Lords Sitting of 28 April 1977

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Manchester):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Viscount Cobham—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

HELSINKI AGREEMENT: HUMAN RIGHTS
Lord JANNER: 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 representations they have made to the USSR in connection with breaches of the Helsinki Agreement, and in particular the serious harassment, including imprisonment, of Jewish people who have applied for visas enabling them to emigrate.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, both Ministers and officials have discussed the implementation of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe with their Soviet counterparts on various occasions in recent months. They have made it clear that the Government and people of this country attach very great importance to respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply and for the efforts which have so far been made by the Government. In view of the tragic and flagrant breaches of the Helsinki Agreement in respect of the matter I am raising, the fact that show trials are to take place which are similar to those sinister ones initiated by Stalin and the fact that an anti-Semitic campaign of a very vicious nature is taking place that is similar to that waged in Hitler's times—including steps with the media, for example very much like the shocking Sturmer publications of the Nazis—will my noble friend see to it that, in any further negotiations
684
with the USSR, the Government point out that the people of this country are shocked by that kind of treatment and that we ought, not only by ourselves but with those other civilised nations with whom we are in contact, to do everything we can to prevent the escalation of that kind of campaign?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Certainly, my Lords. We shall continue to make this absolutely clear to any country that is in default of the basic human freedoms and human rights, as we have in the past both bilaterally and in concert with like-minded countries.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, will the noble Lord also bear in mind there are serious misgivings about the mistreatment of Christians in some of the satellite countries like Romania?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords; I am well aware of that very important and poignant aspect. Both here in London and when one visits those countries, we make our attitude perfectly clear, I think not without some success. Progress is disappointing, but it is not discouraging.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether we could not take a leaf out of President Carter's book and get down to the most basic human rights—and as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, said—for Jews and Christians, including, I may add, Baptists and politicians, to be allowed to leave and return to their own country. After all, the Soviets introduce every debate with a jumbo-resolution attacking us for colonialism, neo-colonialism, racism, Zionism, apartheid and imperialism. We listen to that day in and day out for three months in the Human Rights Committee of the UN.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, certainly we are in entire agreement with the noble Baroness in her comprehensive definition of human rights. Freedom, like peace, is indivisible.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, can the Minister say whether any concerted action will be taken by other members of the

685
Community and whether any Working Party is studying the question of a common stand being taken by the members of the Community at the Belgrade meeting?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords; members of the Community are, like this country, engaged in bilateral representation. Also we are in close and continuous consultation on these matters in the Community, in NATO and in the Council of Europe.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am entirely in agreement with the comments made regarding Christian and other denominations? May I, however, direct his attention and the attention of leaders and the people of our and other communities to the fact that the Hitler régime started its inhuman, bestial attacks on the Jewish community but that it went very much further later and attacked every other type of decent, civilised human being?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, indeed, my Lords. As I said, freedom and freedom from persecution are indivisible. We are all in on this; it is a question of man's inhumanity to man. It is not confined to one section of humanity. On at least one occasion in this House my noble friend Lord Janner has pointed to the comprehensiveness of the threat which persecution of this kind presents, not only to the Jewish community but, as we have heard, to Christians, to people of no fixed religious faith and to people of all opinions, religions and races.

"PENSION AGE"
3.7 p.m.
Baroness Seear: 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 evidence there is for the assumption in the D.H.S.S. publication Pension Age, that if the retirement age for men is reduced to 60, "the retirement pattern of men between 60 and 65 would be the same as that exhibited at present by men between 65 and 70.".
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, any estimate of how people will behave in a situation which does not yet exist is bound to be arbitrary and, I would recognise, open to question. As a working assumption, it was decided to take the retirement pattern which men follow in the five years after their present minimum pension age, and subsequent work has examined the implications of the alternative assumption that the same proportion of men would remain at work between the ages of 60 and 64 as do single women of those ages. However, as I say, I recognise that this is an assumption and that it is open to question.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Would he not agree that it is quite extraordinary that important social policies should be based on grounds so flimsy as those he has given us—so flimsy, for example, as the assumption that men at the age of 60 will, in their retirement habits, behave in the same way as single women, for which assumption there is no scientific basis whatsoever? This assumption affects policy regarding an equal retirement age for men and women and also employment. We badly need a more scientific study to determine what reasonable expectations there would be if changes of this kind were brought about.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I accept entirely what the noble Baroness has said, but in an attempt to find out how much it would cost to bring in an earlier retirement age one is faced with the fact that there are two extremes: that no man would take advantage of a reduced pension age to retire earlier than at present and, at the other extreme, that all men would retire at the new pension age of 60. We know that neither is likely to happen. There is no guide in any other country of the EEC as to how this cost could be calculated. With all its limitations and imperfections, this was a sincere attempt to try to get an answer. It may not have told us anything, but we are in the process of preparing a Paper on this very matter for an organisation with which the noble Baroness is associated.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, the Minister has been good enough to admit the total illogicality of the assumption which has been made. Is he able to tell my noble

687
friend whether or not the Government will initiate a new scientific study to find out what should be the basis for social policies regarding the pattern of retirement if this change comes about?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, as I tried to point out, we are not unaware of its limitations and I can only say—and I really mean this—that we are looking at this matter because we recognise its limitations. But at the moment I cannot say along what lines that will be done, other than that we arc not ourselves altogether happy about it.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, would it not have been possible to make a number of alternative assumptions, thus giving an indication of the possibilities with regard to cost?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Yes, my Lords, if we could be sure of the nature of the assumptions that we can make. I say very sincerely that if the noble Baroness or the noble Lord have any thoughts on this matter we should be glad to hear them.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, in order to maintain the standing that a Government publication ought to have, if the Government do not know, is there anything wrong with them saying in their publications that they do not know?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, surely that is precisely what the Government have done and that is what the complaint is about. We have recognised that it is arbitrary and we have said so very clearly.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, instead of thinking about spending extra Government money on giving pensions at 60, they will perhaps consider it more desirable to increase the rate of pension for those who are over 70?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we are aware that there is a substantial body of opinion which would like to see an earlier retirement age, whether it be at 60, 61, 62, 63 or 64. We have been trying
688
to assess what that is going to cost, because, as noble Lords will know, it is difficult to pitch at a particular age unless one knows what the cost involved will be.

THE DEVELOPING NATIONS: ROME SUMMIT
3.12 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what conclusions were reached at the Rome Summit meeting of the EEC regarding economic co-operation with the developing nations, particularly in regard to the establishment of a Common Fund to support commodity prices and to a reconsideration of the payment of debts owed by the developing world to the West; and what contribution the British representatives made to these decisions.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister indicated in another place, at the conclusion of the European Council in Rome, the Community agreed that there should, where appropriate, be commodity price stabilisation agreement and that there should be a Common fund. The Community also agree that there should be a study of export earnings stabilisation measures for the developing countries and of special action in the context of debt and the transfer of resources. The United Kingdom, both nationally and as the Presidency representative, played a leading role in the Rome discussions.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer and welcoming those decisions—it is the first time that the principle of the Common Market has been accepted as an international concept—may I ask whether any steps are being taken to obtain contributions to the financing of the Common Fund from the OPEC and Communist blocs as well as from the West?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords. The next phase of discussions will concern detailed examination of the

689
sort of fund which could be economically desirable to all parties, and that would include the considerations that my noble friend has just advanced.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, if I may ask a wider question, is it now recognised that some arrangement, as President Carter has said, for a new international economic order is absolutely necessary if the stagnant condition in the West is to be dealt with, and will particular attention be paid to the proposal that the EEC should stabilise commodity prices with all developing countries as well as with those which are associated with it?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, indeed, my Lords. We are in fairly full agreement with the attitude of the American President on this matter. Indeed— my noble friend asked me to clarify this—the EEC has taken a most encouraging stand, both on the Fund and on the related questions of stabilisation, debt and the transfer of resources. We are moving forward to some very important studies, including a study of the position relating to some 18 commodities. I think that would cover the larger ambit of developing countries that my noble friend had in mind. There is nothing in the attitude of the EEC which is at variance with the American initiative. I believe everything in it is in conformity with that initiative.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, when these questions of international indebtedness are raised internationally, is it not the Government's intention to press for the utmost rectitude in the repayment of international indebtedness? Secondly, with regard to raw materials, if the Government uphold the idea of supporting international arrangements to avoid fluctuations in the prices of raw materials, what sort of sum do the Government contemplate will be necessary to control raw material prices?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, on the first point in connection with debt, the noble Lord will recall that I have said that the Community agreed that there should be a study of export earnings, stabilisation agreements and a study of special actions in regard to debt and the transfer of resources. It would be rather early to indicate the approach
690
to the question of indebtedness. As the noble Lord will know, there are various techniques and possibilities.

SINN FEIN: FUND RAISING MEETING
3.16 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: 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 Sinn Fein were allowed to organise a collection in Hammersmith in conjunction with a trade union committee on 27th March for raising funds to help finance a "campaign of harassment" against police stations in Britain.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we understand that at a public meeting held by the Trade Union Committee Against the Prevention of Terrorism Act a collection was made to provide funds for that organisation. If there were any evidence that the money was collected or used for an illegal purpose the police would take appropriate action.
The Earl of KIMI3ERLEY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask whether he can say how it will be possible ever to prove this, although that fact was stated? Are not flying pickets illegal in this country, and is it not almost a subversive activity against the police to hold meetings of this sort?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, this particular meeting was perfectly all right. For example, Sinn Fein is not a proscribed organisation in Great Britain nor, for that matter, is it proscribed in Northern Ireland. But to come to the point made by the noble Earl about the funds, fund raising for terrorism connected with Northern Ireland is punishable under Section 10 of the 1976 Act—where funds raised are intended for terrorism. In fact four people have been charged under that section: one was acquitted, and three were convicted and sentenced to 10 years, eight years and two years' imprisonment respectively.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, is the noble Lord quite right in saying that there cannot be any accusation or charge unless it is proved that this fund was used for that purpose? If the fund was stated to be used for the purpose and not used for it, surely it was collected for one purpose and used for another, and that also would be actionable?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if I may say so with great respect, so far as the Question is concerned we are dealing with the subject of monies collected for the purposes of terrorism, and it was to that Question that I tried to address myself.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether his original Answer indicated that the information in the possession of the noble Lord was different from his information and that in fact this money was not collected to help finance a campaign of terrorism? If so, will he make it clear? On the other hand, if he has doubts about whether it was or was not, will he also make that clear?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, what I said to your Lordships, and I cannot add to it, was that if there were any evidence that the money was collected or used for an illegal purpose the police would then take appropriate action. So far as this particular meeting was concerned it was perfectly all right for a collection to be taken. My information is that the meeting was held at the Hammersmith Town Hall and it was perfectly proper for them to take a collection. It is the purpose for which the money is collected and used that matters, and if that comes under the appropriate Act it is then for the police to take action.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, is it not a fact that the funds were actually collected for the "Troops Out" campaign, and is that not just another way of putting the funds in a certain direction?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, ' I have no information as to the specific purpose of the fund. What I am saying is that if money is raised for illegal purposes which come under the Prevention
692
of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976, action can be taken, and I think I satisfied your Lordships that in the past action has in fact been taken.

EDUCATION NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
Lord DUNLEATH: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to facilitate the establishment in Northern Ireland of schools to be attended by pupils of different religious affiliations or cultural traditions. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Dunleath.)
Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

RENT BILL [H.L.]
3.20 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill consolidates the Rent Act 1968 and a number of subsequent enactments. The 1968 Act was itself a consolidating Act. It performed a useful service in bringing under one cover several complicated Statutes, the earliest of which was enacted in 1920, and whose provisions were once described by a learned Lord Justice as "a welter of chaotic verbiage". The history of rent control and security of tenure goes back to the First World War, and yet the present Bill is only the second piece of consolidating legislation in this field. Useful as was the 1968 Act at the time, subsequent developments in the constantly evolving housing situation and its treatment have rendered it now merely one of several Acts bearing on this subject, and the time has come for further consolidation.
This Bill, which has been prepared by the Law Commission, for whose continuing work in this field we have cause to be grateful, follows, so far as is possible, the structure of the Rent Act 1968. There has inevitably been some re-arrangement of old material, and some parts of the Bill deal with new subjects introduced into the Rent Act since 1968. In addition to the Rent Act 1968, the enactments con-

693
solidated include: first, Part III of the Housing Finance Act 1972, which provides for the conversion of controlled tenancies in good repair and possessing the standard amenities into regulated tenancies, and which replaces a broadly similar scheme introduced by Part III of the Housing Act 1969; secondly, Part IV of the Housing Finance Act 1972, which contains a number of miscellaneous provisions and which, as originally enacted, provided for the automatic decontrol of all controlled tenancies by stages spread over a number of years.
Section 35 was repealed by the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act 1975 before all the stages had been completed, but some controlled tenancies were converted into regulated tenancies under that section and the consolidation takes account of these conversions; thirdly, Part VIII of the Housing Finance Act 1972, which introduced a new form of rent control for tenancies of housing associations, housing trusts and housing corporations; fourthly, Section 14 of, and Schedule 5 to, the Counter-Inflation Act 1973, which extended the protection of the Rent Acts to certain high rateable value dwelling houses previously excluded; fifthly, Section 18 of, and Schedule 3 to, the Housing Act 1974, which altered the rules by which housing association tenancies are exempt from the general scheme of protection under the Rent Acts; sixthly, the Rent Act of 1974 itself, which extended full protection under the Rent Acts to the majority of furnished tenancies, in place of the special, and limited, protection given to furnished lettings by the 1968 Act; and finally, Sections 7 to 10 of the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act 1975.
The provisions of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976, which extended rent control and security of tenure to agricultural tied cottages, have not been incorporated in this Bill. The system of protection afforded by that Act, while broadly following the Rent Acts, exhibits a number of differences and has been designed to stand as a separate scheme. Adding its provisions to the consolidation would have meant an increase of some 70 pages in an already long and complicated Bill without benefiting the great majority of its users, who would not be concerned with the special provisions made for agricultural tied cottages. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I do not think the House need detain itself long over this measure, but I would wish to congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on his continued work on the consolidation of British Statute Law, with the aid of the Law Commission. This particular consolidation Act provokes in me a melancholy reflection. It is the lineal descendent of a series of Statutes which began in 1915 designed to deal with what was thought to be the temporary housing shortage of the First World War, and it, like the squalid buildings in the courtyards of the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, form a melancholy commentary on the French adage, "Il n'y a rien ainsi permanent que le proviso ire". I would only close my remarks by saying that, if only this country had pursued policies to provide enough housing for its people, rent control would be unnecessary and security of tenure could be put on a rational basis.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I should like to add a word of congratulation to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and to those who have participated in what I consider to be an extremely important endeavour to facilitate the understanding of a very complicated set of Acts, which, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, has said, started in the year 1915. I do not think this is the time to raise any question as to the advantages or disadvantages of these Acts, but merely to refer to the fact that it is important that the public generally and the legal profession in particular, should have some clearer understanding of what they all mean and what principles they stand for. I have never known, in a very long experience in the profession, extending over some 50 years now, any measures which have caused so much difficulty in understanding what they really mean and which have caused such differences of opinion among the learned authorities who have sat as judges in the interpretation of the various Acts.
I think the Rent Acts have proved a boon to this country, but, as I say, this is not the time to discuss that. I think this shows that the Government are very

695
deeply concerned about helping the public and the professions to have in consolidated form our laws on specific subjects, that is some kind of complete form, or as complete as one can possibly make measures of this nature. With great pleasure I shall once again join in endeavouring to understand and perhaps eventually bring into effect, hopefully not in the very distant future, this very important measure. I hope that when Acts are consolidated, the Government, as previous Governments of all shades have done, will do their best to produce publications that are easily readable, so that the man in the street can understand the effects of the various provisions.
On Question, Bill read 2a and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (SAFETY CONVENTION) BILL [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Oram.)
Lord LYELL: My Lords, at this stage of the Bill perhaps I might thank the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for all the help that he was able to give us at an earlier stage. May I say how welcome this Bill will be in the merchant shipping industry and how the Bill, and particularly your Lordships' deliberations, were welcomed by both sides of the industry. I hope that the noble Lord will take note of the comments and the happiness that we have caused outside the House.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PATENTS BILL [H.L.]
3.34 p.m.
Report of Amendments received.
Clause 1 [Patentable inventions]:
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 4, leave out from end to ("mathematical") in line 6 and insert (",scientific theory or")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the first Amendment on the Marshalled List. This Amendment is of a purely drafting nature, the purpose of which is to group discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods together in one paragraph, as is done in Article 52(2)(a) of the European Patent Convention. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Novelty]:
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 1, leave out from ("invention") to ("was") in line 3 and insert ("to which an application for a patent relates shall be taken also to comprise matter contained in another application for a patent which").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2 I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 3 which is purely consequential upon No. 2. These Amendments deal with the problem of so called "self-collision" which was raised by noble Lords opposite during the Committee stage and which I promised to look into. Taken together, the Amendments make it clear that the state of the art for the purposes of subsection (3) cannot include the matter contained in the application in suit and so cannot be used to attack an invention to which that application relates; only matter contained in another application may be used. In other words, it will not be possible for an applicant to be defeated by the disclosure in his own application. Since the matter was raised in Committee, I am now persuaded that this is the intention and effect of the corresponding provision in Article 54(3) of the European Patent Convention. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Oram, has said, in Committee my noble friends and I tabled Amendments relating to the problem of

697
what is known as "self-collision". The Government have dealt with this, making it clear that the state of the art cannot include matter contained in the application in suit. In addition, in Committee I also moved an Amendment which referred to a case where the application in suit becomes a divided out application. The Government have not met that point, but they have met the first point to which we directed our Amendments, and for that at any rate I am grateful.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 6, after second ("that") insert ("other").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 14, after ("application") insert ("for the patent").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is purely a drafting Amendment, to make it clear that it is the application for the patent already referred to in the subsection to which reference is made in line 14. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 15, leave out ("made possible by") and insert ("due to, or made in consequence of,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5 I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 6, as both deal with the same point. Article 55 of the European Patent Convention specifies that a disclosure of the invention is to be disregarded if it was due to or in consequence of acts of the kind stipulated in that article. Clause 2(4) is intended to parallel Article 55 and, on further reflection of representations which have been made, we are persuaded that Clause 2(4) needs to be amended. The clause deals adequately with the situation where the disclosure was due to a breach of confidence or a display at an international exhibition. However, it is arguable that Clause 2(4)(a) does not clearly deal with a disclosure in consequence of a breach of confidence, and Clause 2(4)(c) omits the possibility of a disclosure in consequence of a display at an exhibition. These two Amendments put matters right.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 33, leave out ("effected by") and insert ("due to, or made in consequence of.").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Priority date]:
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendments Nos. 7 and 8:
Page 5, line 3, leave out from ("filed") to ("by")
Page 5, line 8, at end insert—

(a) it was filed in or in respect of the same country as the first; and

(b)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 together. Amendment No. 7, is a small but quite important technical Amendment which puts into the correct place in Clause 5(3) the reference to the "same country", which was introduced in Committee. To put it as briefly and simply as possible, the purpose of the general provision of the subsection is that a first priority application renders ineffective a later priority application for the same invention or matter. For this purpose the place of filing of the two applications is not relevant. However, there is an exception to the general provision brought in by the word "unless" in line 8. For the purposes of this exception it is necessary under the Paris Convention that both applications be filed in the same country. The Amendment thus transfers to its rightful place in the subsection the reference to the "same country". I beg to move.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, when this clause was being debated in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Oram, moved a series of Amendments which the noble Lord claimed were to clarify the situation dealt with in Clause 5(3). On that occasion we had also tabled a small Amendment which would have placed very much the same words as are now contained in Amendment No. 8 in exactly the same place as they are to be placed by Amendment No. 8. However, in Committee we could not believe that for once an Amendment of ours might be right and the Government Amendments might be wrong, because the practice which this Bill has given to the Government Front Bench in drafting Amendments has made them experts, so we withdrew our Amendment. I am delighted that on

