier if he is in any other premises for some fraction of the year, however small. The noble Baroness asked the question, to which it would be interesting to know the answer: When we speak of "main", does that imply some minimum length of residence? Certainly in debates on the electoral law, the noble Baroness may remember—I think she took part in the debates on the Representation of the People Bill in 1968—this point came up.

1153
The question arose whether, if a person had a residence, say, in South Kensington and another in North Cornwall, and he was not specific as to the amount of time he spent in each of one of them. would he be able to pick and choose which was his qualifying address for the purpose of exercising his vote under the Representation of the People Bill? The answer is that this point has never been really gone into by the courts and it is a matter for the discretion of the householder.
As I read this Bill, if the occupier declared that a mobile home is his main residence the courts would not be entitled to ask him detailed questions about the length of time which he spent there and the length of time he spent in any other residence where he had a right of occupation. But the principle which the noble Baroness is suggesting—that is, that the protection should vary according to the nature or length of occupation of the pitch—is not one which has ever been suggested for application to housing. And I venture to suggest to your Lordships that it would be decisively rejected if it ever were.
The person who lives in a council house or in a privately rented dwelling might own a caravan and reside there at some period of the year, either on holiday for two weeks or over the weekends—or, if he is fortunate, he might have even longer for his vacation than that. Because he owns or rents a caravan or some other holiday home, he does not thereby forfeit the protection conferred on him by the Rent Acts in his council house or privately rented dwelling. Therefore, I suggest that in this Bill it would be quite illogical for us to prevent a person who owns or occupies a caravan as his principal residence from having the same protection if he is fortunate enough to own or have rights of occupation in any other premises.
2.36 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: I am sure that members of the Committee will forgive me if I start to talk about the conservation of caravans half way through my speech! Indeed, my sense of schizophrenia is added to by the fact that I am rising from these Benches to resist the Amendment of the noble Baroness and
1154
am thereby, as I see it, benefiting people who own more than one home. It is an unusual position for a Member of this Government to be in. However, the effect of the Amendment of the noble Baroness would be to limit the application of the Bill to occupiers who have no other residence except the mobile home in which they live. Even if this Amendment were accepted, without doubt the majority of permanent mobile residents would stand to benefit from the legislation. However, it seems harsh to exclude those who have a second home elsewhere and who occupy their mobile home as their principal residence.
The noble Baroness mentioned one previous example of where this form of words is used. There is another precedent for the phrase "only or main residence" in section 1(2) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The noble Baroness is concerned lest protection is offered to second home dwellers. However, the Bill does not apply to occupants using their mobile homes as second homes or holiday residences. This is a point which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. Most of these occupants probably occupy sites or parts of sites which are not used all the year round, and thus in any event are not covered by the Bill. These people are different from those who live in their mobile home as their main residence, even though they have another but secondary home elsewhere. Such residents are similar in kind to those whose caravan is their only residence, in that both categories would regard it as home. Therefore it seems only fair that the protection offered by the Bill should extend to both categories. When Parliament has granted the very substantial benefits conferred by the Leasehold Reform Act to people who occupy the houses concerned as their main but not their only residence, it seems not unreasonable that the residential entitlement to the benefit of this Bill should follow a similar procedure.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked me about the definition of "main ". As I understand it, no further definition is thought to he required. In any dispute ultimately it would be a matter for the county court to decide, and the fact that it has been used in previous legislation

1155
would mean that there was some experience of deciding this matter.
Lord ELTON: I do not wish unnecessarily to extend this debate. The most that needs to be said has been said. I hope that in the light of what has been said the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw this Amendment, which in my view does not extend protection to a significant class of people. It will not ensure the release on to the market of more housing stock than is at present available, and if it did it would be so marginal as hardly to make any difference. All of us are concerned to increase the available housing stock and to put roofs over people who have no roofs under which to live. That is a principal aim of our whole society and our political effort at the moment, and a good deal of our political argument centres on the way in which it should be done. This way would not have a sufficiently significant effect to justify narrowing the Bill so as to exclude from security of tenure a number of people for whom this is not their second but their principal home, who may need a pied a terre elsewhere for their work and who may have a caravan on a park in Cornwall which they occupy for a fortnight a year and which they would have to own up to, thereby excluding themselves from the protection afforded by this Bill.
Baroness VICKERS: In view of what has been said. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Term of agreements etc.]:
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
(" (2) Where—

(a). an owner of a protected site who is deemed to have complied with this section by virtue of paragraph (a). of the proviso to subsection (1) above subsequently acquires a new or extended estate or interest in the land comprising the site; or

(b). an owner of a protected site is deemed to have complied with this section by virtue of paragraph (b). of the proviso to subsection (1) above and planning permission is subsequently granted for the use of the land
1156
comprising the site as a site for mobile homes either without limitation or for a specified period,

the owner shall offer to extend the term of any agreement entered into in pursuance of a duty imposed on him by section 1 of this Act for a period which expires on whichever of the following dates first occurs:

(i) a date which is five years from the date on which the agreement commenced;

(ii) the date when his estate or interest in the land ceases; or

(iii) the date on which planning permission expires.").

The noble Lord said: This is largely a technical matter, and I apologise to your Lordships for the fact that it had not been foreseen. The Bill as it at present stands provides that agreements which are to be offered under Clause 1 must be for a minimum term of five years. Subsection (1) deals with the situation where either the site owner's interest in the land or the planning permission for use of the site for caravans is insufficient to enable a five year term to be granted. Subsection (2) then caters for the situation where an owner who has necessarily had to offer agreements of less than five years, because of limited interest in the land or limited planning permission, gets his interest or planning permission extended and in these circumstances he must extend the duration of the agreement.
However, subsection (2) of the clause as it stands in the Bill applies only where the interest or permission is extended to a date which is more than five years from the date of the commencement of the agreement. It fails to cover the case where the owner's interest in the land or his limited planning permission is extended but to a point less than five years from the commencement of the agreement. This Amendment ensures that whenever a site owner gets his interest or planning permission extended for any period, he must extend the agreement either up to five years from the date of the original commencement, or, where this is not possible, because the renewed interest or permission expires before then, up to the end of that renewed interest or permission. This is clearly what the sponsors of the Bill had in mind at the outset, but it was overlooked that if the precise length of time did not match the permission there would be a gap, which would make nonsense of the intentions of

1157
the Bill and provide little advantage to anybody. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Particulars to be contained in agreement]:
2.44 p.m.
Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) the description of the mobile home stationed or to be stationed on the site and provisions to enable the occupier to replace such mobile home with another during the period of the agreement, subject to the owner's consent which shall not be unreasonably withheld; ").
The noble Lord said: The reason for this Amendment is that unless there is some provision in the Bill for the mobile home itself to be identified in the agreement, considerable difficulties and uncertainties could arise. These would be greater if the terms of the agreement had to be specified by the courts as provided for in later clauses, and the courts are given no guidance in this matter by the law. I am sure your Lordships will agree that vagueness in legislation should be avoided wherever possible. Precision is desirable and here is a case in point.
From the practical point of view, and in the draft form of agreement that I am advised is so near to mutual acceptance by the three parties concerned—the National Caravan Council, the National Federation of Site Operators and the Mobile Home Residents' Association—it has not been disputed that the mobile home should be identified in the agreement. That being so, it would seem desirable that it should be included. If it is not so identified, any resident would be quite within his rights to replace his present home for another. The new home might, or might not, be suitable from the point of view of its compliance with the relevant British Standard, and there are a number of standards, mostly related to safety and comfort in all seasons of the year. But a home can infringe the site licence conditions because of its dimensions, and this is of some considerable substance. This would then put the park owner in an impossible position. Therefore, I suggest to your Lordships that it is important
1158
that the site owner should be consulted before any replacements are made.
Having identified the mobile home at the time of the commencement of the agreement, I suggest that it is equally important to provide for its replacement. That might become necessary in the case of an accident, such as a fire or something of that kind, which would make the original mobile home uninhabitable or, indeed, the owner might quite naturally wish to replace it with a more modern home. I suggest to your Lordships that it might also be to the advantage of the occupier to have the mobile home identified if he is seeking credit for the purchase of a unit. For these various reasons, I suggest that the Bill is improved if the Amendment is included. I beg to move.
Lord ELTON: I regret that I have to resist this Amendment on two sufficient grounds. First, it seems to me to be unnecessary; and, secondly, it does not seem to me to achieve its declared intention. I hope it is understood by those who have read the Bill that the terms which have to be included in the agreement, and which are listed in this clause, are not the only terms which may be included in the agreement. It is open to a site owner to put down as many other agreements as he thinks proper, and as the home occupier is prepared to sign for.
The noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, said that if the specifications were not included, a replacement home might be unsafe, because it did not conform with British Standard Specifications, or might infringe the conditions upon which the licence for a site had been given to the site owner. I should have thought it was a very imprudent and improvident site owner who did not put in his agreement words to the effect that no home occupier might introduce on to that site something which would result in his loss of the licence. Almost anything might be dragged on to the site if the owner did not put that in. I doubt very much indeed whether many site owners at present extend this extraordinary generosity in terms of admission to their sites. Nevertheless, if such people exist, it is open to them under the Bill as now drafted to protect themselves by putting in those specifications for their own protection. To that extent, therefore, I feel that the Amendment is superfluous, because it

