Sitting of 19 April 1975

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

AGRICULTURAL EXPANSION AND FINANCE
Earl FERRERS: 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 how it is proposed that capital should be raised to assure the expansion of agriculture required in the White Paper Food from Our Own Resources (Cmnd. 6020).
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Beswick): My Lords, in her Majesty's Government's view it should be within the industry's capacity, given reasonable profitability, to finance the capital formation necessary for expansion averaging 2½ per cent. a year. The Government will, however, be keeping under close review the level of capital investment in the industry.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. Does the noble Lord realise that it is totally unrealistic? Would he not agree that capital will have to be found to replace that taken out of agriculture by capital taxation and also to take care of inflation, which is running at 25 per cent., just in order to enable production to remain at the existing level? If the Government wish for expansion, which we all do, does the noble Lord recognise that this can only come about as a result of additional capital over and above that required for the other two items?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, there are problems, and these problems are being considered, as between the National Farmers' Union and the Minister. I do not think the noble Earl should exaggerate them, however. The farmers have
1012
had two very good years—cereal farmers, at any rate. The expansion is only 2½ per cent. per year; and provided prices are reasonable it ought to be possible to plough back some of the revenue received.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that the Government's own White Paper on Agriculture said that the farmers' income had dropped by 12 per cent.? With regard to realistic prices, does the noble Lord realise that the price of wheat has dropped by £20 a ton in the last six months? Would he not agree, if this expansion is to take place, that realistic prices have not in fact come about?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, income—we are talking about net income—has fallen because of the need to plough back a higher percentage of revenue. This is a fact. I am not belittling the difficulties ahead. All I am saying is that if the prices are right—and there is a floor now—it ought to be possible to finance this expansion. I also said that there are particular points, as the noble Earl probably knows, that are now the subject of discussion between the NFU and the Government.
Lord TRANMIRE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that small farmers are especially hit by the high interest rates on the money they have to borrow? Would Her Majesty's Government consider some system of giving cheap money to small farmers for the purposes of expansion?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, the high rate of interest is undoubtedly one of the difficulties. On the other hand, the answer presumably—or what the noble Lord is really implying—is that the Government should make available other sums of money. I hear from time to time from the Opposition criticism of Government expenditure.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, would the noble Lord also undertake on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that the Government will never again do what they did in 1974 and suddenly withdraw any form of support from the beef market? In view of the fact that cereal prices have fallen considerably, and

1013
possibly below the economic level of production, will they bear both of these factors in mind?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I will accept a lot of criticism; but what I will not accept are the consequences of our entering into the European Economic Community.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, does not the noble Lord remember that it was precisely because this Government refused the £18 or £20 a ton for beef that the crisis arose earlier last year?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, what I remember is that we had a first-rate scheme which was temporarily scuppered because of our entry into the Common Market. My right honourable friend contrived to get a combination of our old policy together with the EEC's intervention prices. His having achieved that, I object to the noble Earl going back to 1974.
Lord FORBES: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government ensure that capital injection into the agricultural industry is done on a long-term basis, bearing in mind that farmers cannot turn their produce over more quickly than the natural cycle will permit?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords. there is a need for special consideration to a long-term investment. But, as the noble Lord knows, it is possible to make grants for fixed equipment. It is also under consideration now whether grants may be made available for items which, under the old definition, were not fixed equipment but which, nevertheless, are needed over the long term.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, could the Minister explain to me—I am a simple fellow—a contradiction? On the one hand Her Majesty's Government are asking for more capital to be invested in the agricultural industry; on the other hand they are proposing to take it away with the wealth tax. How does the noble Lord explain that contradiction?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, a special dispensation has been made for the farming community in this matter.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that
1014
farmers are always living very near to the poverty line? May I ask him also whether it is a fact that most farmers usually obtain their capital requirements from the banks, and that the banks at the moment have far more money available for lending than borrowers are prepared to take up?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords opposite were paying sufficient attention to what my noble friend has said.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord give an assurance—as I understand he has already done—that, should a wealth tax be introduced, farmers will have special provision?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, was talking about the wealth tax. There are other matters which the noble Lord, with his interest in this field, will know have been introduced by the Treasury and to which I thought he was referring.
Lord HOY: My Lords, will my noble friend remember that a year or two ago the farmers were paying exhorbitant prices for calves in the expectation that the beef market was going to move up to such a level that there was a lot of money to be made out of it? In as much as the market may have fallen because of the economic effect, I hope my noble friend will not accept any responsibility for a bit of mismanagement in agricultural circles.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that one accepts that there is no easy solution to this problem? Will he also accept that we on this side of the House are in favour of the expansion of agriculture for all the reasons we know? Will the noble Lord invite his right honourable friends, both the Minister of Agriculture and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to address their minds to the real problem of how you get the capital into agriculture to enable this expansion to come about?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, there is nothing between the noble Earl and myself; what he says is perfectly straightforward and sensible. There was a meeting between the Minister and the NFU on 14th May to consider these matters.