699
this occasion we were on the right track. I have pleasure in supporting these Amendments.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 5, line 25, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment arises from the recognition that the term "matter" as used in Clause 5 (5) in relation to what is disclosed in a patent application could cause the term "matter" as used elsewhere in the Bill to be given a meaning which is not intended and, in particular, prevent applications and patents from being amended by way of disclaimer and acknowledgment of prior art. The deletion of Clause 5 (5) is offset by Amendment No. 162 to Clause 122 in order to establish what meaning the term "matter" is to have in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, we are grateful for the explanation that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, has given over this particular subsection because it was not immediately apparent from the deletion of the subsection why the word "matter" was going to be involved. I had remembered at an earlier stage discussing with the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, the relevance of the word "matter", but we understand that Amendment No. 162, to which we shall be coming probably at some considerable stage in the future, is intended to rectify the error that the Government seem to believe is existent in this clause.
It seems that when we come to Clause 122 we are dealing more with the definitions, because I see that Amendment No. 162 is of the nature of a defining paragraph. I take what my noble friend Lord Belstead said, that the Government are becoming more expert in these affairs of drafting, but I think that this goes a little beyond drafting. I hope this is relevant. The noble Lord, Lord Oram, has given us an explanation which I think is satisfactory, but we should like to study it. We are coming near the end of the stages when we can continue the discussion, but I think that we are satisfied at this stage and we accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Determination before grant of questions about entitlement to patents, etc.]:
3.45 p.m.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey)The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey) moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 6, line 14, leave out ("to which this section applies").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 12 and 14 at the same time as I speak to Amendment No. 10. The first two Amendments, that is Nos. 10 and 12, are purely paving Amendments for the principal Amendment, which is No. 14. They simply remove the references in Clause 7 to applications other than purely domestic applications. The third and major Amendment seeks to insert a new clause to deal with these applications and I will concentrate upon that clause. The general scheme of the new clause is parallel to that of Clause 7, with appropriate modifications to deal with the issues which will actually arise.
Perhaps I can point to what the principal modifications are. Since subsection (1) of the new clause does not seek to apply Clause 7(1) but stands on its own, it becomes clear that the question to be determined is the question of entitlement under the foreign law or treaty concerned and not under the domestic law. Thus, if the comptroller has to decide a question about a Brazilian patent, for example, he will, if it is relevant and appropriate, hear evidence on Brazilian law and apply that. If he has to decide a question on a European patent, he will apply Article 60 of the European Patent Convention. In this respect the new clause is part of the general move towards making the Bill as European as possible, in response to suggestions made during Committee.
Subsection (5) is relevant to European cases. It makes Clause 10 apply both to the comptroller's decisions under the proposed new clause and to parallel decisions of other countries where it is they, and not the United Kingdom, who have jurisdiction under Clause 80. Thus, if there is a complete change of proprietorship, licences and the like will lapse subject to safeguards for a licensee who has acted in good faith. This is in line with Article 28 of the CPC.
Subsection (6) is parallel to Clause 7(3). It may appear complicated, but it is included primarily for the benefit of the small inventor. If somebody takes another's invention and applies for a patent for it, it is wrong for the true inventor to be stuck with the applicant's choice of the type of patent to apply for. The true inventor, particularly if he is a small inventor, may not want to go to the additional burden of prosecuting an application before the European Patent Office. Subsection (6) accordingly provides that in analogous cases to those dealt with by Clause 7(3) the true inventor may file a new United Kingdom application. I beg to move.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, now that we have passed through the dangerous seas of invention, novelty and self-collision, may I say that we support this Amendment particularly as the noble and learned Lord referred to the fact that it would be of assistance to a small inventor. In all these Amendments which the Government are putting forward it is necessary to realise that much established patent law and the phraseology associated with patent law have now been changed in view of the desirability of harmonising the national law with Community law. Some of us believe that perhaps the spirit of harmonisation and conformity with EEC law has gone a little too far, but that perhaps is inevitable. Of course it may lead to expensive litigation arising because of the change in phraseology and the construction of these new words.
Nevertheless, with the leave of the House, I should like at this stage to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Oram, the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, for all the letters they have written to me about the points I raised at Committee stage. I should like to thank them and their advisers for the arduous work they have done on this matter during the Easter Recess.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 7, line 25, leave out from ("date") to end of line 26 and insert ("of filing the earlier application").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment to make it clear that it is not necessarily the actual date of filing of the earlier application which matters for the purpose of Clause 7(3), but the date of filing as determined by Clause 13. The present wording is thought to be ambiguous in this respect and the Amendment is designed to make it clear. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 8, line 15, leave out subsection (9).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Handling of application by joint applicants]:
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 9, line 31, leave out ("application") and insert ("applicant").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, as noble Lords will see, this corrects a clerical error in the present draft.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
Determination of questions about entitlement to foreign and convention patents, etc.

.—(1) At any time before a patent under the law of any country other than the United Kingdom or under any treaty or international convention has been granted for an invention (whether or not an application has been made for that patent)—

(a) any person may refer to the comptroller the question whether he is entitled to be granted (alone or with any other persons) any such patent for that invention or has or would have any right in or under any such patent or an application for such a patent; or

(b) any of two or more co-proprietors of an application for such a patent for that invention may so refer the question whether any right in or under the application should be transferred or granted to any other person;

and the comptroller shall determine the question so far as he is able to and may make such order as he thinks fit to give effect to the determination.

703

(2) If it appears to the comptroller on a reference of a question under this section that the question involves matters which would more properly be determined by the court, he may decline to deal with it and, without prejudice to the court's jurisdiction to determine any such question and make a declaration, or any declaratory jurisdiction of the court in Scotland, the court shall have jurisdiction to do so.

(3) Subsection (1) above, in its application to a European patent and an application for any such patent, shall have effect subject to section 80 below.

(4) Section 9 above, except so much of it as enables the comptroller to regulate the manner in which an application is to proceed, shall apply to disputes between joint applicants for any such patent as is mentioned in subsection (1) above as it applies to joint applicants for a patent under this Act.

(5) Section 10 above shall apply in relation to—

(a) any orders made under subsection (1) above and any directions given under section 9 above by virtue of subsection (4) above; and

(b) any orders made and directions given by a court or other competent authority having jurisdiction under the European Patent Convention to decide a question corresponding to any question which may be determines under subsection (1) above;

as it applies to orders made and directions given apart from this section under section 7 or 9 above.

(6) In the following cases, that is to say—

(a) where an application for a European patent (UK) is refused or withdrawn, or the designation of the United Kingdom in the application is withdrawn, after publication of the application but before a question relating to the right to the patent has been referred to the comptroller under subsection (1) above or before proceedings relating to that right have been begun before any competent authority having jurisdiction with respect to that right under the European Patent Convention:

(b) where an application has been made for a European patent (UK) and on a reference under subsection (1) above or any such proceedings as are mentioned is paragraph (a) above, the comptroller, the court or any other authority having jurisdiction under that convention determines by a final decision (whether before or after publication of the application) that a person other than the applicant has the right to the patent, but that person requests the European Patent Office that the application for the patent should be refused; or

(c) where an international application for a patent (UK) is withdrawn, or the designation of the United Kingdom in the application is withdrawn, whether before or after the making of any reference under subsection (c) above but after publication of the application;

704
the comptroller may order that any person (other than the applicant) appearing to him to be entitled to be granted a patent under this Act may make an application for such a patent for the whole or part of any matter comprised in the earlier application (subject, however, to section 74 below) and that if the application for a patent under this Act is filed, it shall be treated as having been filed on the date on which the earlier application was filed.

(7) In this section—
references to a patent and an application for a patent include respectively references to protection in respect of an invention and an application which, in accordance with the law of any country other than the United Kingdom or any treaty or convention, is equivalent to an application for a patent or for such protection; and

a decision shall be taken to be final for the purposes of this section when the time for appealing from it has expired without an appeal being brought or, where an appeal is brought, when it is finally disposed of.

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to the substance of this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Making of application]:
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 10, line 28, leave out from ("made") to ("and") in line 30 and insert ("in the prescribed form and shall be filed at the Patent Office in the prescribed manner").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is of a mainly drafting nature, the purpose and effect of which is clearly the distinction between "making" an application and "filing" an application. The prescribed form of an application relates to its "making" which, of course, occurs before it is physically "filed" at the Patent Office. The prescribed manner relates to the actual "filing" of the application in the Office.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Publication of application]:
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 13, line 3, leave out ("as filed").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will, with the permission of the House, speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 17 and 18. The need for these three Amendments arises from Amendments tabled to Clause 67 in Committee.

705
On that occasion my noble friends and I tabled an Amendment to Clause 67 designed to protect the position of someone who infringes a patent because, unknown to the infringer, the patent application published under Clause 14 has subsequently been amended. The Government also tabled an Amendment to Clause 67 and, during the debate which took place on both Amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Oram, undertook to look at the matter again. On 29th March the noble Lord wrote to me saying:
"Clause 67(1) gives an applicant a right to sue for damages as if a patent had been granted on the date of the publication of the application. Subsection (2) contains some restrictions on the right, the one with which we arc concerned being that set out in paragraph (b), i.e. that the act complained of would have infringed the last specification to be filed which was contained in the application at that date. Thus, any amendments to the specification filed after the date of publication under Clause 13"—
which is now Clause 14—
"will not be taken into account under Clause 67(2)(b)".
The noble Lord added:
"It is our intention to publish the application as filed under Clause 13 together with any amendments filed up to that date, so there will be no question of a person infringing a document about which he cannot reasonably know".
I accept that explanation of the effect of Clause 67(2)(b) and I am grateful to the noble Lord for the explanation he gave me and for the other letters he wrote to me. However, it now seems desirable to write the effect of that explanation into Clause 14. The effect of these three Amendments is to do just that.
Amendment No. 16 is a paving Amendment, while Nos. 17 and 18 provide that the comptroller shall publish an application
"…as filed, together with any amendments to the specification filed up to that date"—
either as soon as possible after the period to be prescribed by rule or, if the applicant so requests, during the prescribed period. I might add that although the only debate on this point in Committee related to Clause 67, there is a cross-reference so far as this matter is concerned with Clause 54(2)(b), which puts Government Departments on the same footing as private individuals as regards payment for infringement between the publication of an application and grant of an application. I am therefore trying to write the
706
undertaking which Lord Oram gave me into Clause 14, the clause which deals with the publication of applications.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for what he said, for raising this point and for drawing attention to this defect in Clause 14. He referred to correspondence between us. That is an indication that, although at this stage we have not ourselves tabled an Amendment, we have been considering the problem along the lines of the letter from which he quoted. However, the Amendments proposed by the noble Lord go too far, since it is only the last filed claims which it is intended to publish under Clause 14 together with the application as filed, these being the claims that will be effective for the purpose of the rights following publication under Clause 67 and payment for Crown use under Clause 54. Moreover, in publishing only the last filed claims, we would be consistent with the European Patent Convention.
I will of course undertake to consider very carefully what Lord Belstead has said, and it seems from his remarks that he agrees that we are both seeking the same end in this matter. At a later stage, when we have further considered the matter, we will table a suitable Amendment to meet his point. I hope that, with that assurance, he will not press the Amendment.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that undertaking. I should like to study what he said about the last filed claims and to see whether, from what he said, the Amendment which the Government intend to table achieves the same objective as I have in mind. In the meantime, I am only too happy to wait and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 [Preliminary examination and search]:
3.58 p.m.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 14, line 30, leave out subsection (8).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will speak at the

707
same time to Amendment No. 155. Clause 15(8) makes provision for remission of all or part of the search fee in cases where the applicant discloses the results of an official search. There are, however, other cases where remission of a fee would be appropriate. For example, where the applicant has paid an additional fee, in accordance with Clause 15(6), for a search to be made on a second invention contained in his application and he subsequently files a divisional application for the second invention, it should be possible for a remission of the search fee paid in respect of the divisional application to be made. We consider therefore that remission of fees would be better dealt with in the rules which will, in any case, provide for the fees to be charged. Accordingly, Amendment No. 19 deletes Clause 15(8) and Amendment No. 155 to Clause 116(2) allows rules to be made providing for remission of fees.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, we had intended to ask the noble Lord for a reasonable explanation as to why what we saw as an apparently harmless provision was to be deleted. However, he has given a quite detailed explanation and has explained that the provisions which we thought were admirable are contained in, I think he said, Amendment No. 155. We are grateful to him for his explanation and perhaps I may express my gratitude to the noble Lord and his advisers in the Department for the letters and communications that we received as a result of our deliberations at an earlier stage. They were most welcome and most clear and enabled us to obtain a better understanding of the Bill and of the Government's intentions.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Substantive examination and grant or refusal of patent]:
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 14, line 40, leave out ("relevant").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is pure drafting. It is intended that there shall be only one prescribed period for requesting examination and paying the fee. The word "relevant" suggests, however, that there may be different periods. The Amendment by
708
removing the word thus clarifies the situation. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.2 p.m.
Clause 20 [Information prejudicial to defence of realm or safely of public]:
The Earl of HALSBURY The Earl of HALSBURY moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 16, line 41, leave out ("from") and insert ("before").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to take together, for the purposes of debate, Amendments Nos. 21, 22, 23, 25, 26 and a manuscript Amendment to leave out Clause 21. Amendment No. 22 and the manuscript Amendment represent the nub of the matter, but the other Amendments would be useful improvements if I am persuaded to withdraw Amendment No. 22 and the manuscript Amendment. I raised these matters on Second Reading and withdrew in Committee, reserving the right to raise them again, and I now want to come back to them at Report stage.
Amendment No. 21 removes the ambiguous word "from" in favour of the more definite "before". It could of course be "after" but this reading could inflict great hardship, as it would appear to prevent the inventor from obtaining a foreign patent if the prescribed period referred to in the subsection coincided with the convention date. Therefore, there should be a period of grace before the expiry of the prescribed period in which the inventor can take action.
Amendment No. 23 deals with an absolutely intolerable situation for a British resident who makes an invention while visiting the United States of America. I have already told, in Committee, of my friend the Nobel Prize winner who committed an offence in this country by patenting an invention in America. He could have been fined £1,000 and sent to prison for two years. Had he patented this invention anywhere else than in America, he would have been committing an offence under United States law and Section 184 of their Patents Act, which requires anyone making an invention in the United States to patent it in the United States if he patents it at all. This

709
unfortunate inventor was in the position that whichever country he patented the invention in he was committing an offence under the laws of the other.
It might have resulted in his not being able to visit the United States again because he would have rendered himself liable to arrest, so he would have had to sacrifice his honorary professorship and his consultancy; or, upon returning to Britain, he might have been in the doghouse here. The Amendment simply confines offences under the clause in question to inventions made in the United Kingdom. It therefore aligns our law with that of the United States. Amendments Nos. 25 and 26, in conformity with my feelings upon this matter, simply reduce the penalties under Section 21 to a simple fine not exceeding £100, and remove the offence from the scope of the criminal law.
I now come to the nub of the matter—Clauses 20 and 21. Historically, these stem from the Patents Act 1907, which made provision for certain rights of the Crown in relation to defence inventions. They survived World War I and the Patents Act 1932, unamended and unused, so far as I can determine. In the mid-1930s, during the arms race leading up to World War II, they were used but, during the war, were felt not to be stiff enough, for which reason the Defence (Patents) Regulation SRO 1941, No. 1780, was authorised to deal with the matter. An extended set of rules was incorporated in the Patents Act 1949.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, suggested that the origin of these may have related to foreign exchange control. I have searched Hansard and the reports of the debates on the 1949 Act, but I have not found any reference to foreign exchange control. All I have been able to find is a reference to the perpetuation of war-time regulations. If all we can do is to perpetuate war-time regulations, I feel that it is about time that they were abolished.
Taken together, these two clauses are quite unlike any other patent legislation that I have been able to study. No corresponding provisions exist in Australia, Belgium, France, Western Germany, Japan or, I believe, Italy. The French have a provision that the subject
710
matter of a patent shall remain unpublished for five months after filing. At the end of that time it is freed for publication. It may not even be worked industrially for five months after filing. United States law makes it an offence to patent any invention made within the boundaries of the United States by no matter who. There is no question of nationality, residence or domicile: it is the place where the invention was made that is caught under US law for patenting elsewhere.
Why do we need these idiosyncratic provisions other than to bolster our reputation for legal eccentricity? We live in a world of uncensored free publication. If I make a defence invention, I can publish it in the New York Sunday Times, the Daily Express, Nature, the journal of a learned society. I can put it into my sales literature. But why do we want to make a quite exceptional type of treatment for publication in the form of a patent? What is the point of preventing publication through patent action when this can occur through any other action one likes to take? Suppose I was an inventor who took the same view of the patent system as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, who thought it an outdated set of provisions and said, "I shall not patent anything. I don't think that they are worth the paper they are written on. I shall simply put this into my sales literature and try to sell these weapons, or whatever they are, to the Shah of Persia. I am perfectly free to do it. So why do I have to be caught in the toils of the criminal law because I make a patent application? "It is complete nonsense.
We now come to the question of who makes defence inventions. Very few categories of people make defence inventions. First, they are made in Government research laboratories, where they are caught by the Official Secrets Act. They are made by industrial consultants to the Government, who are caught by the Official Secrets Act and the terms of the contract. They may possibly be made by university professors who act as consultants to Government Departments and who must preserve security under the terms of their consultancy. The idea that a casual member of the public may make a brilliant new defence invention is extremely unlikely, for he would not have the background of what is going on in

711
the field of defence research to be able to make a contribution unless he were part of the system.
Granted that patents are applied for and assigned to the Government: they serve no useful purpose whatsoever—I am sure that the noble Viscount will be very pleased to hear me say so—except to act as a certificate of invention to enable the inventor to make claims on the Departmental Awards Committee. The Government certainly will not licence their enemies, and they will be expected to licence their allies on a royalty-free basis. The royalties that we received from United States industry and the United States Government for the user of Crown patents assigned by the inventor of the cavity magnetron and Commodore Whittle were absolutely derisory. We never really received the value of those inventions at all.
Next, these clauses cut right across European practice on the multinational front. A multinational corporation will run multinational laboratories, but they will not be duplicating each other's work; each one will be specialising in some aspect of technology or another. I know of a case of an inventor, working for a big multinational corporation, who is quite literally doing the rounds of Europe from laboratory to laboratory, making further developments on his inventions as he does the circuit of Europe, using the specialised facilities of those laboratories and the colleagues whom he finds waiting to help him there. From his fertile mind there will originate, with the help of his colleagues, a great linked mass of patents, a most valuable piece of industrial property some of it produced in Britain, some of it in Belgium, and some of it in Western Germany. These clauses are merely an obstructive nuisance from the standpoint of multinational trading by the large corporations.
Lastly, they give an entirely false sense of security—they are labelled "security" and so on. People imagine that if that is complied with, then we are secure. We are nothing of the kind. Look at the fools the Americans made of themselves with all their secrecy over nuclear secrets. Their organisation had been penetrated by Communist maggots before there were any secrets, and your Lordships can be
712
absolutely assured that that would be happening. This false screen of imagined security, which would arise because certain provisions in a Patent Act are being complied with, is to my mind very dangerous. One of the standard ways of suffering a very severe defeat is to seal up your castle, lower the portcullis, raise the drawbridge, and defy the enemy—but meanwhile you leave open a kitchen window at the back. That is how Byzantium fell. Provisions of this type lull us into just that kind of false security. Those are the reasons why I have put down these Amendments. I beg to move.
Lord CAWLEY: My Lords, I cannot say how strongly I support the noble Earl in what he said. But first I must apologise to the House for making remarks about exchange control off the cuff, which I now realise were unjustified. Ever since I started practising at the Bar in patents, I have thought that the predecessors to these clauses were ridiculous. The first reason why they are ridiculous is that a man may file a patent and the next day he is entitled to publish it abroad. He publishes it in a learned journal. When the comptroller first examines the patent he declares it a secret patent, and the actual inventor is not allowed to tell anybody about it, but everybody else in the world knows about it from the learned journal. There cannot be anything more ludicrous than that; and it is something which any inventor would be advised to do if he thought that his invention was likely to become a secret patent. Possibly the company with whom he is employed would then exploit it without any requirement of secrecy.
My second point is that I know one case where this secrecy was taken to the most extraordinary extent. Somebody invented an engine for small ships. The drawing that he supplied showed the engine applied to a landing craft, and the comptroller said that he would not publish the specification until the drawing of the landing craft was obliterated. There cannot be anything more ludicrous than that. I strongly support the noble Earl.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, always speaks most attractively on this and on other subjects, and by linking together no fewer than six Amendments, two of which seek to