1159
introduces no new rights whatsoever to anybody.
Lord AVEBURY: If the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will forgive me for interrupting him, apart from the words at the beginning of the preamble to Clause 3, "without prejudice to the generality ", would not the site operator also be able to specify the dimensions and other characteristics of the mobile home under the provisions of paragraph (g), which says that "such other provisions" may be included in the agreement as are "necessary to maintain the standards ". That phrase presumably includes the standards imposed on the site operator by the local authority under the licence.
Lord ELTON: The noble Lord helpfully anticipates my next point, which is this. There is an understandable alarm among site owners that the Bill as it stands might be something which I think they term a "banger's charter ". I should explain that a "banger" is not something which makes a noise, but something which looks as if it will collapse. It is perfectly possible for the site owner to put in specifications as to the standards of maintenance and the dimensions, as the noble Lord. Lord Avebury, helpfully said, and indeed anything else he thinks is helpful, under the Bill as it now stands.
I presume this is intended by the site operators to meet their point that the duty to offer to enter into what is, in effect, an eight year agreement will mean that existing residents who live in old worn-out homes will be given the right to remain in occupation of them. Either they can say, "The only agreement we can offer you is one that you will not be able to meet with your present residence because it will have deteriorated in the next three years and you must take the risk if you sign it ", or, if the occupant then signs that undertaking, he has to maintain his home at the acceptable level so that the standard of the site does not decline. If he refuses to do so, which he may do, he may be allowed to remain on the site but he loses the protection of the Bill.
The point is that the Amendment would not appear to have the desired effect which the noble Lord seeks, as the option to replace the existing mobile home would rest with the occupier, as the
1160
Amendment is drafted, and there is no provision giving the owner the right to require that it be replaced by another because of its deteriorating condition. That is something he would still have under the Bill, and which is not due to the Amendment as it now stands. It should be in the agreement. The owner who wants to preserve the standard of mobile homes on his site is not protected by this Amendment, but is perfectly capable of protecting himself, and I would be astonished if he did not do so.
Baroness VICKERS: I was going to support this Amendment, because I thought it was very reasonably aimed at greater clarification, which I always think is advantageous. Also, the exact location of the pitch would facilitate subsequent administration.
Lord ELTON: Is this Amendment concerned with the location?
Baroness VICKERS: As it has already been turned down rather forcibly, I will leave that. May I put one point which might be of interest to the sponsors? There was a conference between the National Caravan Council, the National Federation of Site Operators and the Mobile Homes Residents' Association, and that was frustrated by the refusal of the residents to return to the conference table. They have now sent a letter saying that they have agreed to do so. This may be advantageous in the future.
Lord ELTON: I welcome this sign of growing good will between the parties concerned. That is all I have to add, except that I do not think the Amendment would achieve what it sets out to achieve, and therefore I must ask your Lordships not to support it.
Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL: We have had from my noble friend a very full statement of the reasons why he considers this Amendment will not achieve the objectives it was hoped would be achieved. In the circumstances, therefore, I should like to withdraw this Amendment. I should also like to study very carefully all that has been said, in case it may be necessary to return to the subject on the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2.55 p.m.
Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 4, line 15, leave out paragraph (d) and insert:
(" (d) the annual charge to be made, the intervals at which payment is to be made and provision for reviews of that charge at intervals of twelve months subject to the right of an occupier who has determined the agreement to be repaid by the owner such proportion (if any) of any payment made by him as is attributable to a period after he has ceased to occupy part of the site, any such repayment being apportioned from day to day; ").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps it would be for your Lordships' convenience if at the same time we could discuss Amendment No. 7. The reasons for proposing this Amendment are that the system of splitting the annual charges was introduced as a compromise to meet the needs and the requirements of the site owners and the mobile home occupiers. On the one hand, the longer the gaps that exist between reviews the greater the sense of security of the occupiers of mobile homes. On the other hand, with inflation running at its present very high rate, the site owner needs to be able to make adjustments to meet higher costs.
The site owners have been opposed in principle from the very beginning, and this was made clear to the promoters of the Bill by both the National Caravan Council and the National Federation of Site Operators when the Bill was introduced. I think it is the fact that all values and costs rise in inflationary situations, and while wages and costs of materials and services may be more easily seen to be rising that does not mean that land values, for example, and the capital costs and interest rates are not also rising. Therefore, the site owners see that it does not seem to be justifiable to separate the charges, but they indeed see that there are serious disadvantages to the mobile home occupants if these charges are split.
It is fairly obvious that the longer the gap between reviews the higher must be the increase in charges each time in order to anticipate inflationary trends. It must be obvious to your Lordships that each increase that is made must come as an ever bigger shock to the mobile home occupant. Most other factors are reviewed annually, such as
1162
pensions, rates, and salaries; indeed, at the present time owing to the high rise of inflation, we often have biannual reviews of quite a number of items. If the charges continue to be split it is probable that the site owners will load as many costs as possible into that part that can be reviewed annually. This also would be a disadvantage to the occupiers of mobile homes because VAT will automatically be attracted by the management services.
Perhaps I should here explain that the service element in the site fee is liable to VAT in any case, but it is not always easily definable, and then not only would this system of splitting the original charge precisely define the services element, but it is likely to inflate it too. I suggest that that would be to the disadvantage of the mobile home occupier but would make no difference to the site owners. For these reasons, I very much hope that this Amendment and Amendment No. 7 may be agreed. I beg to move.
3.0 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, has discussed this matter in detail with the National Federation of Site Operators and the National Caravan Council and that he and the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, are putting forward the views of those organisations. Perhaps I should say at the outset that I have the honour to be President of the National Mobile Home Residents Association and therefore it will come as no surprise to the noble Lord that I shall not agree with everything that he said, or with what the noble Baroness said in her brief speech at the end of the last Amendment.
I must take issue with the noble Baroness for raising a correspondence of which we in this Committee have no knowledge and for saying things in this Chamber which are not likely to encourage, harmonious relationships between the site operators' organisations and the National Mobile Home Residents, for whom I have the honour to sneak. I knew nothing about the correspondence to which she referred, but I must say that if one looks back over the long history of negotiations between the site operators and the residents one sees that it has been a question of intransigence on the part of the site operators and a willingness

1163
to move by the residents which did not result in any progress until this legislation was brought forward, and we could have gone on arguing ad infinitum without making any progress if Mr. Tom King had not brought forward the measure which we are now discussing. I am sorry to have had to say this, but the noble Baroness provoked me by what she said at the conclusion of the last Amendment.
Earl FERRERS: The noble Lord will agree that he does not speak for the Mobile Home Residents' Association, but for himself? I do not think any noble Lord speaks on behalf of anyone.
3.3 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: I was using a shorthand term and what the noble Lords says equally applies to the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield, and the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers. They speak of course for themselves, but one knows that the views which they are expressing are likely to be as acceptable to the site operators as mine are to those for whom this Bill is designed, those who live in mobile homes as their permanent residences. Perhaps I used a form of shorthand which could be misunderstood and I accept the noble Lord's clarification. One looks at this Amendment in the light of one's knowledge of the fact that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord are representing the site operators and one must say that despite the fact that the noble Lord maintains that it is in the interests of the residents because of the VAT implications—and we went into all that on Second Reading and quite thoroughly in another place—what is the snag?
As I see it—I mentioned this briefly on Second Reading—if we accept that an annual review of both elements of the charge is the most convenient and simple answer to the problem, then we must have some provision which restricts the increases which the site operator can demand at those intervals. If there is no rule by which the increases in charges are to be determined, then every time the matter will have to be referred to the courts in the case of a dispute and therefore I see the Amendment as being to the disadvantage of the residents. I have already said that so far as I can see it would be perfectly acceptable to have the annual review of both parts, but only on
1164
that condition, and if the noble Lord has any further suggestions to make as to how the residents can resist demands for what are perfectly unreasonable increases at these annual intervals, one would be happy to hear about that.
The noble Lord mentioned that costs of site operators go up like everything else in an inflationary era and one accepts that in general, but the three elements to which he referred were land values, capital costs and interest rates. If one takes the first, land values, they do frequently go up pari passu with inflation, but over the last two years that has not been the case, as the noble Lord is probably aware. If one looks at the indices which are published, at any rate of agricultural land values, one sees that they have been falling quite steeply from the peak of 1972. Thus, on the noble Lord's argument that the value of the land on which these mobile homes stand has been dropping since 1972, at the annual review so should drop the charges which are levied. I think I heard the noble Lord say "Exactly ", but we never find this happening in practice. The noble Lord is aware that when the individual rating of caravans was introduced, so that the site operators were relieved of the charges which they formerly had to bear, those charges were transferred to the individual residents. That never led to any reduction in the charges that were made to the mobile home residents. The landlords simply pocketed the money which they formerly had to pay out in rates. Similarly, if land values are going to fall I cannot believe that this is going to be taken into account in the annual revisions which the noble Lord is proposing.
The second element which he suggested should be considered was capital costs. If the site is one in which model conditions have already been implemented before these agreements are offered, then there is no question of additional capital cost being incurred. Assuming that they already have hardstandings and adequate washing facilties, that there are roadways on the site, children's playgrounds and all the rest of the things laid down in the model rules, and that individual caravans are connected to main drainage and have proper electric light and so on, would the noble Lord care to say what