1015
The noble Earl has no doubt seen from Press reports the subjects which will now be a matter for further discussion.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that that which is dimly apparent to those people who speak from the Front Bench of the Opposition must be blazing, daylight-clear to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Lord KINNAIRD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that what the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, referred to as "mismanagement" was not mismanagement? The farming population, having been urged to undertake certain lines in con-ducting their affairs, found that Her Majesty's Government then withdrew the grants which had been promised.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I am not certain that the noble Lord is correct. What I saw in the markets a couple of years ago, when we were bidding against each other for calves and yearlings, indicated that a lot of people thought they were in for a good thing, but they made a mistake.

M40 MOTORWAY EXTENSION
2.48 p.m.
Earl ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they propose to extend the M40 Motorway in an easterly direction to link up with the A40(M) at the White City and, if so, when and how.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-ECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has no proposals to construct such an extension.
Earl ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply, which I must admit I find rather depressing. May I ask whether it is because the Government are curtailing some Government expenditure on the project, or because there are no plans at all for
1016
joining these two portions of a very expensive motorway?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, it is due to the fact that the Government have no plans. They are not curtailing expenditure on this stretch of road, because there were no plans to extend it into a motorway. This is due to the high cost and environmental damage—which would include loss of houses—of converting the route into a motorway and building a motorway relief road. This would be entirely unacceptable to the Government.
Earl ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that considerable inconvenience has already been caused to a large number of people in making the flyover from Edgware to the White City? Why, because a few more houses have to be demolished, is it unacceptable to proceed with this road? There is plenty of room for the motorway alongside most of the A40.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I have great sympathy with the noble Earl, because I use that part of the road myself and know what he means about the holdups. But while it is the Government's aim to continue the progressive improvement of the existing dual carriageways, which will make this length of the A40 a high-class all-purpose road, by modifying the junctions where long delays are experienced, this will necessitate flyovers and underpasses. But I must stress again, with great respect to the noble Earl, that to make it into a motorway means doing away with not only a few houses but with a great deal of residential property and densely-populated commercial property. It is a major operation, because improvements in four places alone will cost £16 million, plus the environmental damage. This really makes the project quite inconceivable for consideration at the present time.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, would the noble Baroness consider, when further motorways are built out of towns, improving at the same time the existing roads so that one does not get the bottlenecks that one gets on the existing A40?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the whole purpose of improving the existing dual carriageway is to help the existing road.
Lord CARRINGTON: Too late, my Lords!
Baroness BIRK: It has not yet been done, but it is now being done. I will certainly bring what has been said to the notice of all the transport powers-that-be. I must stress again that it is feasible to improve the dual carriageways but not to extend them to a motorway.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she realises that on the 11·3 miles between the end of the M40 and the start of the M41 there are four roundabouts, eight sets of traffic lights and crossroads—not all them major crossroads—and two sets of pedestrian lights? Would it be possible for the two sets of pedestrian lights to be done away with and replaced by two footbridges?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I have noticed those things myself; I have even counted them. However, these are the plans which are starting. I do not want to detain the House unduly at the moment, and if the noble Earl wishes me to do so I will write to him with full details. The work will start in 1977 and will go on in stages.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, will the noble Baroness congratulate her right honourable friend on not spending, for once, a large sum of money? If the Government happen to have two pennies to rub together, could they not possibly be put to better use by lending them to the small farmers?

NHS AND SPECTACLES SUPPLY
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider extending the range of spectacles provided within the National Health Service for sale at controlled prices, or establishing a publicly owned manufacturing enterprise, incorporating a design unit, to provide the public with an effective and cheaper alternative to the existing sources of supply.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State keeps all aspects of the National Health Service under continuing review, and this particular matter raised by my noble friend is one of them.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the range of spectacle frames supplied under the National Health Service at a reduced price is most unsatisfactory in design and general appearance, and that the alternative frames for which the patient has to pay, although much more attractive, are supplied at exorbitant cost? Is my noble friend also aware that once a patient has spent something like 15 or 20 minutes having his eyes tested he feels—on being shown the rather unsatisfactory NHS frames—under some obligation to order the alternative frames, whatever the cost might be? Is not this situation thoroughly unsatisfactory?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my right honourable friend takes the point raised by my noble friend. We are aware of the widespread concern regarding National Health frames. All I can say at this stage is that the matter is being considered.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, would my noble friend consider bringing to the notice of opticians and the optical profession up and down the country the fact that they should have the range of National Health frames on top of the counter and not always under it?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I will take note of what my noble friend has said.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, my noble friend has said that this matter will be looked at. But when spectacles can cost from £7 to £15 per pair—and that is just for the frames—is it not time that firm steps were taken to impose a limit, in view of the present inflationary situation?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, your Lordships, and in particular my noble friend, should not assume from what I have said that nothing is being done in this matter. We are alive to the situation and are well aware of the concern which has been expressed