713
delete whole clauses from the Bill, he has given himself a broad canvas upon which to paint, as he did so vividly. But I am afraid that, despite the persuasiveness of his speech, I must advise the House not to accept any of the Amendments to which he has spoken. First, I should like to deal with Amendment No. 21, the first Amendment to which the noble Earl spoke. This Amendment is, it seems, designed to remove what is believed to be an ambiguity in subsection (2) of Clause 20, but I am afraid that I cannot agree that ambiguity exists. A period reckoned from the end of another period is one that comes after that period. It is not one that comes either before or after the end of the first period.
However, even if this were not so, I should still have to resist the Amendment, since the intention of Clause 20(2) is to provide a period up to three months longer than the period prescribed by Clause 14 for the publication of an application, during which time the comptroller may fully consider whether the application contains information prejudicial to the safety of the public. Adoption of the Amendment that the noble Earl has moved would reduce the period for that consideration to an unacceptable degree.
I now wish to turn to what the noble Earl said in respect of his Amendments Nos. 23, 25 and 26. I have indeed some sympathy with his Amendment No. 23, which would ease the position of the United Kingdom resident who made an invention while abroad—for example, in the United States—and then found that he could not file immediately at the Patent Office in London or Washington without breaking the law of the other country. However, the inventor's position would not be impossible in these circumstances, since he could seek and obtain authority from the comptroller to make his first filing for protection in the United States Patent Office. It is true that that would involve some delay, which conceivably could damage the inventor's prospects of eventually obtaining valid protection, but the possibility is fairly remote, and to provide a remedy at the cost of a substantial weakening of the provision which under pins the whole security provisions of the Bill could not, in the Government's view, be justified. For those reasons I must ask the House to reject Amendment No. 23, and indeed Amendments Nos. 25
714
and 26. As to those two latter Amendments, the effect of them would be to reduce to purely nominal proportions the penalty for contravening the requirements of Clause 21 which, as I have said, underpin the security provisions of the Bill. Therefore, I must also resist these Amendments.
With regard to the two Amendments to which the noble Earl spoke in which it is proposed to delete Clauses 20 and 21, I should point out that Clause 20 provides for the treatment of patent application containing information, the publication of which might be prejudicial to the defence of the Realm or the safety of the public. There can be no question of deleting this clause from the Bill. Without it, it would be impossible to control the publication of information affecting national security, or to provide protection for inventions made in the field of defence, including inventions made in allied countries with which we have agreements for the exchange of classified information.
Clause 21 prohibits residents of the United Kingdom seeking protection abroad for their inventions, unless they have first received authority to do so from the comptroller or have filed an application for a patent, containing the same information, at the Patent Office. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, criticised this provision in Committee, when he moved Amendment No. 94 (I think it was), for the difficulty, to which he has again referred today, that it could cause to United Kingdom residents when travelling abroad. For example, a United Kingdom resident who makes an invention while visiting the United States cannot file for protection in either country without having first obtained permission from the authorities in the other, this entailing, as I have already indicated, some delay.
However, Clause 21 is the essential underpinning to the security provisions of Clause 20, and there can therefore be no question of its withdrawal. In rare circumstances, I would agree, the operation of Clause 21 might cause real hardship to an inventor, but in my view it would be quite unreasonable to eliminate that possibility at the cost of the security provisions of the Bill. I therefore hope that the House will resist the series of Amendments to which the noble Earl spoke.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly to the Amendment with which I have the privilege of being associated with the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and that is Amendment No. 22, to leave out Clause 20; and I shall confine my remarks to Clause 20. The reply of the noble Lord, Lord Oram, to the mover of this Amendment was that we really must have these clauses in the Bill for security reasons. I want to say quite frankly that it seems to me that this is security in peacetime gone mad. The noble Lord, Lord Cawley, gave one instance of it, and as the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, spoke about Clause 20, and particularly subsection (1), I received his remarks with a certain amount of nostalgia, because when these emergency regulations for prohibiting the publication of patent applications filed in the Patent Office were made during the war it was part of my duty as a very junior scientific officer in the department of scientific research of the Ministry of Aircraft Production to advise the Comptroller General of Patents as to why certain inventions in patent applications should or should not be published.
The reason why I had been given this task was that prior to my being appointed to this position a very senior professor of physics from a well-known university had had the job and all the patent applications dealing with aircraft and ships were sent to him. He looked at them and said, "This is something in pneumatics", for instance. "It might be associated with that very important aspect of aircraft, the undercarriages of aircraft. I am not going to take any chances; I shall say that this is secret." The rooms of the Patent Office were filled with masses of documents as to which this learned professor of physics had said, "I am not going to take a chance on this; it may or may not be secret". It was part of my duty, knowing a little more, perhaps, about the immediate research work going on in the Air Ministry, to diminish the quantity of paper which was slowly clogging up the works of that part of the Patent Office.
I should therefore like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Oram, how subsection (1) of Clause 20 is to be administered. It says that if,
"…it appears to the comptroller that the application contains information of a description
716
notified to him by the Secretary of State as being information the publication of which might be prejudicial to the defence of the realm…"
How is the comptroller going to decide that question without surrounding himself with gentlemen from the Ministry of Defence or from other defence Ministries? I can quite understand that the Secretary of State may wish to notify the Comptroller General that certain inventions in specific fields should not be published. It may be—and there is, I believe, special legislation in this matter—that in the field of atomic energy no disclosure should be made of information in patent applications, and many of these applications have remained secret.
It seems to me that, in a time of peace, the United Kingdom should not, in its Patent Act, have a provision of the nature of subsection (1) of Clause 20. As the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has indicated, this kind of legislation is not to be found in most of the countries of the European Community. I believe, as he told your Lordships, France has some regulations to this effect. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Oram, whether or not he would consider, if not deletion of the whole of Clause 20, some serious Amendment to reduce the burden on the Government in deciding whether or not the publication of information in a patent application would be prejudicial to the security of the nation.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may reply briefly to what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has said. While he was speaking I was reading again the subsection to which he referred, and it seems to me that it is fully possible of reasonable administration, which is the question that he asked. I think it is the case that this carries forward provisions that are in the existing patent legislation, and I have heard of no difficulties or absurdities, other than the odd one which the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, referred to this afternoon, in connection with its administration. But, as I said in my earlier remarks, I am advised that this provision and the related provisions of Clause 21 are indeed essential for security reasons, and I do not think that, even though we hope to be living in a world where wars are less likely, we can rest too much on that hope. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd,

717
seemed to draw a distinction between the situation today and that in wartime which I do not think is as black and white in our troubled world as he was trying to pretend.
I have listened to what noble Lords have said, but nothing that I have heard has made me change my mind on the matter. I said that I thought that Clause 20 was carrying forward provisions in the existing legislation. I am now advised that it is the equivalent of Section 18 of the 1949 Act, to which I referred earlier in my remarks.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, the position seems to be that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, is not prepared to make any concession to my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and since my Amendment has had support from two very knowledgeable Members of your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, I feel that I should test the opinion of the House, unless anybody wants to intervene and speak against it in support
of the Government, and allow matters to proceed. If the noble Lord, Lord Oram, had made any sort of concession or had asked for more time, or anything like that, then I would have been willing to consider withdrawing for the time being; but, being obdurate, I feel that, since I am going to stand by Amendment No. 22, there would be no point in putting Amendment No. 21, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 21, which stands in my name.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of HALSBURY The Earl of HALSBURY moved Amendment No. 22:
Leave out Clause 20.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 22.
4.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 22) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 98; Not-Contents, 44.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Eccles, V.

Marley, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Effingham, E.

Merrivale, L.

Alport, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Amherst, E.

Elton, L.

Newall, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Northchurch, B.

Amory, V.

Falkland, V.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Ampthill, L.

Forbes, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Arran, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Atholl, D.

Gainford, L.

Reigate, L.

Auckland, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Roberthall, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Greenway, L.

Romney, E.

Barrington, V.

Gridley, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Belstead, L.

Halsbury, E. [Teller.]

St. Davids, V.

Berkeley, B.

Hanworth, V.

Sandys, L.

Bourne, L.

Hatherton, L.

Selkirk, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hawke, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Cathcart, E.

Hayter, L.

Sharples, B.

Cawley, L.

Henley, L.

Sligo, M.

Chesham, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Spens, L.

Clwyd, L.

Ilchester, E.

Stamp, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Inglewood, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Jessel, L.

Strathspey, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Killearn, L.

Suffield, L.

Craigton, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Swansea, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Kimberley, E.

Teviot, L.

Cromartie, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Teynham, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Daventry, V.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L. [Teller.]

Vivian, L.

de Clifford, L.

Long, V.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Denham, L.

Lyell, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Derwent, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Westwood, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mancroft, L.

Wigoder, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Mansfield, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aylestone, L.

Kagan, L.

Segal, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Shepherd, L.

Collison, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Listowel, E.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stone, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

McCluskey, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Oram, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Pannell, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Pargiter, L.

Wigg, L.

Hale, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

Henderson, L.

Phillips, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Rusholme, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Janner, L.

Sainsbury, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 21 [Restrictions on applications abroad by United Kingdom residents]:
4.38 p.m.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 20, line 1, leave out ("makes or causes to be made") and insert ("files or causes to be filed").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this minor drafting change is consequential upon Amendment No. 15. In addition, it makes the language of subsection (3) consistent with that of subsection (1). No change in effect results from the Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 20, line 12, leave out first ("or") and insert ("under the law of any country other than the United Kingdom or under").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting change to fill an unintended gap in the present text of the Bill. Subsection (4)(b) at present specifies that Clause 21 bites on an application made outside the United Kingdom only if it is an application under a convention or treaty to which the United Kingdom is a party. Clearly, however, Clause 21 should also bite on an application made outside the United Kingdom under the national law of any foreign country. The Amendment makes clear that the case is also covered. I beg to move.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, with respect to the Government, perhaps they need a comma at the beginning of their
720
Amendment. If there is not a comma, as I understand it, this will read:
"In this section … any reference to either kind of application is a reference to an application under this Act under the law of any country other than the United Kingdom or under any convention or treaty to which the United Kingdom is a party."
It will therefore put together an application under this Bill under the law of any country other than the United Kingdom. I think that those are two self-contradictory statements. Unless a comma comes at the beginning of this Amendment, it is almost meaningless.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, diligently watches these potentially important matters. It is not easy to check these things immediately; it may well be that it is a printing error. If so, that will be dealt with. If it is more than that, I will ensure that the noble Lord's point is taken care of in due course. I think that the noble Lord will find that it is a printing error.
The Earl of HALSBURY The Earl of HALSBURY moved manuscript Amendment No. 27A:
Leave out Clause 21.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move.
4.44 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said manuscript Amendment (No. 27A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 92; Not-Contents, 35.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Newall, L.

Alport, L.

Falkland, V.

Northchurch, B.

Amherst, E.

Forbes, L.

Norwich, V.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Amory, V.

Gainford, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Ampthill, L.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Atholl, D.

Greenway, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Auckland, L.

Gridley, L.

Reigate, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Halsbury, E. [Teller.]

Roberthall, L.

Barrington, V.

Hanworth, V.

Romney, E.

Belstead, L.

Hatherton, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Berkeley, B.

Hawke, L.

Sackville, L.

Boothby, L.

Hayter, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Cawley, L.

Henley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Chesham, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Sandys, L.

Clwyd, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Colville of Culross, V.

Ilchester, E.

Sligo, M.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Inglewood, L.

Spens, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Killearn, L.

Stamp, L.

Craigton, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Cromartie, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L, [Teller.]

Strathspey, L.

Daventry, V.

Long, V.

Suffield, L.

de Clifford, L.

Lyell, L.

Teviot, L.

Denham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Teynham, L.

Derwent, L.

Mansfield, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Marley, L.

Vivian, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Ward of North Tynesidc, B.

Eccles, V.

Merrivale, L.

Wigoder, L.

Elton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aylestone, L.

Hall, V.

Shepherd, L.

Collison, L.

Henderson, L.

Stedman, B.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Kagan, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Cudlipp, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lloyd of Hamsptead, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

McCluskey, L.

Wigg, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Oram, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

Gordon-Walker, L.

Pannell, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Phillips, B.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Hale, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.52 p.m.
Clause 23 [Term of patent]:
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 21, line 5, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is purely a drafting Amendment to pave the way to Amendment No. 30, to which I should also like to speak. It is logical that liability for infringement and liability of the Crown to pay compensation should be treated in the same way. Under Clause 53(5) the proprietor of a patent is entitled to payment in respect of Crown use of the
722
invention to which that patent relates. The Amendment makes it clear that this liability does not cease during the grace period of six months for the payment of renewal fees. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 21, line 6, leave out from beginning to ("an").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 29 I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 36 relating to Clause 26, since the two go together. They are intended to correct a defect in the Bill. Clause 22(3) provides that a patent ceases to have effect if a

723
renewal fee is not paid on the due date. However, Clause 22(4) provides for a grace period of up to six months for paying the renewal fee and, if it is so paid within that period, the patent is treated as if it had never expired. But during the grace period a third party may have commercially exploited the invention, and therefore the Bill needs to specify whether or not such exploitation is an infringement. Since the third party knows full well that the renewal fee may be paid during the grace period and that, if it is, the patent is treated as never having expired, the Government consider that such exploitation should be treated as an infringement.
That is the purpose of paragraph (b) of subsection (4) of Clause 23. However, inadvertently, that paragraph has been made subject to subsections (5) and (6) of Clause 26, which is clearly wrong since those subsections are concerned with a different situation in which the renewal fee is not paid during the grace period. In that case the patent expires but is later restored to full life. The first Amendment therefore corrects Clause 23(4) and makes it clear that a third party who operates during the grace period is liable for infringement. The Amendment to Clause 26(5) is consequential on the Amendment to Clause 23(4). It makes it clear that the rights conferred by subsection (6) arise only if the infringeing Act or the preparations for it began after expiry of the grace period. I beg to move.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, we are most grateful for the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Oram, on this point. We had one or two queries in our minds concerning this matter but the noble Lord has gone a long way towards clearing up our doubts and queries. Possibly he would permit us to read, digest and, we hope, learn from his remarks. Subject to that, we are very pleased that the doubts we had entertained have been cleared up for the moment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 21, line 8, at end insert ("and
(c) an act which would constitute the use of the patented invention for the services of the Crown if the patent had not expired shall constitute that use.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.58 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 21, line 8, at end insert—
"(5) Rules shall provide for the Comptroller to issue notices that a renewal fee has not been paid, one such notice to be issued during the period referred to in section 23(4) above, and the other during the two months following the expiry of the said period."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 31. The purpose of the Amendment follows upon comments which I made at an earlier stage of our proceedings—I believe, on the first day of the Committee stage. At that time I welcomed the news given by the noble Lord, Lord Oram, that the Patent Office, as he has told us, are now able and willing to send out reminders to various organisations regarding the payment of their annual fees. We are very grateful for the counsel and the comments given by the noble Lord. I was happy to accept the assurance that such notices were to be issued by the Patent Office, because I had earlier understood that that is not the present custom.
However, when we look at the Bill as reprinted, I am afraid that we cannot find anything which states that the Patent Office should take positive action in this respect. We submit that the inclusion of the new subsection (5) will ensure that renewal reminders are sent out by the Patent Office. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, pointed out that there is a great risk of patent agents being liable for considerable sums in damages when a patent is not renewed owing to the late payment of the fee. Of course, we regard the noble Lord's comments as of great relevance, because he has great practical experience in this field. For this and other reasons, we consider that the clause should contain evidence that the Patent Office will carry out the intention which was so admirably expressed on behalf of the Government by the noble Lord, Lord Oram, at the earlier stage. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has said, this Amendment relates to a discussion that we had at Committee stage on what is now Clause 27. When we were considering Amendments which noble Lords opposite put down in connection with that clause, I said, in resisting them—as the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has now reminded us—that the Patent Office are prepared to issue reminders about payment of renewal fees. However, I made it clear that I thought that any solution to the problem raised by noble Lords opposite would be taken on an administrative level. I am pleased to see that the idea of reminders has been taken up in this further Amendment, but I am afraid that I must resist it, because it seeks to raise what is in my view a purely administrative matter for the Patent Office, to a statutory obligation upon the comptroller. Indeed, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, almost expressed it in those terms. I am very confident that the Patent Office will not resile from any undertaking that it gives to issue reminders. As I said, it is a purely administrative matter, upon which I think it is desirable to retain the greatest flexibility. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will acknowledge what I have said, and will not see fit to press this Amendment.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, indicated, I spoke to this matter at the Committee stage and indicated its importance to patent agents, as practitioners. Not only can patent agents be sued for a form of negligence, as the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, pointed out in Committee—they can insure against that—but something more serious often happens, in that an agent's professional integrity or professional status may be impaired, if it gets around that, through some accident of a junior clerk or something like that, he forgets to pay the fee.
I do not understand the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Oram. If he feels that the Patent Office are proposing to send these reminders, why cannot something be put in statutory form? I understand that the rules of the Patent Office have the force of Statute. May I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Oram, whether he would support the inclusion of a clause similar to this Amendment No. 31 in the rules of the Patent Office.
Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, before the noble Lord replies, may I say this. We entirely accept the undertaking which the noble Lord gave on 15th February, that it is the intention of Ministers at the moment, and the intention of the Patent Office at the moment, that reminders will be sent out. That goes a great deal of the way to meet the difficulty which has been put forward, both this afternoon and at the Committee stage. But the reason why my noble friend Lord Lyell is pressing to have something written into the Bill is that if, subsequently, the Patent Office were to cease to carry out the undertaking, then presumably, unless this was done—and I look to noble Lords with legal training on this—the Patent Office could not be sued for breach of a statutory duty, whereas, of course, the patent agent could be sued for negligence. As the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, rightly reminded us, although the patent agent can insure against that, there is the question of his professional integrity, and presumably the patent is then lost.
In addition to that, may I put one other point to the noble Lord. I understand from our last debate, and from discussing this matter outside the Chamber since, that the Patent Office used to issue reminders before the renewal fee was due, and then that practice was changed and reminders were sent out after the due date; in other words, during the grace period. Because so much depends upon not allowing a patent to lapse, we feel that it would be right for two reminders to be issued, one before the expiration of the six months' grace period and the other during the two months immediately following that period. We are not absolutely wedded to those two provisions. If those exact provisions for the sending out of reminders are not acceptable to the Government or to the Patent Office, of course we shall be perfectly ready to be guided as to how those two provisions could be changed. But what we on this side of the House feel is that, as a matter of principle, the issuing of reminders is a matter which should be written into the Bill.
Lord CAWLEY: My Lords, I think I should say something about the fact that these reminders are fairly costly, and I wonder how the Accountant-General would feel about the comptroller operating merely under an assurance given in Parliament. I should have thought it