1165
additional capital expenditure he envisages might be incurred during the course of the 12 months period which is going to justify a review at those intervals?
The last thing the noble Lord mentioned was interest rates. I do not suppose anybody embarking on the substantial expenditure of providing a caravan site is going to do so with money borrowed from the bank. He is going to do so, or he will have done so in the past, on the basis of medium-term loans on which the interest rate would be fixed. It would be a most unwise landlord who, in a year of rapid inflation, would incur long-term debts at variable rates of interest, or would incur short-term debts which may be recalled when the going is tough because banks have been asked to reduce their lending and he is thereby placed in a difficult situation at the end of 12 months because the charges, which may have been reasonable at the beginning of that period, have been overtaken by the increase in interest rates. Other than that, the kind of factors that would be taken into consideration in an annual review of rents do not come in and the analogy ceases. Of course, with local authorities and private landlords of residential property there are increases. We all know this.
We have read in the newspapers during the last few days that in the case of some of the London boroughs rents now being charged vary, if at all, only to meet the cost of the repairs which are incurred by the local authorities and private landlords. Therefore a case can be made, as the Secretary of State has been doing, for a fairly substantial increase in the amount that tenants should pay, and with possibly more frequent revisions than have taken place in the past. But none of those arguments apply to people living in mobile homes. Their agreements relate to a small piece of land on which costs have already been incurred before the occupation is taken up. I cannot see that the position is on all fours with those of tenants of private houses. Nevertheless, I am prepared to go along with the noble Lord provided he can assure me that in these annual reviews, without the separation of the charges to which he may otherwise be liable, adequate protection will be afforded to the occupiers against unreasonably increased charges which
1166
are not warranted by the costs incurred by the landlord.
Earl FERRERS: I have a great deal of sympathy with this particular Amendment, and indeed with what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has just said. Obviously it is absurd if you separate the two charges and then make an obligation to pay VAT. That is an absurdity which will help nobody. Equally, if it is the case that annual charges are to be so extortionate as to be unreasonable, clearly that must be taken account of. But, in an era of inflation, the great danger in having biennial rather than annual charges is not only that the increased charge, when it comes, will be greater but that there is a very real prospect that the site operators may find themselves out of pocket. If that happens, one can imagine the deterioration of the site, which will be to the benefit of nobody. Not only will it not be to the benefit of those who own the sites and of those who live on them; it will also not be to the benefit of all those who live round about. If the standard of the site drops, this will have an effect far wider than upon just the site operators and the residents. I hope that we can come to some form of arrangement under which the annual charge can be retained but can make sure that extortionate increases are not provided for.
Lord ELTON: Noble Lords have prefaced their speeches by declaring their interest. My interest is simply as the sponsor of the Bill in this House. It has been sponsored elsewhere in another place and my brief is to try to produce fair legislation. In my view, the Amendment which is before us is a satisfactory conclusion to a long review of the various contingent factors. My noble friend Lord Wakefield who moved it was kind enough to keep me in the picture and I can say that the arguments he has advanced this afternoon, crowning those which he advanced earlier before the debate, convinced me. No such arguments were advanced on behalf of the National Mobile Home Residents' Association and nothing was offered to me on the subject, so I judged their case on the words of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
I do not want to take up much of the Committee's time because the noble Lord,

1167
in his concluding paragraph, revealed a willingness to accept the Amendment, on terms. It may not be necessary, therefore, to prolong the argument very much. As a result, I shall only refer in passing to the fact that it seems to me that it is no more difficult to resist unreasonable demands made annually than it is to resist doubly unreasonable demands made biennially. I do not think that there is an advance in making that change which the noble Lord implied would be an improvement. I was slightly left out of the picture by the suggestion that changes in the value of land once it had been bought and was occupied would in any way alter the costs of running the site except in so far as they affected the rateable value. I should have thought that that would normally be marginal. The rest of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, against the Amendment revolved—
Lord AVEBURY: I mentioned the cost of land only because it was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield. I did not introduce the subject.
Lord ELTON: I did not impute the introduction of the matter to the noble Lord, I am sorry if I appeared to do so. I said that the argument about the change in values escaped me. However, I do not think we should pursue that. Similarly. I do not think we should pursue the rest of the reasons of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for appearing to be about to resist the Amendment because they seem to me to be much more relevant to the Amendment which he has put down later on in relation to rent control. That is a separate matter. Therefore, if your Lordships are content to believe that heinous injustice by landlords of a grasping nature can be avoided—and I feel that we all believe that they should be resisted and that we may have to review how this can be done—I should recommend your Lordships to accept the Amendment.
Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL: I am grateful for the sympathetic way in which the Amendment has been received by the Committee. Perhaps it would be helpful, if between now and Report stage, consultations take place with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, with a view to his possibly moving an Amendment which
1168
might be considered appropriate to give further protection as he might think desirable. I hope that the promoters of the Bill would be willing to look sympathetically at any Amendment moved in that way—
Lord ELTON: Before the noble Lord concludes his remarks, may I say that of course the promoters of the Bill will look with care at any provision and will look sympathetically at what they regard as sensible provisions. This is delicate ground upon which we are walking and I urge noble Lords to be aware of this when they approach their consultations before the Report stage, because I do not think that the interests of any parties will be served by an acute and hostile divergence of opinion on the Bill which might delay it and mean that it either became unworkable, or was replaced by something which some noble Lords might think was worse.
Lord MELCHETT: As someone who has kept out of the warfare raging on the other side of Committee, may I say that I think that the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, of consultations on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, would be welcome? Perhaps it would be considered suitable that, as the Government have kept out of the discussions so far, we could be involved in a neutral capacity in any further discussions.
Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL: In the light of what has been said, perhaps it is desirable that I should take no further part in the debate on this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL: I beg formally to move Amendment No. 7.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 28, leave out paragraph (e).—(Lord Wakefield of Kendal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.17 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 4, line 30, at end insert:
("( ) undertakings by the occupier to observe regulations made by the owner in common for all occupiers of the site governing the conduct of occupiers in relation to their occupancy of the site; ").
The noble Viscount said: We are concerned here with compulsory conditions that go into the agreement. On reading paragraph (g) it seemed to me that it was not necessarily apt to cover the sort of house rules that one would expect on many sites, governing the ordinary standards of conduct, the making of noise, perhaps the hanging out of washing, and other matters on a communal site of this kind, with people living fairly close to one another. It seemed that it would be as well to ensure that there was a communal and common set of standards to be adhered to by everybody. With regard to the disputes procedure, your Lordships will see that one of the functions of the courts is to make any disputed agreement contain all the provisions in Clause 3. I therefore felt it would be advisable to spell this out and to ensure that there was no doubt that the kind of rules I have just mentioned should be included in the provisions of the agreement and that the occupiers should undertake to abide by them.
It has been pointed out to me that the way the Amendment is drafted would require there to be rules in every case. I suppose that at some sites—perhaps small sites, or those where there are large distances between the mobile homes—it may not be so necessary. I wonder whether the Committee would agree that I amend my own Amendment by way of a manuscript Amendment, so that it would read:
" undertakings by the occupier to observe any regulations made by the owner in common for all occupiers of the site governing toe conduct of occupiers in relation to their occupancy of the site;".
The inclusion of the word "any" after "observe" would take account of the fact that there may be circumstances where there are no common regulations, but would nevertheless deal with the situation where there are and would make everybody subject to them.
I do not know what my noble friend Lord Elton has to say about this proposal, but I think it would be as well to deal with the point specifically. If the Committee is prepared to accept my manuscript Amendment to my Amendment the matter would be even clearer, and in any event I very much look
1170
forward to hearing what my noble friend has to say. I beg to move.
3.20 p.m.
Lord ELTON: A good many of the observations I was about to make concerned the insertion of the word "any" between the word "observe" and "regulations ". I gather that the Deputy Chairman has accepted my noble friend's suggestion and therefore the Amendment is slightly different from that which we were about to consider. I cannot refrain from making an observation which I have already made: that the regulations as they stand allow the insertion of such an undertaking in the form of agreement. But I accept that there are perhaps strong arguments that social behaviour should be encouraged just as much on mobile home sites as on council housing estates, and that the grievances of tenants who suffer from unsocial noises, in particular, would be magnified if they live in structures of thin walls as on mobile home sites. Therefore I do not welcome this Amendment, because I do not feel it is necessary. But I do not think it is in any way harmful and I believe it could in some respects encourage higher standards of behaviour.
I wonder whether the noble Viscount has considered that if the inclusion of such regulations is made obligatory, then quite a new field of litigation would be opened and it would be necessary for the associations concerned to have standard drafts of agreement which could be adhered to by site operators and endorsed by the occupants. Subject to what might be said on either side of the Committee in support of this Amendment, I would not wish at this stage to resist it.
Lord AVEBURY: I should be interested to know where the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, got his Amendment from or whether he thought it up from his own knowledge of what happens on caravan sites. If it was suggested by any other person, I should like to know the etiology of it; because I do not know what the noble Viscount's experience is. I have found that in many cases the rules promulgated by the operators of these sites are extremely unreasonable, and I can see a possibility of conflict between the Amendment which the noble Viscount has tabled and the disputes procedure under Clause 4(4) where the court

1171
is required to make an order granting agreements to comply with Section 3 of the Act containing such terms and conditions as the court thinks reasonable. I would suggest to the noble Viscount that these requirements on the court might be in conflict. He says plainly that the occupier has to give an undertaking to observe any regulations whatsoever which may be made by the owner; but these regulations may be unreasonable and so the court is obliged to uphold the provisions which require the occupier to observe the regulations, and is also obliged to see that the agreement is reasonable. The two might be totally incompatible.
Perhaps I might be allowed to give the noble Viscount two examples. I had a site in my former constituency which was run by a real "shark". He made a rule that no person on the site was to have more than one child. If occupiers were unfortunate enough to become pregnant, already having one child, they were given instant notice. After this had been argued for a considerable time and there had been some publicity about it, the owner graciously agreed that in future two children would be permitted by each occupier on the site. The other example is this and it is much more common. I am not suggesting that it happens frequently that site owners make an attempt to impose restrictions on the size of the residents' families, but frequently you will find—and I am sure the noble Viscount will have some knowledge of this—site operators who restrict access to tradesmen by persons on the site while, of course, getting a "rake-off "from the tradesmen who are permitted to operate. For instance, you may only get paraffin or coal from a certain tradesman who is granted the monopolistic situation on the site. That is written into the rules.
I am sure the noble Lord will agree that if operators are going to make that regulation, he would not wish to have their power to do so upheld specifically in the Bill. I would much sooner leave this to the sense of the courts, who have to make decisions as to what is reasonable and who would be able to examine any regulations that the site operator attempted to impose, and I would accept those rules which are for the benefit of all occupiers. I agree that there may be
1172
some which are generally desirable for the good conduct of the site, just as on housing estates. These ensure that people do not disturb their neighbours with noise, or hang out washing at times which may be greatly inconvenient to their neighbours. I accept those things. On council estates and private estates there are limits on what the landlord is expected to require from the tenants, and so on caravan sites there must be reasonable limits on the rules which may be imposed. The courts should be the right people to determine that, and we should not give the site operators the power to impose any regulations that they think fit.
3.26 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: I urge the noble Viscount not to press this Amendment, particularly, to reiterate something the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, as the conditions which the operator writes into the agreement are not restricted to those specified in Clause 3. Agreements specifying additional undertakings will comply with the requirements of the Bill, provided its additional conditions do not conflict with those specified in the clause. I think it may weaken the generality of Clause 3. and the fact that what are listed are only things which shall be included and are not meant to be exclusive. If we add many more details to the already long list in Clause 3, the more it is likely to be thought that they are exclusive and that other conditions may not be written into the agreements. I hope the noble Viscount will accept that what he wants may be included in the agreement provided it does not conflict with anything else in the Bill, and that therefore his Amendment is not strictly necessary.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: This leaves me very puzzled. First of all, as to the etiology of it, it is really a matter of law. I was looking in my own past and found I had been drafting model by-laws and leases for a local authority who ran a caravan site. One of the things that the occupiers had to do was to stick to the site by-laws. There appeared to me to be a good deal to be said for that. May I ask the noble Lords, Lord Elton, or Lord Melchett, whether I am right in understanding that Clause 3, paragraph (g) does not, as it is drafted at the moment, include the provision of undertakings to abide by site

1173
by-laws? It must follow from what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said, that the Bill is drafted not to include that, otherwise he could not object to my spelling it out in detail. I thought it was intended to be comprehended by the wording, and the Bill talks about the provisions
" necessary to maintain the standards reasonably required … in relation to the occupation of the site ".
I thought that included the by-laws I was talking about. The noble Lord, I imagine, is now saying it does not and should not.
Secondly, I shall have to raise something with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, when we come to Amendment No. 16. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that it would be a good thing that the courts should be able to consider the site by-laws, and I think I am right in saying that I have not put down anything in this Amendment which necessarily precludes them from doing that. If the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will look at subsection (2) of Amendment No. 16, he will find that in
" a case falling within paragraph (b). of that subsection "—
that is, where the occupier has been offered an agreement which falls within the terms of the Bill and has not said anything about it one way or the other—the owner of the site goes along to the court and the court is strictly limited in the powers that it has. It has not powers to approve or to make an agreement which contains the Section 3 provisions and such terms and conditions or such other terms and conditions; it only has power to approve an agreement, as I read it, that complies with Section 3. There is no question of any other conditions for powers at all.
Therefore, if nothing is put in to cover the provision I am speaking about, if the occupier chooses to be idle or pigheaded and not to agree with the ordinary rules that apply to everybody else, he forces the owner to go into the courts and the courts then cannot make that man, and that man only, comply with those rules, however reasonable they may be. That seems to me an insane situation—and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will now tell me why I am wrong.
Lord MELCHETT: No, I shall not. The noble Viscount should not jump to
1174
conclusions just because I am on my feet. I was going to ask the noble Viscount a question. He is a lawyer and I am not. I should have thought that the reference to Clause 3 in paragraph (b). in my Amendment, to which he referred, would cover the fact that Clause 3—and this is the question I am asking the noble Viscount—includes the words "without prejudice to the generality to the foregoing shall include ", quite clearly saying that Clause 3 is not an inclusive list. I should have thought that the court would be able to take that into account in the reference to Clause 3 later.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Perfectly right. That would be an admirable answer, if I may respectfully suggest so, if the noble Lord had not put in, in addition to that, in paragraph (a). of subsection (2), that in addition to complying with Section 3 it may also contain such terms and conditions as the court thinks reasonable or such other terms and conditions as the court thinks reasonable. This may well be a point that comes up in the construction in the county court, and it is a point of some importance.
Lord MELCHETT: I have a feeling, unless I am in a muddle, that we are on a point which an Amendment of Lord Elton will raise on the existing clause—that is before my new clause is moved—and it may well be one I am disposed to accept. I hope I have the right wording. Therefore, we shall be coming on to this point at a later stage.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I had to deal with the point as to what the courts could do, because the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised it. I am answering the point he made to the Committee a little earlier. But may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for his assistance in the point he put to me a little earlier? If I am invited to withdraw this Amendment on the grounds that we do not wish to have anything further that suggests that the list in Clause 3 is exclusive, is it or is it not right that paragraph (g) as it stands is capable of including a requirement or an undertaking by the occupier to stick to the site rules? If it is—and I thought that it was, albeit rather heavily disguised by a number of other things—it may well be that my Amendment is unnecessary. If it is not, and we do not get the procedures right

1175
in the disputes clause when we come to it, then I would suggest to the Committee that my Amendment is extremely necessary because otherwise we shall get into the difficulty I have just mentioned.
Lord MELCHETT: I think this is something on which I need to take further advice. My feeling at this stage on paragraph (g) is that whether it is wide enough to include the site rules would very much depend on the rules themselves. But were it not, there is nothing in Clause 3 and in any of its subsections which prevents other rules from being written into an agreement so long as they comply with the rest of the provisions in the Bill. I do not know whether that answers the point the noble Viscount is asking about.
Lord AVEBURY: I am not sure whether we have altogether cleared up the point that I raised about Clause 4(4). A later Amendment, No. 16, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, may be accepted. The wording in subsection (2) of that Amendment is identical. Whether we accept Lord Melchett's Amendment or not, my point still stands: the court is required to do two things in determining what should be said in an agreement. It is required to see that the agreement applies to Section 3 and it is required to see that it contains such terms and conditions as the court thinks reasonable. My main objection to the noble Lord's Amendment is that the two requirements which are placed on the court may be incompatible with each other— that if any rules, as the noble Lord wants to say in his Amendment, are unreasonable, nevertheless, because they are laid down in Section 3, the court has to uphold them. But in doing so it is infringing the other part of paragraph (i) which is set out in Section 4(1)(a). It is upholding terms and conditions which it may well think are unreasonable.
I gave two examples of the kind of rules which I am sure nobody in your Lordships' House would defend. So long as the words "any regulation ", or a similar term, without a preceding qualifying adjective such as "reasonable", appear in this Amendment, I am afraid we shall get ourselves into this difficulty.
Lord ELTON: Surely the word "in" is used in the sense " any rain that may
1176
fall on Friday " or any hope that we have of getting the Bill through this House today or next week ". We are getting into unnecessary difficulty. Quite clearly, on the Bill as it stands or on the Bill as amended, as the case may be—because it does not make any difference —a court which was presented with unreasonable rules would rule that no unreasonable regulation conformed with Clause 3.
I would go further and ask whether noble Lords wish to continue this discussion without technical advice, because it is a technical point. The noble Lord who speaks for the Government has already said that he wants technical advice and I would not recommend your Lordships to proceed to the conclusion of the Bill without first having obtained that advice. And perhaps your Lordships' House may wish to take that advice. I say this in no pontificating manner but in the hope that it may facilitate the speedier progress of this Bill through the Committee.
Lord AVEBURY: The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, who has moved this Amendment is a distinguished lawyer. He is fully seized of the point which I make now and would be capable of answering it and advising your Lordships in Committee.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I do not want to waste the time of the Committee, either. Certainly I do not wish to waste it by giving advice, which may be wrong advice, to the Committee. Apart from speed, which is very important, I am interested in two things. First, I want to know whether or not my noble friend Lord Elton wishes paragraph (g) to include site rules. Secondly, I want to know in a minute what is to happen about Clause 4, because until we get that straight—and we shall not until I have withdrawn the Amendment or it has been agreed to—we shall not know where we are. We require a certain amount of further thought to be given to this matter behind the scenes. We have raised a problem which ought to be looked at. I am not suggesting that there should be unreasonable regulations, but I think that people should be subject to site rules, particularly if they go to court. Therefore, if we can do something elsewhere