727
would be better to have it written either into the Act or into the rules, so that if the Accountant-General challenged what the comptroller was doing the comptroller could point to either the Act or the rules to show that he was doing something which he was obliged to do.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, if I may speak with the leave of the House, as I indicated earlier I am not anxious to advise the House to accept this Amendment. But I have listened with interest to the points that have been made by the noble Lords, Lord Lloyd and Lord Cawley, and, in particular, to the suggestion about the rules of the Patent Office having the force of law. It seems to me that that, at least, is a point worth looking at and, although we are towards the end of the consideration of this Bill in this House, there will be other opportunities at later stages. I am sure noble Lords will recognise that I am not giving an undertaking. All I am saying is that I believe that sufficient has been said by noble Lords opposite to warrant a closer look at this point, and I give that undertaking.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Oram, resumed his seat, I noted what I thought were noises of assent from these Benches. Certainly, I would not wish to upset the harmony of the discussion on this segment of the Bill. However, I think I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, mentioned this point when we considered this Amendment earlier, and I believe that he made great play of the fact that he regarded these reminders as being a matter of administration. I take that point, and that may appear to be the case to the noble Lord and to the Patent Office. But as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, and my noble friend Lord Cawley pointed out, it is more than a matter of administration to a practitioner. Furthermore, as my noble friend Lord Belstead has pointed out, there is no indication whether the Patent Office will issue reminders, or in what form. I am confident that the Patent Office can keep in touch with the practitioners, the patent agents and industry by various formal and informal means. Nevertheless, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Oram, might ponder over the point that there seems to me to be an element of liberty, not to say licence, in
728
allowing the Patent Office freedom to alter the procedure whereby reminders or renewal notices are sent out.
The noble Lord, Lord Oram, mentioned that renewal reminders were sent out in the past. When I moved the Amendment at the Committee stage, I believe that the lay Members of the House, those of us who are not involved with patents as practitioners, were not aware that reminders were sent out. The noble Lord, Lord Oram, said that the Patent Office were prepared to send out reminders. We were very pleased and grateful to receive this information, but we received it only as a result of putting down an Amendment and fairly lengthy questioning in Committee. It is this possible obfuscation and clouding of the issue that we wish to avoid.
It is for that reason that we have put down this Amendment. However, we are receiving ever sweeter assurances from the noble Lord, Lord Oram. I think that the assurances he gave us at the last stage, particularly on this Amendment, have been more or less met. Nevertheless, the noble Lord has told us that he will look further into the matter and we hope that rules may be evolved whereby reminders can be issued. Above all, the practitioners, and possibly the lay Members of your Lordships' House and others who may be involved with patents in a less professional capacity than such advisers and practitioners as my noble friend Lord Cawley and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, may have a greater knowledge of what is required. Certainly I do not wish to disturb the harmony, nor do I wish to provoke any further discussion, annoyance or trouble for the noble Lord, Lord Oram. For that reason, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 [Patent not to be impugned for lack of unity]:
5.12 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 21, line 9, after ("patent") insert ("or to an amendment of a specification of a patent").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendments

729
Nos. 32 and 34. They appear to follow on from our discussions and deliberations at the Committee stage, particularly when dealing with Clause 24 and the concept of the unity of a patent. At an earlier stage the noble Lord, Lord Oram, made the point very clearly that the Government accept our contention. The contention is that the Amendment of a specification in what are known as post-grant proceedings should not be allowed as grounds for revocation, on the basis that the original claims in the invention are to be taken as invalid. This aspect of revocation is spelled out very clearly in Clause 70, under the title "Revocation of patents". Where a specific claim is revoked on perfectly good, legal and valid grounds, it could be an example of a much broader inventive concept.
If the House will permit me to do so, may I carry on the possibly by now well-known example, so aptly used and explained by my noble friend Lord Belstead, of the new method of sticking a sole to the upper of a shoe. Not only will your Lordships soon be expert practitioners in the law of patents but some of us might be attempting to branch out into other areas of skill. This seems to be one example of an inventive concept whereby what I might call a soft and flexible covering is fixed or attached to a stiff or rigid base. If in times past a process was found to be equally useful and applicable to various other processes —let us suggest, even in fairly modern times, the attachment of window blinds to a roller or the attachment of a hood to the chassis and framework of a horseless carriage—but any one of the processes is found to be invalid (again on perfectly good grounds, as we found in Clause 70) and that in the revocation proceedings the patent is revoked, our understanding is that the broad, inventive concept would also be revoked. Once this common link has disappeared, the other examples would lose their validity as patents, on the ground that the unity of the concept had disappeared. Although I have made it as clear as I can, this may not be entirely clear; I have adapted an example to the best of my ability. Nevertheless, what concerns us is that we find that proceedings are taking place not necessarily over the revocation of the main patent but over the amendment of a patent.
At an earlier stage the noble Lord, Lord Oram, said that he hoped that the Government Amendments would cover the questions we had raised. Indeed, he made a very short and brief comment and said that he hoped that any Amendments he put down would cover our points. I think that Amendment No. 33, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Oram, meets our Amendment No. 34. However, we are not entirely satisfied that the point where proceedings are taking place in respect of an Amendment is covered by that same Amendment.
Let us consider again the examples I gave earlier of the hood of a carriage and the roller blind. We believe that these examples could come into the category of proceedings taking place where the amendment of a patent is under discussion. This could be the case when the shoe stitching had been perfectly fairly revoked and, consequently, the general concept. We take the point that the noble Lord's Amendment No. 33 covers our second Amendment, but we are not entirely convinced that the Amendment which has been put down by the noble Lord—possibly he thought that it covered both of the Amendments that we moved at an earlier stage and that we have put down today—covers the first Amendment. However, we look forward to hearing what the noble Lord has to say. For that reason, I beg to move Amendment No. 32.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I can be quite brief in my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. Perhaps I need not follow him in his interesting dissertation on shoes, horseless carriages and other technologies of that kind. As the noble Lord said, I gave certain undertakings at the Committee stage. In relation to the Amendment which he has now moved, Amendment No. 32, I can say straight away that I fully agree and can advise the House to accept it. I noted also that the noble Lord recognised that my Amendment No. 33 to which he referred covers his Amendment No. 34, but he went on to say that the further points are not covered, presumably by his Amendment or by mine. Therefore, if the noble Lord will agree, I think the most satisfactory way of meeting this situation is for the House in due time to pass Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 and I will give an undertaking to read carefully what the

731
noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said about the further point that he wants covered and I will take advice on it. Then if we feel that he has raised a point of importance we can arrange for it to be covered at a later stage.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for having listened so carefully. He was most attentive as I attempted to go through the procedures and the technologies. I think several times the noble Lord mentioned Amendment No. 32 and I wonder whether he meant Amendment No. 34. The point I was making was that Amendment No. 33 met our Amendment No. 34. Probably the noble Lord thought I was making too much of a point in connection with Amendment No. 32, but I understood him to say that he would examine it further and that he felt I had made a valid point.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I may have added to any confusion that was already there. I think the position is that there is nothing between us at all on Amendment No. 32, and we can accept that without any reservation. As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, recognises that Amendment No. 33 deals with the same matter as his Amendment No. 34 and he would find it satisfactory to accept Amendment No. 33 in place of Amendment No. 34, but there is a further point which he explained and which I have given an undertaking to look into and to take up at a later stage, if need be.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, particularly for the fact that he finds there is nothing between us on Amendment No. 32, which was the point I was seeking to make.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.22 p.m.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 21, line 11, after ("patent") insert (",as they stand or, as the case may be, as proposed to be amended,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendment No. 33. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [General power to amend specification after grant]:
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 21, line 33, leave out ("determine the question") and insert ("consider the opposition in deciding whether to grant the application").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a small drafting change which makes it clear that the comptroller's function is to consider any opposition to the application to amend the patent specification when deciding whether or not to allow the amendment which is the subject of the application. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26 [Restoration of lapsed patents]:
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 22, line 27, after ("force") insert ("but subject to section 23(4)(b) above").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment when we were dealing with Amendment No. 29. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 23, line 5, at end insert—
("(9) Subsections (5) to (7) above shall apply in relation to an act which would constitute the use of a patented invention for the services of the Crown if the patent had been in force as they apply in relation to an act which would constitute an infringement of the patent if it had been in force, and subsection (8) above shall apply accordingly to the disposal of a patented product in the exercise of a right conferred by subsection (6) above as applied by the foregoing provision.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 26 provides that where a patent has lapsed it may be restored, but subject to the right of use by third parties set out in subsection (6). Further, subsection (8) protects from infringement a person claiming through anyone exercising a right of use under subsection (6). It is logical, therefore, that where use is made of an invention by the Crown in similar circumstances that use should not give rise to liability on the part of the Crown to make any payment to the proprietor of the patent if it is restored, and that a person claiming

733
through the Crown should have the protection conferred by subsection (8). I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 [Surrender of patents]:
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 23, line 16, at end insert ("and no right to compensation shall accrue for any use of the patented invention before that date for the services of the Crown.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, subsection (3) of Clause 27 provides that where a patent is surrendered by the proprietor no action for infringement shall lie in respect of any act done before the date of notice of the surrender. This Amendment removes the liability of the Crown to make payments to the proprietor in respect of any Crown use before that date. I beg to move.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene, but there are now two clauses which we are considering and where Crown use has been specifically introduced. I do not remember these matters being raised at the Committee stage, although I may be wrong. I wonder why it is now necessary to introduce questions about Crown use. Have there been difficulties arising in this matter so that it is necessary to introduce these specific Amendments?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, if I may speak with the leave of the House, I think what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has said is true. These particular points were not discussed because Crown use arose at a later stage, but it has been discovered that these three provisions regarding Crown use to which the Amendments I have moved refer, are necessary to protect the Crown use in connection with infringement. I think when the noble Lord studies what has been said he will find that it is all in good order.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. I will study what he has said when I receive Hansard tomorrow.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I think this may be a good moment to halt the Report stage of this Bill and to take other business, if that is to the convenience of your Lordships. Therefore I beg to move that further consideration on Report be postponed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

OTTER HUNTING REGULATION BILL [H.L.]
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, this is not so much a conservation measure, although it will have conservation results, as an animal welfare one. The background of the Bill is that in the mid-1960s the number of otters fell by something of the order of 50 per cent. over most of England and to a rather lesser extent in Wales, a fall probably caused by the residues of persistent pesticides. Your Lordships will remember Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, which was published about that time. As the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill says, faced with this problem the otter hunts followed the normal conservation practice of continuing to monitor the position by looking for otters, but if they found one they followed it for a time and called off the hounds without killing.
Between 1900 and 1950 the otter hunts had killed between them an average of about 200 otters a year. In the five years 1972–76 throughout the whole of Great Britain 40 otters were killed, an average of 8 a year, and if your Lordships look at today's Hansard you will see there is a Nature Conservancy Council report that five were killed last year and five the year before. In short, an entirely new pattern of otter hunting has developed over these past few years, and the effect of hunting on the status of the otter is now negligible.
In 1965 when the otter population was probably at its lowest, the Mammal Society started making distribution maps of animals, all mammals, on a 10 kilometre square basis, and with the fall in the number of otters becoming greater they concentrated on the otter from 1973 onwards. I placed a map in the Library and if your Lordships look at that you

735
will find that naturalists had reported otters from about 50 per cent. of the area of Scotland, where there was no fall in the 1960s. In the Midlands it is quite clear that the number of otters is relatively small, but I am not concerned with that so far as this Bill is concerned because there is no hunting which takes place there. Outside the Midlands, in the areas where hunting takes place, about 40 per cent. of the total area contains otters. It begins to look as if the otter is beginning to recover its former status. Though there has been a new pattern of otter hunting developing, I cannot forget that, between 1900 and 1950, 200 otters a year were killed on average by hunts. Then I could see no justification for the deliberate killing of an animal which is not good to eat, and which in my part of the world was certainly doing no harm, and I asked the local hunt some 40-odd years ago not to come and draw my stretch of river.
As I said, in many places the otter is starting to recover its former status, and this Bill is designed to prevent the existing pattern of otter hunting, where the objective is not to kill otters, from being replaced by the former practice of deliberately trying to kill them when they were found. Otter hunters have been able to continue to enjoy their sport without deliberately hunting to kill for the last ten or dozen years, because the normal behaviour pattern of an otter calls for a specialised pattern of hunting.
Otters have always been very thin on the ground. In the 1950s it was thought there was about one otter for every 6 miles of river, and an otter seems to require that sort of length of territory to support it. They are nocturnal, and they do not usually fish over more than quite a small part of their territory, a mile, two, perhaps three, on successive nights. So on successive days they have to take shelter in a whole series of consecutive shelters or holts on their way down the river; then they come back, using the holts, up the river. To find an otter, therefore, the otter hunters have to find where it fished over the previous night. The otter's scent is very much stronger than that of any other animal which is hunted. Hounds can pick up last night's track, or even the night before's track, and they follow that until they get to the place
736
where the otter is spending that particular day, when in the old days, of course, they frightened it out of its holt and chased it until they killed it or until it got away. I am told that the major pleasure, or one of the major pleasures of otter hunting, and the only one at the moment, is watching hounds puzzle out that line, the stale drag as they call it, of where the otter went the night before. It is that pattern of otter hunting without killing that this Bill is designed to secure.
In Clause 1 the Minister has to set up an "otter committee", and the membership is set out in the schedule. That is intended to, and I think should, secure that a majority, the two deliberately chosen independent people appointed by the Minister and the scientist appointed by the Nature Conservancy Council, should show a complete objectivity. The other two members, the representative of the British Field Sports Society and the representative of the animal welfare societies, are intended to stand up for their own particular interests, or at least to make certain that those interests are considered.
There are then set out a number of essential conditions. The first two are obvious and I need not say anything about them. Clause 1(2)(c) is intended to secure that only a pack of a reasonably manageable size can be used, so that it may be under the proverbial pocket handkerchief and easily controlled, and to secure that so far as the size of the individual dog is concerned this will be such as to prevent the use of terriers being put down the holt if an otter goes to ground, driving it out, as a ferret does a rabbit. Paragraph (d) is really the most fundamental one of the whole of this Bill. That lays down that the Minister shall define the time over which hounds may follow an otter in hot pursuit, or indeed whether otters may be followed in hot pursuit at all.
If your Lordships will turn to Clause 5, the definitions, you will see that the forms of pursuing an otter are two. There is what is called a hunt, when the hounds are in hot pursuit following an otter in front of them, and that is the procedure which the Minister can control completely. But following the drag left by an otter the previous night, when the otter which left it may be one, two or three miles

737
away, is neither disturbed nor at risk, is not controlled. That does no harm, and the otter hunters can pursue that to their hearts' content. I shall refer to that definition a little later.
I believe that under the present pattern of otter hunting the otter suffers from continuous daytime disturbance by fishermen, pleasure boats and over-enthusiastic river authorities removing all the bankside vegetation, although that is not so continuous but is almost as important as interference. Mammals tend to react to that sort of condition and otters have done so. There is abundant evidence that in a great many places they are tending to leave the river during the day and lie up in some holt or shelter in an alder carr or wood some distance back from the riverside where they are not disturbed. If their drag is being followed along the river bank they will never know that they are being hunted, if one defines that as hunted, and will never be disturbed.
Naturalists and conservationists should bear in mind that we should establish artificial holts or shelters in these woods, well back from the river side and thus try to encourage otters to spend the day there, away from disturbance by fishermen, boats and the huntsmen. That being so, they would not be distressed by the fact that very little shelter has been left by the river authority. I have such a holt in a wood on my own land some little distance back from our river.
We know that otters can do harm, particularly in fish farms and where there are collections or wild fowl and the like. The provisos to Clauses 3 and 4 are intended to secure that where an otter is doing damage it can be dealt with and will be dealt with only where the recipient of the damage can satisfy a court of law that it is essential to kill the otter.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, these two clauses have set my mind at rest about the preservation of fish farms and so on. I should like to thank the noble Earl for having included this so clearly.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness. That was the intention of the clauses. The five miles within which the otter may be killed is intended to cover rather less than the normal territory over which
738
an otter ranges and feeds, so that one can be quite certain of catching it. I have only recently been brought into contact with otter hounds and otter hunters. About 18 months ago we started to prepare a conservation scheme to preserve the otter in Suffolk. It immediately became clear—indeed, we were so advised by our otter expert who had just completed a preliminary otter survey—that it was essential to get all interested parties together and that we must work with the otter hounds, the water authorities, riparian owners, fishermen, boatman and the like. Therefore, it fell to me to try to mug up on all the various interested parties.
It was then that I first realised this curious feeding habit of the otter of being continually on the move, sleeping every night in a fresh place and that it was only possible for an otter hunter to find it by finding the drag of the night before and following it until he came upon the otter. Until the hunters come upon the otter the otter is not disturbed or at risk. Of course, otters and nature do not arrange things quite so nicely that one invariably finds the drag first and then the otter. I presume that sometimes one can take the hounds clown to the river and come across the otter when its drag stretches away several miles below or above it.
The extent of the disturbance and danger will depend entirely upon whether and for how long the hounds pursue the otter once they have come upon it. As I have said, it has been the practice of the otter hounds to whip off in order to prevent killing it but by following it they do, of course, disturb it to a certain extent. Therefore, it seemed obvious that there should be a special Bill which contained a special clause—Clause 1(2)(d)—under which the Otter Committee and the Minister can decide whether the otter is pursued and, if it is pursued, for how long it should be pursued.
Almost all the national conservation bodies have asked that the otter should have legal protection but none of those who demand it seems to realise how otter hunting depends upon following the drag. All have asked that the otter should be placed on the Schedule to the Conservation of Wild creatures and Wild Plants Act—an Act which is totally inappropriate for dealing with the situation in which we find

739
ourselves today. That Act can hardly control otter hunting. Under that Act it would be an offence to kill without reasonable excuse, exactly as under this Bill it would be an offence not to take "every reasonable precaution" to avoid killing. The phraseology is very similar and I do not quite know why I chose the second one instead of the first for the Bill. Under neither would it be an offence to follow the drag in the absence of the otter but under the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act—but not under the Bill—it would not be an offence mercifully to kill an otter who was severely damaged.
Most people would define otter hunting as tracing a fleeing otter with a pack of hounds, the otter running or swimming in front of them, trying to get away as fast as it can. It is that which causes a disturbance; it is then that the otter is at risk and it is that which is defined as a "hunt" under Clause 5. That cannot be controlled by the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act but, as I said earlier, it can be controlled by Clause 1(2)(d), and that is the key to the Bill. It was the necessity to be able to control that form of disturbance, or indeed any form of disturbance, the necessity to be able to prevent the unnecessary killing of an otter, which was the father and mother of this Bill.
Of all the beasts of the chase the otter is unique in so far as it leaves a scent behind it which is so strong that it can be followed on the next day and even on the day after. That cannot be done with the fox, the hare, or the deer. The track of none of them can be followed by hounds when they are far away in time as well as distance. That is secured by this Bill. There need be no disturbance, there need be no killing, and I believe that the otter hunters can continue to enjoy watching the stale drag being followed by their hounds without putting the otter at risk at all. This I feel is a Bill which I can commend to your Lordships, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
5.51 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I rise to intervene at this stage to give your Lordships some indication of the Government's attitude to the proposals in this
740
Bill. So far as can be ascertained from the Bill itself and from the Explanatory Memorandum, the aim of the Bill is to prevent the deliberate killing of otters with hounds except when this is necessary to prevent substantial damage to property. This would give statutory effect to the practice adopted by otter hunts in recent years of calling off the hounds before the otter is killed. It may be that the Bill goes, or is intended to do so, a good deal farther than this, but that is a matter that I propose to deal with a little later.
May I first deal with the relationship between this Bill and the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975. Under the 1975 Act it is an offence to kill, injure or take, or attempt to kill, injure or take a protected wild creature without reasonable excuse. Protected wild creatures are listed in Schedule I to the 1975 Act. While these include such familiar friends as the natterjack toad, the otter is not so listed. Nevertheless, an order can be made—and I want to emphasise this—to add any wild creature to Schedule I to the Act in the interests of proper conservation, provided that there is first a representation from the Nature Conservancy Council, who are the Government's advisers on such matters, that this should be done.
Before making such a representation the National Conservancy Council must consider that the creature has become so rare that its status is being endangered by an action which is designated as an offence under the Act. The effect of such an order, therefore, would be to prohibit—and I want to emphasise this—any attempt to kill, injure, or take an otter without reasonable excuse. Whether or not this would prevent all forms of otter hunt I am unable to say, but I understood the noble Earl to say that it would not. However, the fact remains—and I must remind him of this—that the decision would rest with the courts. Action would presumably be up to anybody who felt that the 1975 Act did in fact give this protection, and if the practice continued then it could be tested in the courts.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? It would certainly be an offence if an otter was killed with hounds, but otter hunting without killing would not be an offence. That is as I see it.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, as the noble Earl wishes to believe that, that would presumably be more correct, but I am not sure that I would agree with him there. I would say that if the otter was protected, then I question—and I should say the courts would have to decide this—whether it could be hunted. But I do not think that any useful purpose is going to be served at this stage by the noble Earl and I having a disagreement. We are used to having disagreements. We had them for some years on a county council. They were, if I may say so, always good natured.
In any event, your Lordships may feel that the protection of otters under the 1975 Act would go a long way to meeting the noble Earl's objectives. I have to make it perfectly clear that Ministers share the concern which has recently been expressed about the decline in the number of otters. My colleagues in the Department of the Environment have been seeking advice from the Nature Conservancy Council on action to conserve the otter and the need for protection of the otter under the 1975 Act.
Towards the end of last year the Nature Conservancy Council and the Society for the Promotion of Nature Conservation set up a joint Working Group to assess the current status of the otter and to determine whether measures are needed for its conservation and, if so, what form those measures should take. The Group is now completing its report with a view to publication at the end of May. I understand that they will be proposing a programme of measures designed in particular to safeguard the habitats of otters and to curb the effects of disturbance and pollution.
Again I want to say on behalf of the Government that we shall give careful consideration to the Group's recommendations and to the Nature Conservancy Council's views on them. While we have not yet received the Council's formal advice, I understand that the Council would generally welcome the range of measures proposed by the Group. Based on these, the Nature Conservancy Council are contemplating advising my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on the need for a variety of measures to be taken, including legislative protection of the otter. They are seriously considering whether it would be appropriate to
742
use the provisions for area protection under the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975. As I think I said earlier, it is for the Nature Conservancy Council to advise the Secretary of State whether the otter should be protected under this Act. If any formal representation is received from the Nature Conservancy Council, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State at the Department of the Environment will be undertaking the consultations with local authorities and others concerned which are required under the 1975 Act before an order can be made.
Your Lordships may well ask how all this affects the Bill. The first point I would make is that the purpose of the two measures is very different indeed. The object of the 1975 Act is conservation, while the object of the proposals in this Bill, so far as the Government understand them, is to reduce unnecessary suffering. I do not think it goes beyond that; to reduce unnecessary suffering. It follows from that that the considerations applying to the two courses of action are very different. My second point is that there appears to be no inconsistency or conflict in adopting either or both courses of action. The regulation of hunting so as to eliminate unnecessary suffering might he followed or accompanied by scheduling the otter under the 1975 Act on conservation grounds.
I turn to the proposals in the Bill. It seems—I can only report what I have been told because, I am very happy to say, I have no personal or practical experience whatever of otter hunting, that the activity at least in this country has one characteristic which distinguishes it from other forms of hunting; that is to say, the otter may be hunted for some time without being aware of the fact, a point which the noble Earl made. Apparently this is possible because the hounds follow a scent for some time before meeting up with the otter. If my information is correct, this means that up to that point the animal will not have been made to suffer by or from the pursuit. That is not to say that otter hunting as it has recently been conducted—that is, in which every attempt is made to avoid the actual kill—involves no suffering.
When moving the Second Reading of his Bill, the noble Earl drew your