1177
before next Friday I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord STRABOLGI: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I announce now that through the usual channels it has been agreed that we should adjourn the Committee at around 4 p.m. today until next Friday, when it is hoped that the Committee stage will be completed.
Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL: May I ask what opportunity there will then be for consideration between the Committee and the Report stage, because it seems that time may well be required for discussions to take place. I hope, therefore, that reasonable time will be allowed.
Lord STRABOLGI: I can give that assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal. Without committing my Chief Whip, may I say it is probable that the Report stage will be a week later—on 4th July.
Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL: I am much obliged.
Lord ELTON: May I make the observation that the usual channels are agreed on this procedure on the under standing that sufficient time is provided at an early enough date for this Bill to reach the Commons in time for them to discuss your Lordships' Amendments before the Bill would otherwise lapse. I believe the date is 11th July and therefore it is possible that this may be done: but would your Lordships please bear that in mind.
Lord STRABOLGI: I will certainly give that assurance, always bearing in mind, of course, that the different stages of the Bill are completed with some rapidity.
3.40 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 41, leave out paragraph (h) and insert—
(" (h) the right of the owner to determine the agreement for breach of an undertaking, subject to the requirement, in the case of a breach which is capable of being remedied, that he has served written notice of the breach upon the occupier and has given the occupier a reasonable opportunity of remedying it:").
The noble Lord said: I think this Amendment can be dealt with a little more quickly. It is a technical Amendment to stop up a loophole in Clause 3(h). The main requirement remains as at present drafted, that before bringing to an end an agreement for breach of undertaking, the owner must give to the occupier notice in writing of the breach. This affords to the occupier a reasonable opportunity to put matters right before the owner actually terminates the agreement. The undertakings to which this provision refers are those in Clause 3(f) and (g) which relate to the prompt payment of charges, quiet enjoyment, the provision of services, mutual undertakings by the owner and the occupier about the mobile home, and maintenance of the site and its facilities. But other undertakings not listed in Clause 3 may also be included in the agreement. However, the breach may be of a kind which in practice is not capable of being remedied by the occupier. The Amendment therefore contains the proviso that the main requirement that notice in writing should be served, applies only in the case of a breach capable of being remedied. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Disputes]:
3.42 p.m.
Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 6, line 34, leave out from (" conditions ") to (" so ") in line 35.
The noble Lord said: It might be for the convenience of your Lordships if the discussion also covers Amendment No. 12. These Amendments are concerned with disputes. This is really a very complicated matter and one which, because of lack of time, did not receive detailed consideration in another place. Lengthy Amendments were tabled overnight before the Report stage in another place, and I am advised that the National Caravan Council was unable to get a copy of the precise wording until after the debate was over.
As I see it, the essence of these clauses is to give the mobile home occupier the opportunity to apply to the courts for an agreement in the event that the site owner fails to offer one—I think no one

1179
would take any exception to that—or, if having offered one, and having agreed terms, the owner then fails to put them into effect. If, having gone to the court and no agreement having been offered, the court grants an agreement in terms that the occupier does not like or perhaps even cannot meet, it is just that the occupier should be given the option in Clause 4(6) to apply for the order to be revoked. All obligations are then discharged and the occupier must presumably rely on the 1968 Act for his security of occupation. However, the parts of the new clauses about which I am now objecting extended that situation, so that even if the parties had agreed the terms the courts could alter them as they thought fit. While the mobile home occupier still has his right under Clause 4(6) to apply for revocation, the site owner apparently holds no such rights.
Supposing the site owner and a mobile home occupier agree the terms of an agreement for a mobile home occupier to have a five-year agreement at a charge, say, of £12 a month for the first twelve months. Then, for some reason, the site owner fails to get the written agreement in its final form to the occupier in the three months allowed by Clause 4(1)(b).; the occupier is at liberty to go to the court to ask for the granting of an agreement under Clause 4(4)(a).. As this is now drafted, and without the Amendment I propose, the court, having heard both sides, would be within its right to grant an agreement to the occupier for ten years at £5 a month. How can the site owner then get out of such a situation? It seems to me clear that some Amendment is, needed to this clause to redress the balance of interests. For the reasons I have given, I hope that this Amendment may be accepted. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: As the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, has said, this is a rather complicated matter. I apologise in advance to the Committee for taking a minute or two in order to set out the feelings of the Government about it. These two Amendments relate to Clause 4(4)(a). which sets out the powers of the court to deal with applications from occupiers in the following circumstances: first, where the occupier has
1180
not offered an agreement under Clause 1; secondly, where the occupier and the owner have agreed the terms of an agreement but the owner has failed to sign the agreement.
Under Clause 4(4)(a). the court has power to make an order, first, in the case where no agreement has been offered at all granting an agreement which complies with Clause 3 and contains such terms and conditions as the court thinks reasonable; or, secondly, in the case where the occupier claims that terms have been agreed and the court finds that they have, and the court then grants the agreement in those agreed terms. Or thirdly, in the case where the occupier claims that terms have been agreed, but the court is not satisfied that this is the case, and the court then grants an agreement which complies with Clause 3, and which contains such terms and conditions as it thinks reasonable. Paragraph (a). refers to such other terms and conditions in this latter context, but this is a reference to the fact that the court is not required to include terms which the occupier alleges have been agreed, but which have not.
These Amendments seek to delete the references to terms or conditions which the court thinks reasonable in the first and third case of the three cases I have just outlined. Presumably, the intention is to ensure the terms imposed by the court comply with Clause 3, but if this is the case the Amendments are unnecessary, since paragraph (a). already provides not only that the terms shall be reasonable, but also that they shall comply with Clause 3. Deletion of the words in question seems undesirable on two counts. First, the provision that the court shall grant an agreement which complies with Clause 3 seems to me insufficient in view of the fact that Clause 3 does not set out model terms for an agreement. Here we return to a theme which has run through much of the debate on the Amendments today. Clause 3 does not set out model terms for an agreement, but merely indicates the types of provisions to be included in agreements. It is necessary for the precise terms and conditions which are to be included, for example the amount of the annual charge, to be worked out, and therefore it seems desirable to make it clear that the terms

1181
are to be such as the court is satisfied are reasonable.
The second reason for resisting the Amendment is that the parties may themselves propose terms which are not reasonable. The court should have discretion in such a case to impose its own terms. If the intention is that the court does not grant agreements which include terms in addition to those which Clause 3 expressly provides, then this Amendment will not achieve that object either. The power to include extra provisions is implicit in Clause 3 which provides, at page 3, lines 31 to 43, that agreements, "shall contain full particulars of the terms and conditions" of the arrangements between the owner and the occupier, and shall include provisions of the kind described in paragraphs (a). to (k) of that clause. It would, in any event, be undesirable to exclude the power to add provisions to the ones in Clause 3(a). to (k), because these paragraphs omit a number of provisions normally included in caravan agreements; for example, the provision to secure that the site licence conditions are complied with by the occupier.
The noble Lord, Lord Wakefield, further argued, if I understood him correctly, that it is unfair to provide the occupier with a right in subsection (6) to apply for the revocation of the court's order when he is dissatisfied with the agreement granted. The noble Lord contrasts this with the fact that the owner, who was taken to court in the first place, is bound by the court's judgment without any means of revocation. I think the noble Lord would accept that the answer to this point is that in choosing not to accept the agreement handed down by the court, the occupier would be forfeiting such protection as is afforded by the Bill and would expose himself immediately to expulsion from the site, subject only to the protection afforded by Part I of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. Accordingly, it is the Government's view that the right does not bear in any way harshly on the site owner.
Lord ELTON: It may be helpful if at this stage I draw your Lordships' attention to the Amendment which stands in my name. That may go some way to redress the balance which the movers of this Amendment may feel is unfairly Tilted at the moment, should the Amend-
1182
ment be withdrawn. But I should like to hear what my noble friend Lord Wakefield has to say.
Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL: I think we all agree that this is a complicated matter. Clearly, the very full explanation which the noble Lord opposite has given, for which I am much obliged, suggests that what he has said must be looked at carefully. In the light of what he has said, I would ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.53 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 6, line 42, at end insert (" and contains such other terms and conditions as the court thinks reasonable;").
The noble Lord said: As I have already suggested, the object of this Amendment is to redress somewhat an unequal balance which appears to lie between the site owner and the home occupier as regards their rights in the case of a dispute. In the first case, where you have absence of an agreement which appears to be, as it were, by lapse or default on the part of the site owner, there is a power for the court to alter the agreement in terms which it thinks reasonable; whereas, as the Bill now stands, where the lapse or default is on the part of the home owner such an adjudication does not exist and is not given to the court. Since a good many of the difficulties which are felt about this Bill stem originally from a feeling that one or other party is being dealt with more or less fairly than the other, it seemed to me right to mirror in subsection (4)(b). the phrase in subsection (4)(a).. That is the intention of this Amendment, and I hope your Lordships will see fit to agree. I beg to move.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: If we are going to do this, it certainly gets us out of one of the difficulties. When we come back next Friday, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will probably have a slightly different Amendment No. 16 on the Marshalled List from the one which appears there today. If so, all to the good. If there is to be further thought about this matter, may make one further point about the whole drafting of subsection (4). I should like to remind the Committee that these proceedings are going to be in the county

1183
court, and nowhere, so far as I know, are reports of the adjudications in the county court made generally available to practitioners. It may be that through specialist channels in the world of caravans and mobile homes there will be a certain amount of intercommunication, but this is not going to help the people arguing the case to and fro before a number of county court judges all over England and Wales and, for all I know, Scotland as well.
The difficulty is that, looking at subsection (4)(a)., the first of the three situations to go before the courts is in a case falling within paragraph (a). the order for grant of the agreement must include material which complies with Clause 3 and contains such terms and conditions as the court thinks reasonable. With the Amendment that my noble friend has just moved to paragraph (b). we bring the words of the second limb of subsection (4)(a). into line with the wording of subsection (4)(b)., but we have as an extra word the word "other". In the second limb of subsection (4)(a)., and in subsection (4)(b). as it is now proposed to be amended, not only must the agreement comply with Clause 3 but it may also contain such other terms and conditions as the court thinks reasonable.
As I understand it, what everybody wants in whatever circumstances a dispute arises and comes before the courts, is. first, that the court should be seized of the matter and be able to decide it; secondly, that it should listen to both sides, regardless of whose fault it was that the matter had to come under the dispute procedure anyway; thirdly, that whatever agreement is approved by the court includes all the things that are compulsorily brought in under Clause 3; and fourthly, that if anything is put in purportedly under Clause 3—and this is Lord Avebury's point—but still contains something which is unreasonable, the court should be able to strike that out and instead put in something reasonable; and fifthly. that there should be power for the court to put in things which are not listed in Clause 3, but to put them in in terms which are also reasonable. I think that that is agreed, and that is the intention behind what the county court is to do.
1184
What worries me is that it can do that under the second limb of (4)(a). and under (4)(b). as amended by my noble friend's Amendment, but I am not sure that that is what the courts are going to think that they have the power to do under the present wording of the first limb of (4)(a). because the word "other is not there.
Lord AVEBURY: Yes, it is.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: It says "such terms and conditions as the court thinks reasonable ", if the noble Lord will look carefully. I think that the county courts are going to think that the only matters of terms and conditions which are reasonable for them to deal with are those which fall within Clause 3. They will not think that they can deal with anything other than the list in Clause 3 in the circumstances peculiarly described in the first part of (4)(a).. This is a fault which is common to the present Bill and to Lord Melchett's Amendment. I raise it now not in order that we need to go into it, but so that notice is given that I mean to go into it next Friday if they do not cure it.
Lord MELCHETT: If the answer is the inclusion of the word "other", I am sure that we can arrange for that before next Friday. Certainly, in principle, Lord Elton's Amendment seems to be acceptable. I should like the opportunity to make absolutely certain that technically we have got it right as, as I confidently hope, we will be moving a completely new version of this clause next time we come to discuss the Bill. I think that would give me an opportunity for producing an Amendment along the lines of the one now being moved, and also to take note of the points made by the noble Viscount. In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment at this stage.
Lord ELTON: Since the clock hovers at 4 o'clock and we are due to adjourn, may I ask whether it would be helpful, in order to record the sense of the Committee, if we could accept the Amendment in the knowledge that there will be a new drafting of Clause 4, and that then it will be possible to include this intention in the Bill when the noble Lord has read

1185
Hansard and also the views, which I entirely endorse, of my noble friend Lord Colville. Therefore, I should like to move this Amendment. Has the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, anything of substance to add before the guillotine falls?
Lord AVEBURY: I am not sure whether it is a point of substance, but since the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is to consider the word "other" between now and Friday, I am wondering whether it should be retained in all parts of this subsection because we have
" … without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing "
and that seems to indicate that one could put anything into the agreement one wanted, and therefore rather than put "other" in later where it does not occur, we might as well delete it earlier where it does occur.
Lord ELTON: That is a point which the Minister will no doubt wish to take on board. I hope that noble Lords will agree to this Amendment, because it will act as a starting point from which he can spring forth, fully armed to deal with the hydrolight problems which confront him over the next seven days.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord STRABOLGI: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we were to break now. I beg to move that this House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

GUARD DOGS BILL
4.1 p.m.
Lord GORDON-WALKER: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill deals only with a limited and clearly defined issue namely, the use of guard dogs. The Secretary of State for the Environment has set up a Working Party to consider all aspects of the law relating to dogs, so that any noble Lords who have other ideas and views about what should be done about dogs will have to await the report of that Working Party.
This Bill arises out of two tragic events. In April 1971, a two-year-old boy was grievously injured by two guard dogs on premises in Islington, and in
1186
July 1974 a ten-year-old boy was killed in Glasgow by two guard dogs owned by a private security organisation. In the light of those tragic events, an honourable friend of mine in another place introduced and got through a Bill to control the use of guard dogs. The Home Office, after some doubts about the Bill, agreed that it was necessary and gave my honourable friend great help in drafting Amendments to the Bill, which received its Third Reading on 18th May. Perhaps I had better point out two things that the Bill does not do, because this was not wholly understood in the debate in another place. It is not concerned with dogs, even if in ordinary parlance they are guard dogs, in private houses. That is made quite clear in Clause 6. Secondly, and this is not quite so obvious, by restricting a person protected by a guard dog to a person guarding premises as defined in the Bill, it exempts the use of guard dogs to protect a handler collecting or delivering money on premises such as shops and banks when the dog is present for only a few minutes.
The main provisions of the Bill are simple. Clause 1 prohibits the use of unattended guard dogs at premises as defined in the Bill. A guard dog may not be used at such premises unless at all times under the control of a handler capable of controlling the dog. If the handler is engaged for a period—for example. making himself a meal—and cannot have the dog under his immediate control, the dog must be chained or otherwise secured so as not to be at liberty to go freely about the premises. The handler can leave the premises only if another handler assumes control of the dog, and where a guard dog is on premises notices to that effect must be clearly displayed at all entrances. The other main provision of the Bill is in Clause 2, which says that a person carrying on the business of hiring out guard dogs must hold a licence in respect of his kennels. A person who contravenes the provisions of Clauses 1 or 2 renders himself liable on summary conviction to a fine of up to £400. Clause 3 says that local authorities shall be the licensing authorities for kennels, and the Local Authority Association has concurred with this provision.
Everything cannot be put into the Bill and therefore the Secretary of State can

1187
make Regulations governing the issue of licences enabling, for instance, local authorities to charge a fee for a licence. The intention of the Bill is that it shall be self-financing, that it shall not impose any financial burden upon local authorities or any other organ of the State. The issue of licences will be annual and they will run for a year from the date on which they are first issued. The local authority can revoke a licence or amend its provisions. Regulations will also enable appeals to be made to a Magistrates' Court (or the equivalent court in Scotland) against a refusal by the local authority to grant a licence or the conditions imposed in a licence or the revocation of a licence. All regulations made under the Bill are subject to Negative Resolution procedure.
A court may cancel a licence granted by a local authority if the licensee is convicted of cruelty to animals under various Acts. Clause 7 states that the Secretary of State may by Regulation bring different parts of the Bill into force on different dates. This is because provisions about licensing are likely to be brought into force only after considerable delay. The Home Office will require considerable further consultations with the local authorities and although no financial burden falls on local authorities there would be some burden on their manpower and it would be unwise to impose this on them at this time.
As has been indicated by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office in another place, Clause 1, which deals with the prohibition of the use of unattended dogs at premises, could be introduced very soon. This is the most important clause of the Bill in regard to the protection of members of the public against attack by guard dogs. I hope that it will be agreed that this is a useful and valuable Bill and that all reasonable interests have been consulted and properly catered for, and I hope your Lordships will grant this Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Gordon-Walker.)
4.8 p.m.
Earl COWLEY: My Lords, we on this side of the House are in general sympathy with the principles and motives of this
1188
Bill. It is certainly a vast improvement on the Bill which was originally introduced in another place in the form of the Dogs Bill. Consequently, with a few minor reservations as to some of the detailed provisions of the Bill which no doubt will be further improved in the Committee and on Report, we give this Bill our support.
It is not before time that comprehensive legislation has been introduced into Parliament in order to control the use of guard dogs. As the crime rate in this country has soared so the number of security firms and the use of these animals to protect property has increased. In 1961 there were only 20 companies in this country in the security business. Today, in the London area alone, it is estimated that there are over 500 such firms in operation, the majority of which are one-man-bands. Of course it is the less reputable firms that give cause for concern. The dangers are obvious. To begin with, if one employs one of these less reputable companies, the possibility is that no inspection will be made of the perimeter fencing around the property. The owner of the dogs may not be able to visit in one night all the sites where his dogs are being used. Possibly most serious of all, the dogs might not be properly trained for the job in hand.
The result is that more and more people are being attacked by guard dogs each year. In 1970, according to Home Office figures, 200 people were reported as being attacked by such dogs, and if the noble Lord. Lord Wells-Pestell, can tell the House, when he gives us the Government's attitude to the Bill, what are the latest figures for these attacks, I shall be grateful. One should remember, however, that these are only the attacks which have been reported. I do not believe anyone knows how many attacks really take place each year. These attacks can have tragic results, as the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, has pointed out. Possibly the two most infamous cases have been that of the two-year-old child who was seriously mauled by two guard dogs in Islington some four years ago, and the more recent case of the 10-year-old boy who was savaged to death in Glasgow last July.
It would be wrong to condemn all the security companies for the abuses and