743
Lordships' attention to the fact that the otter may be disturbed by fishermen. I suggest that it is terrified if it is aware of being chased by hounds, even though they may be called off, and that is a very different thing. Let me say honestly that as an individual I am intrigued to know how hounds can be called off at such close quarters. How does one do that? The Government would not feel able to approve a form of regulating hunting which preserved such an element and, let us make no mistake about it, the Bill that is before us would preserve such an element.
As we understand it—this was the sense of the remarks of the noble Earl when introducing the Bill—his intention is that the conditions should be so drawn as to require that the hounds be called off the moment they come up to the otter. Is that realistic? Is it really possible? What does one say to hounds in such circumstances? Let us face the implications of all this. There has been talk about scents; that they can follow yesterday's scent but not today's. How does one determine which is yesterday's scent and which is today's? I certainly do not know.
In so far as the intention of the Bill is to eliminate any suffering on the part of otters, I can say without reservation that this is a principle which has the Government's support. Such reservations as we have stern from practical difficulties which we believe would arise from the provisions as at present drafted. As to whether what we understand to be the noble Earl's intentions could in practice be achieved, I have indicated that the character of otter hunting would appear to make this at least a theoretical possibility. But let us not forget that we are talking about a theoretical possibility and that there is a great deal of difference, a vast distance, between theory and practice. If, as I say, it would appear to be at least a theoretical possibility, the result would be almost indistinguishable from the total abolition of otter hunting so far as the suffering inflicted on the animal by way of sport was concerned. We believe it would be difficult to object to such a result; that is, if it could be achieved in practice. It would certainly accord with the Government's policy of eliminating unnecessary suffering wherever reasonable and possible.
744
In its present form, however, we are of the opinion that the Bill could not achieve that object. Accordingly, our attitude to the Bill at this stage, on our understanding of what its purpose is intended to be, must be one of neutrality. It is a matter for your Lordships to decide what should happen. But let me again be perfectly frank and say that the Government could not accept a measure of this kind on the Statute Book in its present form.
I understand that the noble Earl is ready to accept Amendments which would rectify the Bill's deficiencies and, if it is the wish of your Lordships that further progress with the Bill should be attempted, I can assure the House and the noble Earl that we should be happy to discuss the matter with him; that is, if your Lordships think it right to proceed in this way. In the course of such discussions, the matter we particularly wish to explore would be whether it is really practicable to devise mandatory conditions which would eliminate any element of suffering.
That is what it will turn on; whether it is feasible, possible and practicable to devise mandatory conditions which would eliminate any element of suffering. The question is whether it is possible to draft such conditions and whether it would really be practicable in that they could be apparent and observed; and then, of course, whether the provisions in the Bill would be satisfactory in the event of a deadlock between the Secretary of State and the otter committee. The noble Earl has set out clearly the appointment of an otter committee and the fact that, whatever else it might decide, four things would have to be mandatory. But what would be the position of the Secretary of State in relation to any recommendations of that otter committee?
The Government support the elimination of any suffering caused by the sport of otter hunting and would not object to the Bill if it could be amended to achieve that object. I have pointed out that we see very real and practical difficulties in doing that. We should not be prepared to contemplate Government approval for conditions which did not entirely eliminate the element of suffering, and I would ask with the greatest possible respect whether hunting an otter can be held at any time not to include an element

745
of suffering. One must surely go with the other. We reserve the right to take action—as I am sure many noble Lords would wish the Government to do—under the 1975 Act, if appropriate, whether or not this Bill reaches the Statute Book.
6.10 p.m.
Lord CRAIGTON: My Lords, my noble friend has based his Bill on his view, which I quote, that
"…the effect on otters of hunting is comparatively negligible",
that the otter is beginning to recover its former status in certain areas and, basing his figures and graphs to some extent on the authority of hunt records, he points out with truth that many hunts are continuing to enjoy this sport.
There are other opinions. The Hon. Vincent Weir made observations between 1967 and 1973 in North Norfolk. Those observations showed that it took about four months for otters, once they had been hunted—not necessarily killed—to return to their former territory. So, in taking figures from the hunts, it is clear that the huntsmen who know this behaviour of the otter are not going back to the former territory but are going to where they hope or, with their great skill, know the otter is. For that reason, we believe that many of the hunt records of kills and otters in the area are abnormally high. I believe that nearly every other authority in the country is of the opinion that the otter is both scarce and, in many areas, endangered. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and his colleagues share our concern.
I should like briefly to quote the names of some of the authorities I have for saying what I have. They include the Otter Trust which said in a letter to me,
"All the scientists who have studied otter populations in this country—Chanin, Mason, McDonald, Weir, West, Erlinge and Green—have come to the same conclusion; i.e. that unless the otter is totally protected by law it will soon become extinct in most of England and Wales."
They say that this view is endorsed by a large number of field naturalists who are helping with the present otter survey, of which Dr Chanin is the co-ordinator.
In addition to that, at a recent conference in Berne, the common otter was placed in Appendix I of the Washington Con-
746
vention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. It is now, therefore, internationally recognised as being in need of complete protection. Trade in otters is now controlled and the otter will be added to the Red Data book of endangered species. Furthermore, only four days ago--last Monday—the status of the otter was raised at the Survival Services Commission meeting of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, at Morges. The meeting expressed concern about the status of the otter in the whole of Western Europe and instructed that a telegram should be dispatched to the Department of the Environment—where I hope it has been received—urging Her Majesty's Government to give the otter immediate legal protection, including a ban on hunting, trapping and shooting.
These are powerful and authoritative opinions and they will, as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said, shortly be reinforced when we see the recently completed report of the Joint Otter Group of the Nature Conservancy Council, the Society for the Promotion of Nature Conservation, the Mammal Society and the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. I am very glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that he is considering measures that may do something about this very difficult problem.
The weight of evidence will surely be that the otter is an endangered species. It suffers many dangers and difficulties in attempting to survive in this country and, before one considers the merits of a Bill to permit hounds to hunt but not to kill otters, let me state briefly what these difficulties and dangers are. With so elusive a creature as the otter, a particular difficulty is that it is probably true to say that in many cases one cannot know for certain that the otter is seriously endangered in any area until it is too late. One only finds out when the damage is done.
What are the main dangers? My noble friend mentioned some in introducing the Bill. The first is disturbance in any form, whether chased by a hunt as legalised by this Bill or disturbed by fishermen, canoeists, sailors or even ramblers. There is killing, which this Bill attempts to prevent except in certain circumstances. In this connection, my noble friend men-

747
tioned fish farming. There is also killing and trapping by gamekeepers and even fishermen in the not mistaken but much exaggerated belief that otters do damage to game fish. In fact, there would seldom be more than one otter to every six or even ten miles of river and, as everyone knows, the otter's main food is eels and coarse fish. Again, there is the destruction of habitat, often by the water authorities and with the best of intentions. They should leave one side of the bank for the otter so that the otters, if they are there at all, may try to live in peace. Finally, there is pollution. Undoubtedly, pollution did damage but the situation is now better and if the fish can live the otter can live there too.
Encompassed by all these dangers as the otter is, do we really need a Bill that legalises one of those dangers—disturbance by hounds—and attempts to prevent one other—killing by hounds? use the word "attempts" deliberately. The Friends of the Earth have made one point to me in opposing the Bill: hunters cannot guarantee calling off hounds to avoid a kill. The noble Lord Lord WellsPestell, made this point very clear. The only time that I ever came up to otter hounds was when I was a young man and I was fishing. Hounds were all running along the river sniffing. It was a most attractive sight. They put up a rabbit and bang! the whole lot were away over the field and though they were shouted at nobody could stop them. They drifited back, one after another, after a time.
In addition, if an otter is killed, what will be said? Any excuse will be possible —"I thought it was a mink, I thought it was a coypu". Both those creatures inhabit the same banks as the otter. I am totally opposed to legalising disturbance at this time, but do we have to approve a Bill just because it also tries to prevent the killing of the otter by hounds?
As the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said, otters could be protected now under the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act. There has been a great deal of misunderstanding about that Act as also about this Bill and the otter itself. I want to comment very briefly on what the noble Lord said and to thank him for his explanation about this Bill. Many of us in the conservation world have not
748
been clear. The noble Lord said that if the Nature Conservancy Council is satisfied that the otter needs protection an Order can be made. That is something that we all wanted to hear. He will agree with me that that order can be made either in a particular area or in relation to a whole area. If it is a particular area, it will be a little difficult because the otter moves about so much. It can be asked: against what dangers can the otter be protected and what known dangers remain? The noble Lord mentioned the dangers against which the otter can be protected—killing, which is the one referred to in this Bill, maiming, taking or attempting to do so. But a very wide field, such as disturbance, which this Bill seeks to perpetuate, pollution and habitat destruction will still remain.
So I oppose the Bill because the prevention of killing by hounds can be met by existing legislation, and because in legalising one form of disturbance it is an anti-conservation measure. I beg the Nature Conservancy Council—and the Minister has gone a long way towards answering me—to ask the Minister to add the otter to the Schedule to the Act, even though we know that the protection is only limited, and even though we know (and my noble friend will agree with me) that the other answer is also the establishment of recognised and controlled otter havens with, if possible, supporting legislation, and I would hope to see that. If necessary, I intend to divide the House, and I ask your Lordships not to vote for enshrining in law the disturbance by hounds, whether drag or hunting, of this rare and beautiful creature.
6.21 p.m.
Lord AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to give some support to the Bill at present before the House because I think that it does something to protect the otter which is not being done at present. Although, as the noble Lords, Lord WellsPestell and Lord Craigton, said, there are things that could possibly be done, they are not being done now, whereas if the Bill became law it would do something to start the ball rolling to protect this very attractive and totally harmless animal which, so far as I know, causes no trouble or damage at all; or at least very little.
I do not propose to go into the matters which have been so well put forward by

749
the noble Earl who introduced the Bill, but one suggestion I should like to make is that, if your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading, when the Minister receives reports from the otter committee (which the Bill would make possible) these should be published so that people can know what is going on.
With those few words, I should like to support the Bill which, as I say, proposes to do something for the unfortunate otter which is not being done at the present time. Before I sit down, I should like to explain to your Lordships that I might have to leave the House before the debate is concluded, and I hope that your Lordships will excuse me if it should be necessary for me to leave.
6.23 p.m.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, the Party to which I belong has never believed in expressing a view, as a Party, on matters of this kind but has always preferred to leave them to the individual judgment and conscience of its members. I should therefore like to begin by making two things absolutely clear. First, that, if there should be a Division at the end of this debate, my noble friends are entirely free to vote as they think best. And, secondly, although I am speaking from this Dispatch Box, what I am going to say is my view and my view alone. Here I should like to declare a lack of interest in that, although I have been otter hunting a very long time ago, I have not been recently, and I do not intend to go. But by what I say I do not mean that I express the same disapproval of it as has come from other quarters of this House.
My Lords, a primary reason behind this Bill is the undoubted fact that otters are now in need of conservation, the question of the morality of otter hunting must arise, as indeed it has already. It has always been an unwritten law of the countryside that no animal should be killed for purposes of sport alone. But where it is necessary for a particular animal to be killed, either because it is a source of food, which of course does not apply to the otter, or because it is a pest, then it is quite acceptable for that animal to be killed in the course of a field sport, providing that no more suffering takes place than would be involved in other methods of killing, and provided that
750
suffering is kept to the absolute minimum necessary. The Scott Henderson Committee endorsed this unwritten rule in paragraph 11 of their report (Cmnd. 8266).
As your Lordships have heard, there are now large stretches of waterways where otters are very few in numbers, and cannot be regarded as a pest, and in these places it would clearly be wrong for them to be killed by otter hunting or by any other means. But there are still places where otters, or more usually a particular otter, can he a pest, and where such otters have to be killed, I believe (and I must again emphasise that this is a personal view) that they are more likely to be killed selectively and humanely under the auspices of the Master of Otter Hounds Association. This is the distinction that my noble friend Lord Cranbrook seeks to make in his Bill.
At this stage I should like to answer a question that was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and was mentioned also by my noble friend Lord Craigton. The question was: Is it possible, after hunting the drag, when hounds come up with the otter, to call off hounds at that point? My information is that it is. My noble friend Lord Craigton quoted an example of when he saw otter hounds killing a rabbit. I note in parenthesis that he was fishing at the time. When hounds come up with an otter, the instinctive reaction of the otter is to go into the water, and when it goes into the water at that point it has an advantage over hounds. A rabbit does not go into the water and hounds cannot be called off when they are chasing a rabbit on the land, but I am told that they could certainly be called off at the point when the otter goes into the water.
My Lords, like all controlling bodies of field sports, the Master of Otter Hounds Association has very firm rules which it enforces among its members. As a matter of deliberate policy, they have one positive written rule, rather than a number of negative ones. "Otter Hunting", its rule book begins:
"is the hunting of the otter in its wild and natural state with a pack of hounds. No pack of hounds of which the Master or representative is a member of this Association shall be allowed to hunt an otter in any way which is inconsistent with this precept".
Rightly or wrongly, the Association felt that if its rule book consisted of "don'ts",

751
it would be less easy to control what happened, whereas any wrong action that takes place can be condemned as an offence against the Association's one positive rule. Over the years the Association had issued directives to its members, specifying individual practices, such as "the stickle", "tailing of otters", and "owering of the water in mill pools", which, among others, would certainly be regarded as a breach of the rule. The Report of the Scott Henderson Committee, published in 1951, takes particular note of this, and concluded in paragraph 313:
"We think that these practices are now things of the past".
After reading my noble friend's Bill, the Master of Otter Hounds Association issued another such directive, bringing the main provisions of the Bill into effect in advance, so as to cover the 1977 season, which started officially on 1st April. This directive reads:

"1. No otters shall be killed except at the request of the riparian owners when they are doing proved damage. If for this reason any otter is killed the organs will be sent to the Monks Wood Experimental Station.

2. Hunting shall be conducted on a basis agreed with the Governing Bodies of the recognised Naturalists Organisations.

3. No hunting shall take place in rivers that do not afford the otter every opportunity to escape. Maximum care shall be taken to preserve breeding sites. No river shall be hunted so as to cause any risk to the breeding of otters; this must cover the number of hounds taken out and the use of terriers".

At the same time they said that when the report of the Working Party set up by the Nature Conservancy Council and the Society for the Promotion of Nature Conservancy is published they will review this directive in the light of it.
My Lords, other controlling bodies of field sports have ultimate sanctions which can be used as a last resort to enforce their rules, in particular the ability to keep offenders' hounds out of the stud book. This is not available to the Master of Otter Hounds Association, since the pure-bred otter hound is now comparatively rare and it is much more usual nowadays to use drafted fox-hounds. The absence of such sanctions has not in fact so far proved to be a disadvantage, but, none the less, I am told that the Master of Otter Hounds Association welcomes the fact that this Bill would give it the teeth which it at present lacks.
752
My Lords, I am in the same difficulty as no doubt are the rest of your Lordships in trying to judge, as a layman, between the conflicting views of the naturalist advisers of my noble friend Lord Craigton and my noble friend Lord Cranbrook and his, over the effects caused by the disturbance of hunting on the breeding of otters. My noble friend Lord Craigton feels so strongly about this that he has told your Lordships that he intends to divide the House against the Second Reading of this Bill, and none of your Lordships will have the slightest doubt of the depth of conviction behind such an action; but I think it is allowable, and perhaps right, to question its wisdom. With this in view, I should like to put three points before your Lordships.
First, this Bill deals only with otter hunting. Otter hunting is by no means the only threat to the survival of the otter; and this is borne out by a Written Answer, which appears in yesterday'sHansard,given by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. In that Written Answer Lady Stedman concludes:
"However, the Nature Conservancy Council has reason to believe that substantial numbers of otters are killed in other circumstances." [Official Report,27/4/77, col. 682.]
An otter's pelt is worth, I am told, about£20. It can be shot and trapped comparatively easily, but it is very difficult to do either of those things humanely. If otter hunting, which is easy to control, were to stop, the other methods, which are not easy to control, might well increase dramatically.
The second point is that my noble friend's reason for asking your Lordships to vote against this Bill to control otter hunting is that he does not think it goes nearly far enough. He wants to ban otter hunting altogether; and the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, in a speech of remarkable neutrality, supported this view. That would not be the immediate effect of this Bill being defeated this afternoon. A vote against this Bill is not a vote against otter hunting, however much your Lordships may wish it were. The immediate effect of this Bill being defeated would be that otter hunting would continue, your Lordships having rejected the modest curbs being asked for by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. If this Bill should be defeated this afternoon, I hope that the