1189
lack of control in certain sections of the industry. The more reputable firms, especially those belonging to the British Security Industry Association, follow a very tight code of practice when using guard dogs, and that code of practice tits very well into the terms of the Bill. I understand that Securicor bans the use of guard dogs without handlers. However, that code of practice is binding only on the members of the BSIA, of which there are only 60 in the whole country and only 10 of them employ guard dogs. There are companies which do not feel bound by the code nor do they take any notice of it, with tragic results such as that in Glasgow.
I realise that, as the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, has already said, the Government have set up an informal Working Party to examine the use of guard dogs by security organisations and to draw up a code of practice. This code of practice has now been in being for some three months. I feel that, because of the short time for which it has been in existence, it would be unfair to judge it at this stage. However, when all is said and done, that code is still only voluntary and, while I am certain that the reputable firms have been implementing it for some years, there is no legal requirement for all the firms to observe its provisions.
I also understand, again, as the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, has pointed out, that a Working Party of the Department of the Environment is examining the whole question of the law relating to all dogs. Perhaps when the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, replies, he can say how the provisions of the Bill fit in with the thinking and the plans for future legislation of that Working Party. I believe that statutory controls are needed and that in many ways they will be more effective than purely voluntary codes of practice. Furthermore, the BSIA and the more reputable firms are in favour of such control. One has only to go through Kennington or Brixton to see how the voluntary codes of practice are ignored. That is plain from the number of warning notices about loose guard dogs which appear on premises in those areas.
With regard to the details of the Bill, I have a few comments to make. It appears from the definition of "guard
1190
dog kennels "in Clause 6, and from the provisions of Clauses 2 and 3, that a person who owns a guard dog and uses it to guard his own commercial premises is not covered by the provisions of Clauses 2 and 3, and, consequently, does not need to licence the premises where the dog is kept. I appreciate the fact that such a person is subject to the provisions of Clause 1 but he is able to avoid the conditions which a local authority may lay down as to the control and keeping of the dog when granting a licence under Clause 3. Thus we could have a situation in which an individual—for example, the owner of a garage—used a guard dog which was totally untrained and possibly ill-treated, consequently posing an unnecessary risk to the general public. I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, will comment on this point when he replies, and will say whether he intends to rectify what appears to be an obvious shortcoming in the Bill.
My Lords, the successful implementation of the Bill depends largely on the vigilance and the work of the police forces in this country. I should be interested to know what consultations the noble Lord has had with the Home Office and the police representatives, and what were the results of those consultations. Bearing in mind that the police are already so overworked and undermanned, it is important, if the Bill is to be properly implemented and enforced, that the police are both capable and willing to undertake the extra work. Clauses 3 and 6 read together show that district councils will grant licences and impose conditions on such licences. There is the danger that the conditions imposed will vary drastically from one area of a county to another, or from one part of a metropolitan district to another. This might create a rather unsatisfactory situation, as well as a certain amount of confusion for those implementing the Bill when it becomes an Act. The answer to this problem could lie in giving the power to grant licences to larger local authorities than district councils.
Under Clause 1(3) a person is required to put up warning notices only at the entrance or entrances to the premises. I should have thought that in circumstances where premises are surrounded by a perimeter wall or fence there would

1191
be strong arguments for requiring notices to be erected at regular intervals around the perimeter and not merely at the entrance to the property.
Clause 5 states that:
" Regulations may be made … enabling appeals to be made to a magistrates' court …".
Does this mean that the right of appeal is subject to Ministerial regulations, or is it concerned merely with the manner in which the appeal is put forward? I think that the former would be totally objectionable, whereas we could certainly accept the latter. While we have some rather minor reservations about the Bill, we welcome it and hope that it will have a speedy passage through this House and will become law in the near future.
4.18 p.m.
Lord de CLIFFORD: My Lords, I rise to address your Lordships briefly on this Bill which I think, without doubt, everybody welcomes. I shall not go into the events which have led up to the Bill, but there have been a number of happenings known to everybody, as well as a considerable number which are not known. I am not so happy about the Bill as it stands. and there must be some additions and Amendments to make it workable. The Bill appears to apply virtually to only commercial owners of guard dogs and I do not think that this is wide enough. I am not all that happy about the situation whereby Clause 1 can be brought into operation immediately, while the remainder of the Bill is to be brought in at a time suitable to the Minister, together with all the regulations which he is given powers to make.
I hope that we shall have assurances from the noble Lord who is to reply this afternoon for the Government that this part of the Bill will not just sink into the limbo of forgotten things but will be brought on as speedily as possible. I also ask the noble Lord to consider the position regarding the report of the Working Party of the Department of the Environment. The report may include recommendations about the Bill, but could involve delay for years. We want action far more quickly.
My Lords, may I come to the Bill and quickly go through it? So far as Clause 1 is concerned, some of the societies who
1192
are interested in the welfare of dogs are not very happy about the words "otherwise secured ". They have a feeling that this might mean that when the dog is left it will always be tied. The word "secured" always gives the impression that you are going to tie a dog. I shall suggest when we come to the Committee stage that we might find a better expression than "otherwise secured ". It might perhaps be that the dog should be suitably kennelled. "Secured" is not a good word; it always gives the impression of the tethering of an animal.
I should like, if possible, to add to Clause 2 some words about the vehicles which are employed to move these guard dogs, so that we can ensure that they will be clearly marked. It is possible that a handler who is moving dogs from kennels to work would temporarily have to leave his vehicle. Knowing what people are these days and with children it is possible they might attempt to enter the vehicle somehow and there might be the most disastrous results. I would suggest we might do something about adding conditions for vehicles. Under Clause 3 of the Bill regulations are to be made,
" subject to the prescribed conditions (if any) and to such other conditions as the local authority thinks fit."
Regulations on various subjects will be made later on. Every other recent Act relating to dogs has had the conditions in the Act. I would refer your Lordships to the Boarding Kennels Act and the Breeding of Dogs Act. In both of those Acts the conditions under which the dogs are to be kept and looked after, and everything else, are clearly laid down. The local authority interprets those to fit each individual case. I have a feeling that the closer one can standardise all these Acts of Parliament dealing with dogs and the care of dogs the better; because, whatever ore says, a dog is still a dog wherever it is and the same care and husbandry is desirable all the time.
I was most impressed with the guard dog code which was issued by the Ministry. I thought it an excellent piece of work. Might I ask the noble Lord who is to reply whether he could, so far as possible, insert this code into any regulations which may be issued? It covers most of the things which are required and

1193
is very helpful. Regarding paragraph (c) of Clause 5(1) perhaps some consideration may be given to the question: Is there to be an inspection fee and a licence fee, or simply an inspection fee in order to issue a licence? If a licence is refused, we assume that the person who applied for it will have to pay for the inspection. One then assumes that if he applies again he will pay for the second inspection. I feel one should not have just a licence fee, because if it is refused there is no means of making the man who has applied pay for the inspection.
I come now to the nub of this Bill. What is a guard dog? I understand that if you take a guard dog and premises together you are supposed to have a good interpretation, but I am afraid I do not see it. There are a number of circumstances in which dogs are obviously guard dogs, but they are not necessarily commercial guard dogs. For instance, there is a girls' school where the headmistress owns three dogs. In order to deter prowlers and marauders she permits the dogs to wander at night around the enclosed grounds of the school. Are these guard dogs? If so, this Bill must apply to them. If the owner of a public house lives on the premises, are his bars downstairs to be considered as part of the private dwelling or as part of a commercial business? I know of a pub where a nice dog is kept which, when "time" comes, ushers everybody out and will not let them back in again. He sleeps in the bar and literally guards the contents of the bar. Is that a guard dog, or not? Is it covered under this Bill? I do not believe it is.
Not long ago, just outside Birmingham, two gentlemen kept two dogs in a hut on some allotments. The dogs were used to guard tools and produce from the allotment. They were two extremely savage alsatians which did some damage to people. The owners said that the dogs were not kept there for guarding purposes but only for the night, because they were too big for the house. I should have thought they were guard dogs, but according to this Bill they are not covered. Those premises belong to the two gentlemen and they own the dogs and look after them. I know of cases where dogs sleep in cars which are parked in the street, in order to make sure nobody steals the cars or any parts of them. Are they
1194
guard dogs? I do not know. They do not seem to fit into the Bill.
I shall not detain your Lordships much longer. As to guard dogs in kennels, one firm I know—Securicor to be exact—kennel their dogs with another commercial body, the Canine Defence League. They are licensed for hoarding. Will they have to be licensed for guard dog kennels as well? A number of security firms have dogs which go home with their handlers at night and live at their handlers' homes. The dogs are not the property of the handlers but of the firms. Do the handlers' homes become guard dog kennels? I do not know. The police make a habit of letting their handlers take their dogs home.
I hope that I have not detained your Lordships too long, but we have had some horrid results from the Breeding of Dogs Act. We suddenly found that we ran into many Town and Country Planning Act provisions. I have a feeling that with this legislation, unless we are careful, we are going to find the same difficulty again. We come up against local authorities and we are going to run into a large number of Acts which really have no bearing on this matter at all. With these few words, my Lords—and I hope to speak later in the Committee stage—I should like to welcome this Bill, although I may have sounded rather disgruntled about it. Basically it is an excellent Bill and I sincerely hope that we shall have it nicely tidied up and made law as speedily as possible.
4.32 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, having regard to the hour and the day of the week it will probably be in order for me to be brief. Therefore, I do not want to say anything at all with regard to the Bill which my noble friend Lord Gordon-Walker introduced with great simplicity but nevertheless with great clarity. May I deal with one or two points which have been raised by noble Lords opposite. The noble Earl, Lord Cowley, raised the whole question of the number of attacks on dogs to which I replied last year—
Earl COWLEY: On people, my Lords.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: On people. It would be interesting to have it the other way round! I replied to this point raised last year in a Question. There are