753
Master of Otter Hounds Association will still follow its precepts, but it would, quite frankly, he no thanks to your Lordships if it did.
Thirdly, and perhaps most important, we are awaiting the report of the Working Party set up by the Nature Conservancy Council and the Society for the Promotion of Nature Conservation. My Lords, 26 years ago the Scott Henderson Committee recommended—and I am quoting from their Recommendation 49:
"A thorough investigation should be conducted under the Nature Conservancy or some other suitable body into the natural history of the otter, and particularly into its feeding habits in various river conditions. The result of this inquiry should be taken into account in deciding whether or not otter-hunting should be permitted to continue".
Such an investigation has been very long in coming. It seems to me to be a very great pity, and indeed wrong, to come to a decision in principle on legislation such a short time before the publication of this long-awaited report, and I hope that, in view of this, my noble friend Lord Craigton will not divide the House this afternoon.
6.35 p.m.
The Earl of LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am sure we would all agree with the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, whose expertise as a naturalist and whose admirable work for conservation over many years, particularly in his own county, everyone recognises, that the otter should no longer, in normal circumstances, be killed by hounds. So far, no one could quarrel with him as a conservationist; but what I regret about the Bill is that it goes no further than this in protecting the otter and, in some respects to which I shall come in a moment, would, I fear, actually worsen its present position. I think it is generally agreed, even if the situation may he improving at the moment, that the otter population has been declining and that early measures are needed to prevent a further fall in its numbers.
Such conservation measures are long overdue, and in taking them we should merely be bringing this country into line with most of the countries in Western Europe. Almost every country in the Council of Europe—which, as your Lordships will remember, is a more widely
754
representative organisation than the EEC —has passed conservation laws for the protection of otters. We are the only country in Western Europe, apart from Ireland, which has no protective legislation, not even—and I think this is the most shameful thing of all—a close season for otter hunting.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl realises that there is a close season, although not a legal one. There certainly is an extremely carefully kept close season for otter hunting.
The Earl of LISTOWEL: My Lords, I was referring to a legal close season, and I think the noble Lord, who knows a great deal more about otter hunting than I do, will agree that in fact otter hunting goes on, not everywhere, of course, but in some parts of the country, in April, May and June, when otters are breeding. As I say, we in this country are really in this lamentable position, but we must not exaggerate, of course, the effect of otter hunting on the position of the otter. Whatever legislation we may produce to protect the otter, we cannot stop the inroads of industry, urban sprawl and mechanised farming into their natural habitat on the banks of our waterways, and that is the principal threat to the otter. At the same time, we should certainly do everything possible to give the otter security in its natural conditions—a security which they are losing through the erosion of the countryside.
Our natural history, like our political and cultural history, is part of the history of Western Europe. We could show that we are good Europeans by preserving what is left to us of our natural environment for our own enjoyment and, indeed, for that of our continental neighbours. For a change, let us try to set a standard of conservation that is at least as high as theirs, and this opportunity may well come when we get the report of the Nature Conservancy Council, to which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, referred and which he said, much to my satisfaction and, I am sure, to that of other noble Lords, will be with us in a month's time.
So we have recognised that the otter is now a rare animal, and we have recognised, further, that the otter needs special protection, because it was included

755
last year in the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act. This gives some measure of indirect protection to the otter by prohibiting the sale to or purchase from abroad of any species of otter, save under licence, and also by prohibiting the import or export of otter skins or furs. But, of course, it does nothing to stop the commercial exploitation of otters at home, and I believe that in Wales and Scotland, where otters are still fairly plentiful, the otter is shot for the value of its skin. Of course, this is probably due to inflation. I think that my information about the value of an otter skin is that it is considerably higher than the value put upon it by the noble Lord opposite. But, at any rate, I am afraid that there is a strong financial inducement for the trapping or shooting of the otter. This commercial exploitation could he prevented if the otter was added to the list of wild animals protected by the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Plants Act 1975 which prohibits the killing or taking of any endangered species save under licence.
This was the Act which gave the Nature Conservancy Council the duty of making representations to the Government if it considered that any wild species should be added to the protected list; and the status of the otter has been under consideration, as has been referred to by several noble Lords, by the Council. The report is on the way and I understand from what the noble Lord. Lord Wells-Pestell, has said that it will include recommendations about a variety of measures—and a number of measures will be required, no doubt—for the conservation of otters. I sincerely hope, for it is the most important measure of all, that at least the otter will be added to the protected list in the conservation Act; and as the Minister will have the power to designate areas, it does not necessarily mean that areas where the otter is still fairly plentiful will be included.
Surely—and I am afraid that this is where I differ from the last words of the noble Lord, Lord Denham—it would be most unwise to legislate in any form whatever until the report has been received and there has been plenty of time for all the proper consultations with the other bodies concerned and for both Houses of Parliament to consider this report with the utmost care. I cannot help
756
thinking that it would be a fatal mistake to pass a Bill like that submitted to the House by the noble Earl tonight that might conflict with the recommendations of the report of the Nature Conservancy Council. It is all very well for the noble Lord opposite to reserve his position; but if the otter were to be included in the protected list then it could be no longer hunted, as is proposed in this Bill, and killed in order to stop damage to fisheries and other property. That would be prohibited. It might be permitted under licence but this would be quite a different mechanism. It would therefore not be possible to do this unless the noble Lord were first to introduce amending legislation to amend this Bill if it were passed by both Houses of Parliament and became an Act.
Another alternative, and possibly supplementary, method of protecting the otter would be a special Bill like the Badgers Act which was piloted so skilfully through this House in 1973 by the noble Earl, Lord Arran. But fresh legislation is very difficult and lengthy and it is not the easiest way of dealing with the problem. I am sure that both these alternatives and, of course, other measures as well affecting the otter should await consideration of the report of the Nature Conservancy Council.
May I turn for a moment to the provisions of the Bill, for this, I think, no speaker has yet dealt with and I shall not be going over ground that has been covered. The noble Earl is asking the House to regulate otter hunting by a code of rules which he wants to make enforceable in law. The first question is this. Are these rules, in fact, enforceable? I would ask your Lordships to treat the mandatory conditions set out in Clause 1(2) as a test case. Most important of these conditions—and this we were told by the noble Earl himself was the most important of these conditions for it would stop the accidental killing of otters—is in Clause 1(2)(b). This provides that:
"every reasonable precaution shall be taken to prevent an otter being killed".
So if an otter is accidentally killed by hounds and proceedings are taken against the hunt, the court must be satisfied that every reasonable precaution had been taken to prevent the accident.
The normal and obvious precaution would be to call off the hounds in good

757
time before they have caught the otter. I am not going into the argument as to whether or not this is practical. Let us assume that it is practical. That is the assumption that I should like your Lordships to make. But how is the court to know whether the hounds were, in fact, called off in time to give the otter a fair chance of escape? The hunt followers would be unlikely to give evidence against the hunt and it would hardly be realistic to except a conservationist to go out with every hunt to see fair play for the otter.
I am glad that the noble Earl has not in the Bill suggested that our over-worked county police force should be used for this purpose. There is nothing in the Bill corresponding to Clause 10 of the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Plants Act 1975 which places the duty of enforcement squarely upon the police. There is no means of enforcing the provisions of the Bill. If the noble Earl has merely omitted to refer to enforcement, perhaps he might reply to this criticism when he answers the debate; but it seems to me that unless this criticism can be met the bottom falls out of the Bill.
My Lords, another important question which I think has not been asked this afternoon is this. Is this Bill really necessary? I think that every one agrees that we have too much legislation on the Statute Book and that we should not add to it unnecessarily. If it is now the normal practice, as the noble Earl tells us that it is, to allow the otter to escape, why is it necessary to legislate for the same purpose? May I draw your Lordships' attention to a directive issued this month by the Masters of Otter Hounds Association? The directive begins:
"No otter shall be killed except at the request of the riparian owners when they are doing proved damage".
Surely, this is exactly what the Bill sets out to do. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, will agree with that. I suggest that we ought at least to allow the masters of otter hunts to persuade their recalcitrant colleagues, if such there be, to conform to good hunt practice. Only if persuasion fails—and time will show—could there be any case for compulsion. It must be a cardinal principal with all of us that we do not take away the liberties of the subject by passing another law if it is possible to achieve
758
the purpose of the law by agreement and persuasion. I therefore take the view that the necessity of this Bill—and I think the onus of proof is on the noble Earl opposite —has not been proved to the satisfaction of the House.
May I refer to one other clause in the Bill which is extremely important. It is part of the second purpose of the Bill which is the control of otters by hunting. Clause 4 permits an owner of land or water to invite a hunt on to his land if he alleges substantial damage to his property. So far as I can see, this clause would work in a way that would not give protection to many innocuous otters who have done no harm to anyone; for the landowner does not have to satisfy the court that damage has been done until after the hunt has taken place. It is only at that stage that he can be charged; and by that time the otter or otters could have been killed. If this clause were widely used there could be a great deal of damage. If protection is required, as it may be, for hatcheries, fisheries or fish farms, it could be given by licence on the application of the landowner—but that is not a procedure suggested in the Bill.
Clause 4 raises the wider question of otter control by hunting, which is what the noble Earl wants. There is some conflict of evidence about the damage done by otters, and we need to know more about the facts before we exempt the otter from protection on this ground. But on the assumption made in this Bill that the otter can be a pest, I still do not think that a pack of hounds is the best method of removing it. The hounds, even if they are successful, disturb and damage wild life on the banks of rivers or streams, especially when they are working during the nesting or breeding season, April, May and early June. This damage could be remedied or stopped by other methods—and humane methods —such as the use of the rifle.
My Lords, for the reasons which I have given, I cannot support a Bill which I find to be premature, unnecessary and unenforceable, and which offers far too little protection for the otter. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord may be persuaded at the end of this debate to withdraw this Bill. But certainly if there was a Division, I would find myself in the Lobby in opposition to the Bill.
6.52 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, may I start by answering two questions which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, asked. He said: How can you tell the difference between a stale scent and a fresh scent? If you are hunting a line of an otter two days' old and you then come across a fresh line, in fact it is extremely easily told because hounds on a stale line have to puzzle it out. They give a little whimper and are not very keen. They take a long time. The moment they are on a fresh line, they hunt far more keenly, far faster and their cry—or "music" as it is called in hunting terms—is far greater.
The other question, which my noble friend Lord Denham answered very well, was about whipping hounds off. My noble friend Lord Craigton said that when he was fishing one day a rabbit got up and the otter hounds chased it. It was not possible to whip the hounds off. My Lords, if one had been on a horse—and I agree one does not hunt otters on a horse—one could have whipped the hounds off. An otter does not go off chasing across a field. It does into the water wherever it can, and hounds in water travel very slowly. They travel slower than a man can run on a bank. Therefore, provided the river is not very wide, you can stop them.
Having said that, reading the report from the Mammal Society, it is perfectly true there has been a great decrease in otters. They say there has been a fall of 40 per cent. from between 1957 and 1967. I do not think that you can equate the reason for that decrease with otter hunting. The decrease is largely due to disturbance by motorboats, trippers and pollution. The effects of pollution are lessening.
In the part of the world I know well, the decrease is attributable to trapping and shooting for the pelt. I have been otter hunting, but the only otter I have ever seen killed was a trapped otter. It had been in a gin trap and it had only three legs. Therefore the killing was an act of mercy. If we take the figures of otters killed by otter hounds in the past five years, it amounts to only 41. In the past two years it has been only five a year. Therefore, I do not think that we can attribute this great decrease in otters to hunting.
760
If there are not too many hounds, otter hunts serve a good purpose. if you did not have one or two otter hunts—and you can count them on your fingers, they are very few and far between—it would be very difficult for naturalists to assess the number of otters in the country. It is impossible to assess the numbers with any degree of accuracy. In my part of the world, the West Coast of Scotland, where I have a home, a few years ago I got up some hounds, about five couple, to try to take a census of otters. It is only in that way that you find the holts. We never killed an otter apart from the trapped otter.
Therefore, provided that otter hunting takes place in accordance with this Bill, the number of hounds is restricted, and terriers are not used, then it is satisfactory. If terriers are not used, one cannot bolt the otter out of the holt. Otter hunts can be beneficial from the point of view of naturalists making a census of otters. Under the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Plants Act 1975 it might be wise to designate certain areas where otters are rare and not to allow any hunting there unless naturalists wish to find out if there are any holts. A pack of three or four couple of hounds—or perhaps two couple would do—could be used.
An otter pelt was worth about£25 last year, but with inflation it will probably now be worth a lot more. Otters on the whole do very little damage. They chiefly take eels: they do take fish, though usually coarse fish. If they take a trout or a small salmon, it is usually a weak or diseased one. So on the whole otters do a reasonable amount of good. Of course they will sometimes take poultry, and I believe it has been known that they have taken lambs, but I have never come across that.
Regarding the Bill, I should be loath to see all otter hunting cease for the reasons which I have given: that you cannot really make a proper census of otters, my Lords, if you do not have one or two hunts. So far as I can see, the hunt does not cause great alarm to the otter. If it is hunted on the old drag, which is probably two nights old, it is a very difficult thing to do. You must have very good hounds, and it is very interesting for people to watch hounds puzzling out the line. The otter does not know it is being

761
hunted, and if hounds actually come up near the holt the otter may remain in the holt. It cannot be got out if terriers are not used, and if it leaves its holt it goes straight into the water. You can whip hounds off if they are under control as they should be and if you do not have too large a pack.
I rather agree with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that this Bill probably does not represent very good law and it may be difficult to put it into law. But, perhaps, if it were wisely amended, it might be adequate. Having said that, my Lords, am not against the Bill. It is reasonably harmless so far as the otter is concerned. Certainly it will not serve to decrease the otter population. Perhaps it might cause some alarm sometimes to one or two otters but no more alarm than a motor boat going up a river. I have seen otters swimming and diving in front of a motor boat and I am sure they are just as much alarmed by a motor boat as they would be by three, four or five couple of hounds. I should be sorry if this Bill does not get a Second Reading, as I say, because I think it could be amended so as to make sense in law.
7.2 p.m.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, in speaking to people who are interested in wild life conservation, I find that one of the difficulties about this Bill is its Title. Had it been entitled, "Otters (Prohibition of Killing by Hounds) Bill" it would have got a very much better response. But people seem to assume, quite wrongly, that the Bill encourages otter hunting when in fact if does nothing of the sort. I support the noble Earl over this Bill, realising that it does not abolish otter hunting or make it illegal in all circumstances, but is designed to prevent the indiscriminate killing of otters with hounds. It permits the destruction of otters should their numbers increase considerably, which is hardly likely to happen in the foreseeable future.
The noble Earl and myself did not agree when we sat on the Select Committee which was considering the Hare Coursing Bill, but despite that disagreement I would pay tribute to him as a naturalist and conservationist. He has already told us that on his own stretch of river for
762
40 years he has not prevented otter hunting in any way. As for myself, I would always support a Bill of any description which conserves wildlife and I think this is a measure which contributes to that end. It will probably need amendment if it reaches a Committee stage. I would hope that if the Bill does go forward the noble Earl will be prepared to meet suggestions for Amendments, if they are made.
He has reminded us that the otter was disappearing from our waterways some 15 years or so ago, no doubt partly due to river pollution and the use of pesticides, and also perhaps because of otter hunting. We do not know. Otters have increased since that time. The hunts which are organised by the Otter Hounds Association have done valuable work in producing information on the habitats of otters, their customs, and so on, and we know of the activities of the Association. What we do not know about is the freelance hunting that may take place. That would be caught under this Bill, because such hunts would be outside the regulations which are set down in the Bill.
Generally speaking, otters, despite the fact that they are increasing in numbers, as we have been told, are not numerous. Many noble Lords who, like myself, have never been hunting will have by chance seen otters from a river bank. We know that their territory covers some five, six or seven miles and we know that they have disappeared completely from some rivers. They move very quickly. This afternoon an interesting discussion has taken place about the scent of otters, which I am told is technically called "the drag " That enables hounds to pick up the scent some days after the otter has actually been in that area. It strikes me as being not an unhealthy exercise for hounds or their followers to follow the drag of an otter which is not in the vicinity, but certainly I would hope that the otter is not caught and killed. We have heard a discussion as to whether or not dogs can be called off. I would not know about that.
An otter hound is an intelligent hound of the bloodhound breed, so far as I know, with perhaps a shaggy coat—that may be a fair way of describing it—as distinct from the bloodhound. But hounds are not always used in otter hunts.

763
I happened to see an otter hunt on television a week or so ago, and it looked to me as though 57 varieties of dogs were joining in that particular hunt, so I doubt whether they could have been called off. I would be very concerned if an otter was frightened as a result of being chased and I have heard the argument put forward that no animal is frightened by being chased by a predator, in the way that we understand fright. Nevertheless, I find that very hard to accept.
If the Bill becomes law, it should end the indiscriminate hunting of otters and their killing by hounds. It should make their numbers controllable, if and when the danger to wildfowl sanctuaries, fish farms and so on, made it necessary. Under the Bill, the proposed Otter Committee will have as their objective the preservation of otters, and not their destruction. At the same time, as I have said, they will be concerned if at any time the otter should become a menace.
One or two points occur to me which might perhaps be better made at the Committee stage, but I would ask the noble Earl, when he replies, if he so wishes, to say why there should be a representative of the British Field Sports Society and not a representative of the Otter Hounds Association on the committee. Again, why should the Secretary of State wait 12 months before making an order by Statutory Instrument to make hunting illegal? Could we not operate more quickly, rather than waiting for 12 months, and so save the lives of a few more otters?
To my mind, this Bill is sensible. It does not go the whole way but it prevents the unnecessary killing of otters. It still enables those who need protection, such as people who control wildfowl sanctuaries and so on, to get such protection. They would have to obtain permission from the Otter Committee to do that. I should certainly like to see otters added to Schedule I to the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975. Although this question is now before the Nature Conservancy Council and we are waiting their report, reports take a long time, as does Government action; and I would settle for this Bill while we are awaiting further action. I am opposed to the killing of wild animals of any kind for
764
the sake of killing, because it cannot be right. But should a Division take place I would support this Bill, using the argument that perhaps half a loaf is better than no bread.
7.10 p.m.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, in rising to address your Lordships, I find myself once again in a situation where we are discussing an activity in which I personally would not take part, but which I do not find myself in a position to object to if other people wish to do so, and if it is reasonably well controlled. I have listened to the debate today, and I find myself in great sympathy with practically every argument for and every argument against this Bill. However, I find myself feeling that the decrease in the otter population cannot be blamed solely on otter hunting, and on the desctruction of otters for their pelts, and that it is perhaps due to the way in which human life has developed in this country. I think that pollution, and the use of pesticides, have probably been great instruments in the decrease of the otter.
A decrease in wildlife and in bird life frequently takes place. In past years, through no fault of anybody or anything, except the environment, there has been a decrease in wild birds. In my part of the world, the decrease in the number of small birds has been fantastic. But I am extremely pleased to see that this year they are starting to come back and breed again, though not in nearly the numbers that there were two or three years ago. I feel that, over those years, we may have witnessed another natural decrease in the population of a wild animal indigenous to this country. One thing which always rather surprises me is how well wild life, which is introduced into this country, prospers. We have the coypu, the mink and the grey squirrel, all of which are not natural inhabitants of this country but which have prospered, and continue to prosper, at colossal rates, whereas we are now having to consider legislation to protect badgers and otters.
I understand that for some time we have been promised a report by the Nature Conservancy Council, and that this report is now due in June. I think that the production of my noble friend's Bill might even have accelerated that report a little.

765
But I would ask my noble friend to press on with this Bill, because if it gets lost we may find ourselves in a position where, having got the report, we again have a long period of nothing. I feel that my noble friend might be the light which is put to the blue paper, because while this Bill is going through it may encourage people to do something about a report which is soon to come.
One of the things which rather surprised me today was the vehemence with which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, spoke on the subject of causing terror and so on. I feel that today he gave the greatest encouragement to the anti-hunting fraternity and—I trust not—practically committed his government against nearly all forms of hunting with dogs. I hope that we shall never see a Government interfering with the pursuits of people who live in the country, and enjoy their natural life with enthusiasm, always provided that one is not compelled to take part in an activity if one does not approve of it. I think that this Bill might be a first step towards helping in the preservation of the otter. It at least takes out of the environment one small section of the threat against the otter. I hope that the noble Earl will press on with the Bill, and if it is pressed to a Division I will vote for it.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he will allow me to say this. It is the responsibility of the Government spokesman to say what the Government feel is wrong, and one can do that at the same time as preserving Government neutrality. What I said very clearly was that the Government could not accept a Bill—I agree that it is for the House to decide—which maintained a situation where there was suffering imposed upon, in this case, the otter, and I was asking the question whether this was not so.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I shall read his words tomorrow with the utmost care, because my recollection differs slightly from what he has just said.
7.17 p.m.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to take part in a debate where the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, gives us the benefit of a very wide know-
766
ledge of natural history. He has done it once more today, and we must all be grateful to him. I have had some conversations with the noble Earl, and I promised him before this debate that I would not decide exactly how I would vote, or indeed exactly what I would say, until I had had the advantage of listening to him and hearing other people in the debate. By sheer good fortune I am last and, consequently, I have had the advantage of listening to everyone and it has been a very interesting debate.
The noble Earl is well known for his desire to conserve all forms of natural life. I myself, in dealing with a Bill in your Lordships' House, frequently had the advantage of his help and guidance, and I have no doubt at all that the noble Earl is absolutely correct in his whole approach to the problem of conservation. I think, however, that on this occasion he does not want to call it conservation. In fact, in an article that he wrote on the matter, he said that he did not want to call it conservation; that he was not concerned with the conservation of otters. He did not regard that as a problem. But he regarded the conservation of otter hunting—
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? If he will look at Hansard tomorrow, he will find that I said I was concerned with animal welfare, not otter hunting.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl. I take his point and understand it, and I am sure that that is what he meant.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, that is what he said.
Lord CRAIGTON: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, there was an article in the New Scientist of 10th March 1977 in which the noble Earl said:
"I do not want to blaspheme the Gods by pretending that this is necessary as a conservation measure. It is not. My reasons are purely emotional".
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for making perfectly clear what I was trying to say; I said it a little obliquely. The noble Earl has put before us a logically thought out scheme with regard to otter hunting.

767
While listening to the debate I was struck by the fact that there is some confusion as to whether or not otter hunting is concerned with the killing of otters. The evidence presented by the noble Earl in a very interesting article in Country Life showed that the killing of otters by hunting has dwindled almost to zero. As my noble friend Lord Listowel pointed out, if this is so what exactly is the point of a Bill which regulates otter hunting in order to prevent otters being killed, since they are scarcely being killed by otter hunting? It seems that there is something a little strange here.
One or two noble Lords suggested that otter hunting is important in order to control otters, but evidently it is not doing so at present. Otter hunting is not illegal; it occurs. Only five otters were killed last year and the same number were killed the year before. In other words, there seems to be something a little strange about the need for the Bill. I find it difficult to understand exactly why one wants a Bill in order to make certain that otter hunting does not kill otters when otter hunting at the moment is not doing so. It seems to be a Bill to deal with a matter that is of no great significance.
If one looks at the situation one finds other inconsistencies. I mention these, because I was worried to hear various statements made in defence of the Bill which seemed to me to be entirely contradictory. For example, it is said that otter hunting is something which the otter knows nothing about. Again I have been a little rough in my paraphrasing but the noble Earl stated in his article that for most of the time the otter does not know that he is being hunted. On the other hand, we are told by other people that the otter is an extremely shy animal. that it never moves about in daylight if it can help it but makes most of its movements during the night and that it does its best to keep away from people. Yet, surprisingly enough, it does not know when a pack of hounds is after it. One would have thought that a shy animal, an animal extremely disturbed by human beings and very ready to take fright and run away, would notice if a pack of hounds was after it. I speak with no knowledge, for I have never seen an otter, but I
768
should have thought that an otter is just the kind of creature that would be gravely disturbed by hunting.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: But, my Lords, with the otter you are hunting a drag two days old when the otter is asleep in his holt and does not know anything about it. If you whip off the hounds before you come to the day's fresh scent, the otter will not know anything about it. The great joy that otter hunters have is to puzzle out this extremely difficult two days' drag. It is a very interesting procedure. I do not do it, but I know one or two people who do, and the point is to breed hounds which can do it.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I have read the noble Earl's article and I am quite aware of that. If the otter never knows anything about the hunt and if, as has just been repeated, you are following a drag which was two days ago, then whatever is otter hunting all about? It seems to me that you are living in a strange Alice in Wonderland atmosphere: that you are chasing not what is over there but something which was there two days ago in the opposite direction. Does one need a Bill to regulate such an imaginary procedure? Because we are doing something which the otter does not know about—and which, in fact, we do not know about because the drag was two days ago—do we therefore need an elaborate Bill, and do we have to spend our time considering it in order to decide how to regulate otter hunting? It would be much better to have a Bill to regulate Punch and Judy shows. What has been worrying me this afternoon during the debate is that we are entering a world of pure fantasy in which we are chasing imaginary animals over fictitious fields near non-existent rivers.
In the first place, one has to try to decide what is the purpose of otter hunting, whether or not it does any harm to the otter, whether we need a Bill for the control of otters and whether it is going to be beneficial to our fishing industry. However, we have skated over every question of that kind this afternoon. We have gone miles away from the real issues. This is why I feel that what was said by my noble friend Lord Listowel is so true: that we are faced with a Bill which asks

769
for action to be taken, although we do not know what the effect of that action is going to be. All we are told is that we shall no longer kill otters. But we do not kill them now. If your Lordships' House is going to spend its time discussing the Bill at great length, I think that it will be wasting its time.
If one wants to ensure that otters are conserved—I do and I think all noble Lords do—then surely we should try to make certain that the otter is included in the Schedule to the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act. That is the step which should be taken. You do not conserve otters by having a Bill which is labelled "Otter Hunting Regulation Bill". I should have great difficulty in trying to explain to any international assembly that we are playing our part in controlling the trade in otter skins and conserving otters by passing a Bill called the "Otter Hunting Regulation Bill". We must keep a sense of proportion.
If we pass the Bill, we shall be doing absolutely nothing at all to help the otter population; I doubt whether we shall be doing anything to save a fish; I doubt whether we shall be doing anything which is of any use at all, except setting up a body which would be called the Otter Committee. According to this Bill, that Otter Committee would draw up a set of conditions as to the duration of a hunt and the condition as to the number and size of the dogs that may be employed. But there is also another set of conditions drawn up, called the deposited rules. These are drawn up by a different body and it is said that where one is at variance with the other the conditions drawn up by the Otter Committee are to be decisive and overrule the deposited rules. Therefore why do we have deposited rules?
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene for a moment? I have been sitting very quietly and have not yet interrupted anybody at all, but if the noble Lord were to read the Bill he would find that the deposited rules are the rules of the Master of Otter Hounds Association. They are to be deposited and, if approved, will be one of the conditions—but only if approved. So it is not really quite so silly as it may sound to the noble Lord.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I could only take what was written in the Bill as I had it before me. It says:
"For the purposes of this section the expression deposited rules' means the Rules of the Master of Otter Hounds Association for the time being in force and as deposited with the Secretary of State…".
It also says:
"If there be any conflict between the deposited rules and the conditions determined by the otter committee the conditions shall prevail".
That is what I quoted. It seems to me that there are to be two sets of rules and there is apparently an umpire who goes on the field and he has to decide which set of rules he will follow. I think that with this Bill we have landed ourselves in a position where we are considering something which can do no good, which would merely clutter up legislation and would waste our time.
Lord FORBES: My Lords, I should like to intervene for a short time in order to make one point. Wildlife is part of our heritage and it is not for us to destroy that heritage. It is for us to hand down wildlife to our children, to our grandchildren and to future generations. I do not feel that this Bill goes far enough to ensure that my children, my grandchildren and their children will be certain to enjoy seeing otters in their natural conditions, as I have done. I shall vote against this Bill because in my opinion otters should be added to Schedule I to the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975.
7.33 p.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, I will deal first with the last interjection. If it is true that the otter generally is so rare as to need to be put into Schedule I to the wild creatures Act, I can see no harm in it. To my mind it would not in any way affect the necessity for this Bill. I think the two are complementary and do not pull in opposite directions. The fundamental point is that it depends on how far otters are being killed by pelt hunters and the like. I tried to find out in every way I could just how many were killed. I wrote to the Hudson's Bay Company, to the Fur Trade Association and to the largest dealers and I could find no evidence that many otters were killed. But it is the only way of stopping

771
the killing, and if the NCC advises the Minister that it should be stopped in that way I can see no objection whatsoever.
The difficulty then is that otter hunting as at present conducted could still continue. All that the 1975 Act would do would be to prevent the killing of otters "without reasonable excuse". If anybody killed without reasonable excuse he would be committing an offence, but that is all that it stops. It is almost exactly the same wording as I have used in my Bill—"must take all reasonable precautions to prevent them being killed". I would not mind which phrase any noble Lord chose to put into the Bill during the proceedings at the Committee stage: there would be no way of controlling, as this Bill does, the pursuit of an otter once it is found. That would not be illegal under the 1975 Act, although it might be held by the courts that if an otter was then killed there was no reasonable excuse. But it could not be controlled if the hunters were able to conduct a prolonged chase of the otter without killing it. I do not like the thought of a prolonged chase. I would prefer to leave it to the Secretary of State to decide, but my own feeling is that I should like to see hounds immediately stopped, directly an otter was found, because then there would be no disturbance and no chance of killing.
The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, replied to the question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, as to whether it was possible to call the hounds off at that moment. I would not have included that in the Bill had I not made every possible inquiry to see whether it was possible. Everyone I asked told me that, so far as otter hunting was concerned, it was quite feasible and quite practicable and quite easy to call the hounds off immediately.
The example I was given was that in an earlier generation, when the huntsman interfered very much more often with the hounds, trying as hard as he could to kill, it was customary to have somebody walking ahead of the hounds as they were following drag down the side of the river, and if the otter was put up the man in front would see it and the hounds could be hurried on to get closer to it immediately, before they got to the place where they could follow the fresh scent. I was told by a master of hounds that that was no
772
longer possible but it could certainly be used to whip up hounds immediately if it was necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, made fun of people who enjoyed watching hounds puzzle out the drag. I have never watched hounds puzzle out the drag, but I have many times watched hounds work at sheepdog trials. I have tried to train my own sheepdog to bring sheep in off the hill and the like, and it is fascinating to watch hounds work.
As I see it, if the principles of this Bill are carried out it would be possible for the Minister to confine otter hunting entirely to following drag, which the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, thinks would not be very amusing. If it were not very amusing nobody would do it and that would be the end of that sport. If they did find it amusing they would continue with it and it would go on, but the otter would not be disturbed or interfered with and a lot of people would have what they look upon as an enjoyable day, as I have had enjoyable days watching sheepdog trials. If you do not like it you need not do it. It would very rapidly die if people did not like it. But in neither case would the otter suffer in any way.
If I may criticise my noble friend Lord Craigton—I am going to be very rude to him—I regret that he made a prepared speech and did not make any attempt to answer some of the points which I made. I do not think that our outlooks differ; he does not want to see otters killed, he does not want to see otters disturbed; I do not want to see otters killed, I do not want to see otters disturbed. Our outlook is entirely the same in that respect. I am not satisfied that merely putting the otter on the Schedule to the 1975 Act is enough. I think this Bill is needed as well. You can go on hunting otters, you can go on chasing otters under the 1975 Act. Under this Bill that can be prevented.
Lord CRAIGTON: My Lords, that is where the noble Earl and I disagree.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: Well, my Lords, may I know where we disagree? Let me ask the noble Lord a question, if it is within the Standing Orders of this House. I think that under the 1975 Act people can continue chasing otters. Does the noble Lord agree?
Lord CRAIGTON: Yes, my Lords, I do agree.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Bill would stop that.
Lord CRAIGTON: My Lords, the point is that the noble Earl's Bill enshrines in legislation further disturbance of the otter, and that is anti-conservation.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, I think that is sheer poppycock. My Bill is deliberately drawn up in order to enable the Secretary of State to say that the hounds shall be called off immediately an otter is found. It is true that it will jump in the river and go away. I do not think that is disturbance that is in any way comparable. It would be once a year at the very most, and in the great number of cases the hounds never come up to an otter; but no hunt hunts the same stretch of river more than once a year, and there is a constant coming and going of boats in rivers.
My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene, dealt with the two points that were raised. I entirely agree with the noble Viscount when he says that otter hounds actually chasing an otter disturb it and it probably does not go back for three or four months. I have asked otter hunters and they tell me exactly the same thing. That is the reason why this Bill prevents them from being chased.
Most of the rest of the comments were Committee stage comments. It was suggested that there should be a close season. If anybody should wish to move that there should be a close season and it seems to be a reasonable one on any advice I can take, one would naturally accept that. The noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, made the point that this not only would prevent otter hunting by otter packs; it would prevent otter hunting by freelances. I had a good deal of evidence, particularly from Wales, that quite a number of people went out with dogs, and whether recognised packs or not, that would be brought within the ambit of this Bill; that is why I phrased it in that way. They discover where an otter is in a holt; they put a terrier down; a net at the mouth of the holt, and they catch it and knock it on the head and sell the pelt.
774
The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, asked me to press on quickly. If, as I hope, your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading, I would not want to press on quickly. Now that the Working Party is about to report, I would certainly want to see what that Working Party said; whether parts of this Bill were nonsense as some people seem to suggest; whether additions should be made to it; whether things should be taken out of it. I would not want it to go forward and then find that the Working Party made a recommendation on something which none of us had thought of until that report. I believe that we are so close together, all of us; I think we all want to prevent interference. We all want to prevent disturbance, we all want to prevent otters being killed.
I would ask the noble Lord not to press this to a Division tonight. I think Amendments could be made to the Bill. I think, for instance, it would probably be better—it has been suggested to me—that the Ministry of Agriculture should advise whether or not otters were doing so much damage that they ought to be killed. I think the proper course for the noble Lord, if I may venture to suggest it to him, is to let this go through tonight, let us see what comes out of the report of the Working Party, and amend the Bill as appears necessary to your Lordships. If we fail to produce a Bill of which your Lordships can approve, the time to chuck it out, I venture to suggest, is on Third Reading and not on Second Reading. It is very unusual to strike out a Bill on Second Reading. I would hope that we could amend it in a way which would make it completely agreeable to all of us, in order that we could consider the principle on Third Reading.
If I can just sum up, when we get down to it I do not believe there is anything on which we differ. I believe this Bill could be a useful addition to the 1975 Act. If it is decided to put the otter on the Schedule, I think we ought to try to see whether we can make the two work together.
7.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2a?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 24.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Emmet of Amberlev, U.

Northchurch, B.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Falkland, V.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Amory, V.

Gainford, L.

Piatt, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Barrington, V.

Kimberley, E.

Romney, E.

Cathcart, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Ruthvenof Freeland, Ly. [Teller.]

Cranbrook, E. [Teller.]

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Spens, L.

de Clifford, L.

Morris, L.

Strathclyde. L.

Denham, L.

Mottistone, I.

Trefgarne, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Newall, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Glenamara, L.

Phillips, B.

Avebury, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Segal, L.

Brockway, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stedman, B.

Collison, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Colville of Culross, V.

Listowel, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Craigton, L. [Teller.]

Llevvelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Melchett, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Forbes, L. [Teller.]

Oram, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion for Second Reading agreed to accordingly: read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LIGHTER THAN AIR TRANSPORT
7.55 p.m.
Lord GAINFORD Lord GAINFORD rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy towards the research and development of lighter than air transport. The noble Lord said: My Lords, lighter than air transport embraces two forms—balloons and airships. The use of balloons in this country is very limited. A free balloon can present a serious hazard to air traffic control, hence balloons can be used only in certain areas. In some overseas countries where there is less concentration of air traffic they can serve a useful function in scientific research and surveying. If that helps our overseas trade at all, so much the better. But, alas! in Britain they can provide only a fascinating, challenging but very expensive sport.
I turn to airships. I understand that an airship is being constructed at Cardington —a famous place in aviation and airship history—which it is hoped will he the first of a number to form an export order to Venezuela, which is very encouraging. This airship will he of the blimp type and will have similar characteristics to the Goodyear airship which has paid several visits to this country and which will come here this year. I am one of those who have been fortunate enough to have the
776
experience of flying in it and I certainly recommend it as a means of leisurely air travel. The Goodyear company is planning further developments, in particular with a view to a cargo-carrying airship. The Goodyear Company has also sent me some interesting details of its projects, and I understand that other countries are also interested in considering the use of airships for various purposes. Therefore, I ask this Question because I believe that this country should not be left behind.
Questions have recently been asked in your Lordships' House about the use of airships for marine patrol work, and it is for that purpose that Britain's research should begin. Shortly before the Easter Recess a Statement was made in another place, and repeated in your Lordships' House, about the new early warning system and how the Nimrod aircraft will be used for this. That Statement caused lively discussion.
Early last month I was privileged to be a member of a Parliamentary team visiting the Royal Air Force station at Kinloss. The highlight of the programme which was laid on for us was a five and a half hour flight in a Nimrod aircraft on patrol over the North Sea. We were able to see for ourselves the careful watch maintained on shipping and the oil rigs. Afterwards, I wrote letters of thanks and appreciation, but I should like to take this opportunity of expressing verbally how impressed I was by the versatility of the Nimrod aircraft and the skill of the crews who fly in them. It made me realise how the use of airships for marine patrol work could free these aircraft for far more important

777
work. Airships would be far less expensive: they would need far less fuel and could stay aloft far longer.
In the discussion arising from recent Questions in your Lordships' House, comment was made about the problem of airships in a high wind. I remember that at least one supplementary question asked if there had been any noticeable change in the North Sea climate since World War I when blimps were used to a great extent on patrol work and managed to stay aloft in a variety of weather conditions. However, whatever effect high winds may have, there is one form of weather which is still dreaded on land, sea and air, in spite of the wonder of modern navigational aids; that is fog. Here the airship could overcome this hazard. Shakespeare's famous quotation:
"The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interred with their bones"
could be parodied a little in reference to airships. Their disasters are so readily remembered and their successes are forgotten. The R.101 and the Hindenburg are vividly seared into history. But how many recall the grand old lady of the early 1930s, the Graf Zeppelin? I believe that that airship made 140 successful journeys across the North Atlantic. Even when it was foggy, with the aid of navigational equipment that must seem primitive nowadays, she could gently feel her way down to a safe mooring at the mast at Lakehurst. The USA had a number of airships used on patrol work in World War II doing coastguard work and also helping in the escort of convoys.
If we decide to construct airships for marine work, it will involve flying close to the sea surface. It is natural, therefore, that sailors should he among the crews with their experience of the sea and weather. There is also the possibility of reviving the shipbuilding companies in order to help in their construction. Here we come to the matter of design. Apart from the machine being assembled at Cardington, the future of British airships is confined to the drawing board, but if a word of encouragement be given by Her Majesty's Government some very powerful talent that is now lying dormant would be revealed.
Perhaps it would be possible to use the Concorde design and development team
778
for the initial programme. They have done an excellent engineering job on the aircraft; with airships being simpler they should be able to manage development easily and we should not have any risk of losing such valuable people down the brain-drain. I have suggested the use of airships on a number of occasions in debates in your Lordships' House. I have suggested their use for goods transport, passenger transport and the use of such areas as the old dock areas of London as an airship port. These ideas, I admit, may have seemed a little far fetched.
To start constructing small airships for marine patrol work could be the start of a project thatcould lead to large and greater developments. The Wright brothers did not create a jumbo-jet, but the large and fast airliners which are now almost taken for granted today are the result of research that sprang from a very small machine taking the air. To quote myself in a debate about four years ago, I said that your Lordships' House is not a House of dreamers but it is a very good place for dreams to be aired. Bring up any subject in your Lordships' House, and there will be some experts who can give advice and constructive criticism as well as support or opposition.
I am most grateful to those who are to speak after me. I am sorry that we have had to wait so long. We have had a very interesting programme already today. I have tried to be as brief as possible. I have put down this Question because I believe that an investment by this country in lighter than air transport could be one of the factors in breaking the vicious circle of this country's financial problems. I look forward to hearing what other noble Lords have to say, and particularly the answer that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will give.
8.4 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords, such as are here, are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, for airing this subject this evening in your Lordships' House. I also shall try to be brief. Since the oil crisis of 1973 the growth in the number of passengers to and from London by air has now again resumed, and in fact the figures for last year show that there was an increase of 8 million passengers since 1973. If this trend increases—and I can