1195
no figures available generally. The figures given were especially ascertained for that occasion. Attacks by dogs on people are not in the normal way recorded. It may well be that they ought to be, but they are not. I cannot give any figures other than those he knows and which I gave some time last year. Reference has been made to the Working Party set up by the Department of the Environment. This Working Party are concerned with all dogs, not one group. They will concern themselves with dogs generally—the licensing of dogs, the keeping of dogs, fouling of the public footway, stray dogs and the behaviour of stray dogs. The inquiry is going to be an extensive one into dogs and not solely concerned with the matter we are discussing now. While there may be some connections, we shall have to await the outcome of the inquiry generally. This Bill, as the noble Earl will know, does not deal with domestic pets.
The noble Earl also raised the question of regulations and appeals. The regulations may be made—I refer to Clause 5(1)(a).:
" enabling a local authority to revoke a licence and, on the application of the licence holder, to vary the conditions … "
I should have thought that if regulations contain authority for a local authority to revoke a licence they must also state the rights a person has if he or she wishes to appeal. It suggests to me that this is the right place to put it. The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, raised the question of the speed necessary to bring in the various clauses. Perhaps I may repeat what my noble friend Lord Gordon-Walker said, that it is intended to bring the first part in quickly but, as the noble Lord himself pointed out, it will impose on local authorities a good deal of responsibility. Consequently, this will have to be done strategically.
I have dealt with the Report of the Working Party, which the noble Lord also mentioned. We should like to look at a number of other points which he mentioned—vehicles used to move dogs, whether we can include the guard dog code in this Bill and whether it is necessary. The Government would like to look at this, and perhaps the noble Lord will not mind if I say that that we will do
1196
and we will give our views at a later date. The inspection fee will be prescribed in the regulations. With very great respect, it seems to me that that is where it ought to be. I cannot answer the question about dogs in public houses and the other situations. The acid test is whether the dog's function will be for guard duties. There are bound to be a large number of anomalies which can probably be settled only in the courts. I do not know whether one will be able to include in this Bill, as a result of amendments, a clause or clauses which will cover all of the situations which one is likely to find.
It was the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, who raised the question of the transport of dogs in vehicles. This is a matter which could be dealt with more appropriately by regulations rather than in the Bill itself. If noble Lords will look at page 3, Clause 5(2)(b). says:
" … includes power to make such incidental or supplemental provision in the regulations as the Secretary of State considers appropriate ".
I should have thought that the transport of dogs in vehicles could be brought into the regulations.
The only other matter that I have been specifically asked to deal with is the question of enforcement. It is expected that the enforcement of all aspects of the Bill will fall mainly to be dealt with by local authorities, not by the police. It was the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, who wondered whether it is right to put enforcement upon all local authorities and whether it should not be under the jurisdiction and control of a much larger authority. If one does that, one runs the risk of not Keeping as tight a rein and control on the situation as one would like to see. If it is kept to local authorities that have a defined area—
Earl COWLEY: My Lords, I meant county councils rather than district councils because of the fact that the district councils cover a much smaller area. Therefore, they may have their own set of conditions which may be different from the conditions imposed by the district council next door.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, there is a possibility of that. This is found already when it comes to other matters which are under the control of

1197
the local authority. However, this is a very serious matter and there is a danger that much of what the Bill sets out to do could be defeated if it were given to the larger councils—which in some areas are very large—rather than to the district councils, which are usually very tiny bodies and can exercise a great deal of supervision and control over their areas.
I do not want to say any more than that, except that the Government welcome this Bill. As my noble friend Lord Gordon-Walker pointed out, they have given a certain amount of help in its drafting and framing and it certainly has the Government's blessing.
4.40 p.m.
Lord GORDON-WALKER: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and for the very important points that they have made. The noble Earl, Lord Cowley, asked about the use of a guard dog in a garage. One purpose of this Bill is to exclude its application to private houses and private dwellings because that would involve enormous apparatus and a great enforcement force, and so on, and therefore it would really depend whether the garage was part of a private dwelling. Obviously it would be different if it was a garage occupied by a number of buses or lorries, but if it was a garage attached to a house it would be excluded because the curtilage of a house is excluded. This is deliberately done. These provisions were in the original Bill, but they were taken out because they were clearly unenforceable and unreasonable and would apply to pets and all sorts of things.
Earl COWLEY: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, what I was getting at was not the garage where one keeps a car but the garage as a commercial premises, and it was really under Clause 6 where it says:
" other than a dog which is used as a guard dog only at premises belonging to its owner."
This was what I was concerned about.
Lord GORDON-WALKER: My Lords, if a garage is premises and not part of the dwellinghouse it comes under the mischief of the Bill. A guard dog means a dog used to protect premises. The word used is "or", not "and".
Earl COWLEY: My Lords, it comes under Clause 1, but it does not seem to to come under Clauses 2 and 3 about the control of kennels.
Lord GORDON-WALKER: My Lords, it is Clause 6 that defines what a guard dog is, and one definition is that it is a dog guarding premises. I thought the noble Earl was referring to a garage attached to a private house, but if it was premises it would clearly come under the mischief of the Bill.
Answering the noble Lord, Lord De Clifford, I think the Government must be able to decide when they bring in Parts of Bills because they have to take into consideration what is imposed on local authorities, and so forth; but I think we should be glad that they intend to bring in Clause 1 quickly. since this is the clause that will primarily protect the public.
Whether we can find another phrase for "otherwise secured ", I do not know. It is the alternative to chaining up the dog. There are two provisions: one must either chain up a dog when a man is not watching it, or secure it. I do not know that "secure" has a sinister meaning. even more sinister than "kept ", which I think the noble Lord suggested.
Lord De CLIFFORD: My Lords, I suggested "securely kennelled ".
Lord GORDON-WALKER: My Lords, that would have to be a quite considerable amendment. There would need to be kennels at every premises on which there was a guard dog.
Lord De CLIFFORD: My Lords, when one uses the expression "securely kennelled" it is not necessary to have a special kennel; the meaning is to shut it up.
Lord GORDON-WALKER: My Lords, yes, but that would have to be provided and it would be an extra cost that on all premises where there was a guard dog, even quite a small one, there would need to be something like a kennel that could be shut up, and failure to have a kennel would be an offence subject to a fine up to £400. That would be rather a fierce thing to do, but we could consider it.

1199
The essence of this clause is that the dog should not be allowed to run loose when the handler is not actually watching it. The condition of vehicles is included in the code of conduct, and whether or not that could be put into the Bill I do not know. In some ways it would be quite difficult to define. As my noble friend suggested, it might be possible to deal with it by regulation.
The condition of guard dog kennels depends entirely on the local authority, which need not grant licences or can grant licences on conditions, and I think in many cases it would be very necessary to impose such conditions. The owner of the kennels would certainly have to pay every time there was an inspection, but he would not have to pay for a licence if he did not get a licence, which is what I understood the noble Lord to say.
A guard dog is not necessarily a commercial dog; it is a dog guarding premises. It does not have to be a commercial dog. It can be the owner. If a dog is used for watching premises, it comes under the Bill. I do not know the exact cases; the court would have to decide, but a headmistress who left a dog guarding the premises—because a school would be premises—would need to have a handler. With regard to the pub, it would depend on whether or not it was a dwelling house. It would depend on each case. If the pub were a dwelling house, the publican could keep a dog, but if it were not a dwelling house, he would not be able to. I am sure that allotments are premises. People would not be allowed to leave dogs running free, guarding allotments. Kennels would have to be licensed, whether or not the handlers were with the dog. I think that would make no difference.
My Lords, I hope that I have dealt with some of the more important points. I am grateful to noble Lords for all that they have said during the debate. My noble friend and I will look at the suggestions made to see whether we can meet certain points, either by saying there will be regulations, or by amending the Bill if necessary.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.