779
see no reason why it should not—by the mid-1980s Heathrow and Gatwick will probably be totally inadequate. The wide bodied jets, I agree, have helped to transport the passengers, and they have, through their wide bodies, reduced aircraft movements.
There are at the moment sufficient runways, and provided these runways can remain environmentally acceptable, and provided the passenger handling facilities can still remain acceptable, well and good. But with the increase that can be expected future requirements are going to be very large. Stanstead would do very well. It could take up to, I believe, 16 million more passengers if it had terminal improvements and links, either by road or rail, with the city. But then we are going to get great opposition on environmental grounds.
If we are going to assume that the only way to carry passengers by air is by conventional means, these problems that we shall have to resolve will be extremely expensive and will have a very large amount of opposition against them. As the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, said, let us consider a new type of aircraft which can operate much closer to and from the city centre, which would and could remove the expense of rail links to existing terminals, and would remove the environmental opposition simultaneously.
The capabilities that this aircraft must have are that it must have vertical take off and landing capability; it must be sufficiently quiet to operate from the city centre so that it will nullify any opposition to noise. There is already in existence, or nearly in existence—and I am not talking about the Venezuela blimp—an aircraft of this type; it is now under development. It is the thermo-skyship. It combines all the virtues of the helicopter and the Harrier, and all forms of other displacement aircraft. It is shaped like a fat flying saucer. I believe the official word is lenticular. If there is room it can land anywhere like a helicopter, and be controlled at low speeds by vector thrust just like the Harrier. It remains in the air through its helium like any normal airship, and its lift is increased or decreased by a varying of the air temperature inside it like a hot air balloon. It also can be lifted to improve its altitude through steam which is generated by the power plant.
780
The thermo-skyship is presently being developed by a tiny company which is called, for historic reasons, Mercantile Airship Transportation Limited—MAST for short, in spite of its not having to use an out-dated mooring mast associated with older airships. When not in flight it sits on the ground. MAST, this little company, is at present negotiating with appropriate sections of industry, and if these negotiations succeed an experimental prototype could be available next year and could appear at Farnborough if the funds are available. When I say funds, these funds are minute compared to the research and development funds for the conventional aircraft of today.
If the funds are produced, the prototype, I can promise, will become a reality. Sub-contractors have been organised and factory space is available. But at the moment MAST has not all of the money and until such time as all the funds are available, like many other things, alas! it will not come to being. However, last March, MAST presented its case to the Ministry of Defence because, I believe, there are many senior officers who realise the potential of the skyship. There are a number of military roles for skyships such as troop reinforcements and, as the noble Lord. Lord Gainford, has mentioned, fishery protection, the servicing of oil rigs, and the protection of oil rigs. I believe that the Army are waiting to see whether the prototype will do the job. I am sure it will, and provided it does there is no earthly reason why a skyship should not be ready for the Army by the mid-1980s.
The skyship which would be produced for the Army could also he used on short haul runs to the Continent and, inter-Britain, to Glasgow, Edinburgh, Belfast and so on, and would thereby hive off many thousands of passengers from London and Gatwick Airports. If Her Majesty's Government gave this project their support, the objective could be achieved sooner rather than later, and certainly before astronomical sums are spent on further airport development and improved transport links.
There are numerous sites by the Thames, as the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, has pointed out several times in your Lordships' House, which could be used as

781
skyship terminals. The flying time intercity from London to Paris, Brussels and Amsterdam, for example, would be two or three hours and the fare would be far more economical than it is today. From city centre to city centre it would take no longer than it takes now, considering the need to get to the existing airports, and it might in many instances take considerably less.
To digress briefly, the skyships' advantages over the conventional aircraft are threefold: fuel conservation, noise restriction and its vertical take-off and landing. We must remember that the skyship has three methods of lift: one through helium, one through the difference in air temperature and one through steam generation. The skyship can hover and it does not, because of its vectored thrust, have to depend on a low forward air speed at which the aerodynamic controls in a conventional airship do not work that well. It will be able to take off and land in any weather, short of a hurricane, and it is not susceptible to wind direction change during or after landing and, when on the ground, because it is heavier than air, it just sits there. It does not need ballast due to the altitude control being used through the varying of the temperature and, therefore, payload is improved. It will also have a central protruding hole for easy access for loading and unloading, therefore making for rapid turn-round time in any conditions.
It is suggested that the first thermal skyship will be called the TS26, which will be in the helicopter bracket and could be compared more than favourably with the Sikorsky S61M. It will carry 5,000 lbs. of payload with fuel for 250 miles, will operate at about half the cost of a helicopter and will cost to build only a fraction over half that of a helicopter. If any noble Lord would like further comparative figures and equivalents, comparing the helicopter with the skyship, I have them with me and would be happy to provide them after the debate.
The skyship is designed to keep costs down through simple construction methods. It complements the aeroplane and does not replace it. But it has a worldwide application and enormous export potential. I appeal to Lord Winterbottom to take this project up with the Secretary of State for Industry and to
782
push very hard for Her Majesty's Government to show serious interest in this development without further delay. The company concerned is ready, willing and able to give details, facts and figures to the Secretary of State. Let Britain lead the way in this unique form of transportation and, once we are in the lead, let us remain there. Do not let us spoil the skyship for a ha'pennyworth of tar.
8.15 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, we have had a rather busy day and, because the hour is late, I shall be brief. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, for asking this Question and to the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, for his remarks because he has great expertise in this matter. I had the privilege of raising this issue over a year ago in your Lordships' House and, before that, on other occasions. I received not particularly encouraging answers from the Government, although they did not condemn completely and one was left with the impression that an interest might be taken.
It should now he realised that great strides forward have been made since I and others first mentioned the firm that is already attending to an order for five airships for Venezuala. The reality of the airship is sometimes forgotten, and when people consider accidents that occurred in years gone by, they should remember they are nothing compared with some of the accidents that can and do happen with, for example, jumbo-jets.
I will speak first about the airship and then come to the thermo-skyship. I intend to be very brief, so allowing my noble friend Lord Winterbottom ample time in which to reply. Although this issue has been raised before and has been brought to the attention of the Government, I trust that people will not think of these machines as flying sausages in the sky. The theory applying to, and the aerodynamics of, the airship have advanced beyond recognition over the years and I can see a great future for them in transport. From my point of view, the beauty of these machines is the comforting reality of the simiplicity of design and the lack of decibels, the noise that is driving people mad in cities all over the world. Most of the world is going neurotic with all the

783
decibels of sound and, what with cacophonic pop music and the noise of aeroplanes overhead, it is becoming a very funny world.
I believe that we can provide speed and comfort in transport with the airship. Some of these machines can lift 500 tons and move that sort of weight at 100 miles an hour over our cities without destroying beautiful villages and cities in the way the juggernauts do. Surely that is worth some money. I am anxious not to reiterate what other noble Lords have said because I do not want to eat into the precious time which I hope Lord Winterbottom will use to give us a good answer.
The great need today is for Britain once again to take some initiative, and here is an avenue for technological progress. We have been pioneers in this field in the past and I sincerely hope that we shall be pioneers once again. I hope opportunity will be provided on another occasion for a full debate to take place on this subject and on that occasion I hope that noble Lords in all parts of the House will impress on the Government the need for expert attention to be given to this matter.
I am interested in the thermo skyship. It is a project different from the lighterthan-air machine, but I have heard that its development has reached the point when, rather than being a possibility it can be a reality. The Government should look into that as well as into the other types of airships that are being developed. Having taken up three minutes of the Minister's precious time, and anxious myself to bring what has been a hard day to an end, I resume my seat in the hope that for once we shall receive a rather better answer than we have had in the past. If not, we can always raise the subject again.
8.18 p.m.
Earl ALEXANDER of TUNIS: My Lords, I will do my best to follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, and be brief. I wish at the outset to thank the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, for bringing this subject to the attention of the House. Our discussion happily coincides with an order for airships, as Lord Davies said, although the figure I have is 22 airships at a total value of
784
£13 million; that is what I read in my newspapers. This achievement by a firm called Aerospace Developments must come as a surprise to the more orthodox thinking people in aviation circles.
Any interest that I might have had to declare has sadly lapsed. A few years ago the firm Manchester Liners, a subsidiary of Furness Withy, formed a company called Cargo Airships, which was formed to carry out a feasibility study on airships in the context of containers and their transportation. That feasibility study involved a full-time aeronautical engineer and various others helping him and they researched the market for airships, their type and size, length, profile, power plants and so on.
The results of this study showed that the airship was eminently suitable for containers and not so suitable for passengers. It was economical and would be a potential money earner. Unfortunately, the terms of reference of the study did not include the building of the airship and, unlike the airship mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, this one is still on the drawing board. The board of directors of Manchester Liners decided, quite rightly, not to put any more funds into the study. This was quite a few years ago and one can only conclude that we were rather too far ahead of our time. I therefore congratulate Aerospace Development and the firm mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, with no ill feeling whatsoever. I believe it is a marvellous achievement.
The safety argument has been brought up many times, and I can only reiterate what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, said. The present casualties have increased tenfold as compared with the casualties of the Hindenburg who, I believe, numbered 35 and of the R.101, who numbered 48 or thereabouts.
Very briefly, I feel that it is worth while spending a couple of minutes on the achievement of the airship. In 1919, two weeks after the Atlantic was flown for the first time, no less than 30 crew members of the R.34, together with a stowaway, went to America and back. In 1927, as the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, said, the Graf Zeppelin was on a scheduled flight to South America and flew around the world in great comfort for the passengers. In 1930, the R.100, designed by

785
Sir Barnes Wallis and Neville Shute, flew to Canada and back, also in great comfort. However, with the loss of these rigid airships, Great Britain decided not to take any further part in the airship "race", if one can call it that. In the 1940s, when the United States lost two rigids, they also gave up. Goodyear was the only company to continue flying airships and, so far as I know, they have never had a fatality. I have had the opportunity of flying in airships both in this country and in the United States, and all I can say is that it was very comfortable, very quiet, seat belts were not required and the only pollution that I think the airship is guilty of is that it casts a big shadow.
In conclusion, I should like to see the Government give the airship a fair chance and to see them respond to the lead given by the Venezuelan Government in reviving an industry which I believe could offer jobs and be very useful in the export field.
8.24 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, one of the great strengths of your Lordships' House, in my view, is our ability to produce an expert or an enthusiast on almost any subject under the sun. Tonight we have shown that capacity yet again. The noble Lord, Lord Gainford, has displayed both those qualities and we are grateful to him for it.
I must confess that I come to this subject with a good deal of disbelief and scepticism—or at least I did. However, some of this evening's speeches, and particularly that of the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, caused me to think again. I must confess that the thermal skyship that he described is not something that I have heard much about or studied in any depth. I shall certainly take care to do so. However, considering the basic difficulties of airship design and operation, I believe we need to take a considerable amount of care. I shall come back to the skyship in a moment.
I was also particularly interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek. I believe that he should take a little care, though. He made two points of which I made a note. One related to accidents. He told us that the number of accidents was very small. I am afraid
786
that I have not the figures in front of me, but I believe that if we compared like with like and made a calculation on the number of fatalities per 1,000 passenger miles or some suitable unit of that nature, we might find that the airship is not really such a safe means of transportation as the jet aircraft of today.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that we are no longer filling these airships with hydrogen. There is helium and the thermo-skyship does not have that problem at all. That is just for the Record.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I take that point, but I thought that the noble Lord was making an historical point and suggesting that the record was as good as that of the modern jet aircraft of today. I doubt whether that is true. I shall come to the question of hydrogen and helium in a moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, also talked about the thoughts of my noble friend Lord Alexander, who was talking about Manchester Liners and their feasibility study of large, cargo-carrying airships. I believe that the economic viability of those large-scale projects has not yet been established. Indeed, as my noble friend told us, Manchester Liners, who certainly went into the matter in considerable depth, decided not to proceed, though they certainly could have done had they so chosen.
I believe that this subject was exhaustively investigated in the years between the wars and was then found to be significantly deficient. The long series of failures and tragic disasters is deeply etched on the minds of many of your Lordships, and who among us has not seen that dramatic sequence of film showing the Hindenburg as it came into the mast at Newark and was destroyed? Of course I must agree that the advance in technology since those days may enable us to overcome some of the difficulties experienced by the early pioneers. But I believe that a great many of the drawbacks that were apparent then were problems of principle rather than of detail and cannot easily be swept aside even with the help of modern technology. I should like to remind your Lordships of some of the

787
more obvious difficulties which I believe still remain in principle.
First, to take up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, it is now agreed by even the most ardent advocate that hydrogen is not an acceptable gas. It is of course still used in some of the smaller, unmanned balloons which are used for meteorological research, but I do not believe that anybody suggests that it is a possibility for any other purpose. So we are left with helium. Since the Second World War, it has become possible to synthesise this gas, so that we are no longer dependent upon what was previously the only world source of supply; that is, the United States. However, helium is heavier that hydrogen and is therefore less efficient as a lifting agent. On the other hand, it is the only presently available possibility.
Another problem is the basic control system of the airship. Those of your Lordships who have some scientific training will remember that a gas subjected to heat, for example, from the rays of the sun, expands. It is indeed the case that, as an airship warms up in the sun's rays, it rises quite rapidly. Gas is then vented overboard to restore equilibrium. Alternatively, if it is desired to rise intentionally, ballast can be jettisoned to achieve the same effect. It can easily be understood that the venting and jettisoning process cannot be continued indefinitely because either the gas or the ballast will soon be exhausted and the airship will no longer be able to be controlled.
My Lords, one of the uses for airships that has been suggested this evening is the possibility of maritime patrol in the North Sea, and as I think the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, said, those operations are conducted close to the surface of the water. In that situation, the problem of keeping the airship in equilibrium at a low altitude is particularly critical: the problems of loss of ballast or gas are particularly critical. Another problem—and this again applies to the North Sea—is the need to protect the airship from the accretion of ice. This was a major problem with piston-engined aircraft before and just after the Second World War. However, modern jet aircraft by and large fly above the levels at which icing is encountered, but airships cannot, or would not, normally fly that high, and indeed in
788
the past a number have been lost from this difficulty. The great aerodynamic surfaces of airships make the problems of ice prevention and removal for all practical purposes insoluble.
Yet another difficulty is the limitation imposed on the operation of airships in high winds. There were many accidents, both minor and major, from this cause while they enjoyed their heyday before the war. Again, somebody has suggested that these airships could be used for supplying drilling rigs in the North Sea. I believe that that would be a major problem, bearing in mind the climatic conditions of that area.
Finally, even if these difficulties can be overcome or ignored, we must ask ourselves whether the construction and operation of these airships is likely to be economically viable. In that connection, I would recall the order that was mentioned by several noble Lords, for a number of airships for operation in Venezuela. My understanding was that it was an order for one airship, with an option on a further 20. It was not exactly an order for 22, as I think somebody mentioned, but I would stand open to correction on that. In any event, those airships are not, I gather, designed for carrying cargo, but for carrying advertising slogans, which is of course a very different thing.
But we have to ask ourselves, my Lords, whether the operation and construction of these ships can overcome the basically adverse economic problems. Of course. I agree that that depends on many factors, not least of which is the operating revenue to be expected. But I am advised that the costs of construction, particularly of the larger freighter airships which we have considered, are likely to be very high when related to the productivity of the machine. I would concede that the direct operating costs may well be attractive, but I believe that the standing charges relating to the high initial investment would render these airships uneconomic, particularly remembering that they could operate only during comparatively calm weather.
I have touched on the point, as indeed have many noble Lords, on the use of airships for patrolling the North Sea, and I have to concede that that is the least impractical, I believe, of the tasks proposed. As the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Tunis, mentioned, the American

789
authorities have used airships for this purpose for a number of years, and I believe still do so. It might therefore be desirable to conduct some tests in the North Sea, perhaps with an airship on loan from the United States authorities, but before we embark upon that we should remember that the climatic conditions of the area where these airships operate in the United States are considerably more favourable than those of the North Sea or the Western Approaches. However, as I have said, it may be that the RAF or the Royal Navy could borrow such an airship for some trials.
Undoubtedly, there are some areas where additional research and development would be justified. As from tomorrow, we have a new British Aerospace Corporation, for tomorrow indeed is vesting day, and maybe it would be appropriate for the new Corporation to conduct some limited research into this matter and perhaps to advise the public generally, and particularly the various companies (enthusiastic, small companies, by and large) which are involved in these matters. One of the great attractions of nationalisation to noble Lords sitting on the Government side of the House was that the research and development possibilities opened by virtue of nationalisation would be very great, and here perhaps is a way to prove the point. In conclusion, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, for raising this matter and invite the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, to tell us how the Government view the situation.
8.35 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, for raising this Question because it provides a useful opportunity to clarify the Government's position on the development of airships. Since the mid-1960s there has been a growing interest in the use of airships for a variety of tasks in the developed and developing countries. The United Kingdom companies working in the field are among the world leaders, and I have been most impressed with the enthusiasm and hard work that has gone into their projects. It is perhaps natural that the claims made for the airship are somewhat overstated, but they are nevertheless worthy of con-
790
sideration. In particular, while it is doubtful whether the airship could compete with established ground transport or with large cargo aircraft for carrying general cargo in the developed countries, its potential in the developing countries, where transport facilities are often nonexistent, is impressive. This is not to say that they will not have a role to play in the developed regions like Western Europe. Indeed, they are thought to have a decided advantage on the movement of large indivisible loads, and there will no doubt be other uses, perhaps in the tourist trade; but first there are a number of problems that have to be overcome.
The basic problems which brought the first great age of the rigid airships to such a spectacular and premature end were those of safety and controllability. The safety problem caused by the use, in Europe, of highly inflammable and, in certain cases, violently explosive hydrogen gas as a lifting agent has now been greatly eased with the general availability of helium, a welcome spin-off of the American space programme. In addition to this great advance, the effectiveness of which has been shown by the excellent safety record of the small helium-filled non-rigid airships operated by the United States Navy for so many years, there have been major advances in materials for the manufacture of gas bags and envelopes, in propulsion units, and in our ability to understand the type of stresses imposed on this kind of craft.
Over the past year or so the Civil Aviation Authority has put in a great deal of work on preparing draft airworthiness regulations to cover not only the small non-rigid airships currently being developed both here and abroad, but also the massive rigid and semi-rigid airships which have been proposed. It is essential that if such craft are to become a common feature in the transport scene, they should conform to the standards of safety and structural integrity we demand of modern aircraft. The size of some of the airships being proposed, with maximum dimensions in excess of 1,000 feet and lifting weights approaching 1,000 tons, could in themselves pose considerable risks to other air transport, particularly at night. The risks of collision in the busy airspace of Western Europe must be seriously considered, and the regulations needed to safeguard against

791
such a possibility may greatly reduce their usefulness.
There are also the technical problems, such as the operation of vehicles of this size near the ground, and the control of lift as the weight of the ship changes during loading and unloading; problems relating to those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. I believe that a number of companies have done some work on these problems, but the need exists for such techniques to be thoroughly proved, and it would appear prudent to approach these large airships by stages. Such an approach, building on previous knowledge, reduces the risk of a major incident which could, by its accompanying adverse publicity, set back the use of airships for years.
The problems I have mentioned are only some of those which must be solved if the credibility problem facing airships and their manufacturers is to be overcome. The Government are ready to consider providing financial support for airships, but it would be wrong to speculate with public money, particularly when the private sector has not yet shown any great enthusiasm for the product or any willingness to provide money for its development. Therefore, as I am sure Parliament would demand in cases where public moneys are involved, very strict criteria must be applied before the Government could agree to invest in any project. and the need for restraint in public expenditure has greatly added to the stringency with which these criteria must be applied. The Department of Industry has had meetings with a number of the airship companies at which the criteria applying to "launching aid" has been explained. To date, however, these companies have not submitted a case in sufficient detail for a decision either way to be made. In any case, my Lords, I doubt that "launching aid" under the Civil Aviation Act 1949 is the most appropriate way to help in such cases. The NRDC powers to help with finance are, we believe, much more appropriate to this sort of development, and currently the NRDC are considering several requests for aid.
In reply to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, in the case of the thermo-skyship I understand that the NRDC are currently considering a request
792
for financial aid from the company, and a decision is expected shortly. These projects relate to the manufacture of prototype airships, and not to research as such. While such applications would of course be considered, the pressure on the funds available is very great, and it would pose the problem of discriminating against many other potentially fruitful areas. The Government, while perhaps unable to offer direct financial aid, stand ready to help in a number of other ways. In particular, the services of the British Overseas Trade Board and of the Ministry of Defence's "Defence Sales" organisation, et cetera., can, in principle, be made available. In addition, it is possible that facilities at the Government's research establishments could be offered.
Finally, my Lords, I should like to offer my best wishes to all those who are so enthusiastically trying to re-establish a market for the airship. We will do what we can to help, but unless they—that is, the companies—can break down the "credibility barrier" which exists, it is difficult to see a long-term future for such craft. Nevertheless, the Government heartily commend those people, and their efforts, to potential users and backers. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Davies that that may not be a good answer, but it is a better answer than some we have already had.

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP BILL
Reported with Amendments.
FIDELITY TRUST BILL [H.L.]
Presented and read la.
IMMEDIATE TRANSPORTATION (DELIVERY WARRANTS) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.