1019
today. But these things take time and often need prolonged negotiations.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, can my noble friend say to what extent contact lenses are obtainable on the National Health Service, and how far their use would obviate the need for spectacle frames altogether?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I cannot give my noble friend a reply at the moment. If he would care to put down a Question on the matter, I should be happy to reply.
Lord HALE: My Lords, would the noble Lord also assure my noble friend that his right honourable friend is exploring every avenue and leaving no stone unturned? In the meantime, could he tell me where I can find an optician who will give treatment under the National Health Service; and, further, how one may find such an optician without trying half a dozen in various parts of London?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in reply to the first part of my noble friend's question, the answer is. Yes. In reply to the second part, I think he can get a list of opticians from his local Post Office.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, in contrast to what the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, said, is it not a fact that a pair of National Health spectacles in perfectly reasonable horn-rimmed frames can be had for something over £3? Is not this a good buy? Surely all that needs to be done is to make people aware that these spectaces are available?
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, I am sure the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said, but I suggest that we certainly do not need spectacles to see that we have spent some l8½ minutes on three Questions. Therefore, I think we should move on to the next.

CYPRUS: PROTECTION OF BRITISH INTERESTS
2.58 p.m.
Earl COWLEY: 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 action they are taking to protect the interests and property of British citizens in Cyprus.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are doing all they can to protect the interests and property of British citizens in Cyprus. The High Commissioner is in constant touch with the British residents, both directly and through the United Kingdom Citizens Association. The situation in the Turkish-occupied areas is far from satisfactory, and repeated representations have been made to the authorities both in Cyprus and in Turkey.
Ear1 COWLEY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. When will the Government realise that they have a very real responsibility to British subjects in Cyprus, and when will they provide concrete and substantial help to these people, possibly in the form of ex gratia payments or legal assistance? Also, could the noble Lord make available in the Library a copy of the document sent by the High Commission in Nicosia to British subjects on the Island, so that the House may see how ineffectual and ambivalent the Government have been in this matter?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I had hoped that the noble Earl, in making his strictures, might have advanced suggestions on how we could improve our performance. Perhaps he will do so on another occasion. I will indeed make every endeavour to put every relevant document in the Library for the information of the House. I think that one or two have already been made available, and I will look into the matter. As to what more we can do than to press hard on the Turkish authorities in Ankara, Kyrenia and Nicosia, that is a matter for very careful consideration

1021
especially in view of the fact that the talks in Vienna are to be resumed in June, and that they have so far made certain progress. We deeply sympathise with the British residents who have suffered considerable damage to property or have lost property in Cyprus. I think the final resolution of their complaints must await a proper solution of the problem on the Island, and I should be misleading the House if I held out too high hopes for an early solution of this matter.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, as Britain shares with Greece and Turkey, by treaty, official responsibility for the wellbeing of Cyprus, can the noble Lord tell us what has been done in the last few weeks to support the negotiations which Mr. Denktash and Mr. Clerides are hopefully having in Cyprus, and which the Greek and Turkish Foreign Ministers themselves are having, to bring peace to this Island? Bound up with that is the safety of the property and the lives of our own people there.
Lord GORON WY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we have been very active in strongly supporting exchanges in Vienna and elsewhere—both in Cyprus, Athens and Ankara. I do not think the noble Lord should for a moment be anxious about the way in which Her Majesty's Government have been supporting these latest efforts to secure a solution.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it would appear from the original Question from the noble Earl, and from his supplementary question, that he is laying charges at the door of Her Majesty's Government that they are seeking to evade their responsibility on this issue so far as Greece and Turkey are concerned? Many of us on this side of the House have taken particular notice of the attitude of Her Majesty's Government for some time, and we are quite satisfied—
Several Noble Lords: Question!
Lord SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—when some of these people begin to "pipe down" a little—that many of us believe there is only one course here, and that is the action that Her Majesty's Government are already taking with the object of bringing
1022
the two parties together to solve this particular issue?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. Our highest responsibility is so to act and speak as not to disturb the tenuous hope of a solution based on the acquiescence of both communities on the island.
Lord BALNIEL: But, my Lords, is the noble Lord aware that most people will regard this threat as a remarkable ingratitude, considering the efforts which were made by the British to assist the Turkish refugees at the time of the Emergency? In view of the discussion which took place at the Prime Ministers' conference on the subject of Cyprus, can he say whether the Prime Minister raised the protection of British interests in Cyprus with the other Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I have no information on that point. I think the noble Lord is referring to the meeting of Heads a Commonwealth Governments in Kingston. I will endeavour to find the answer for the noble Lord.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how much British property there was in Kyrenia and Northern Cyprus, how much of it has been damaged or looted, and what the proportion is?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Not without notice, my Lords, but it may be possible to give an answer after a time. We are now engaged in forming a register of British property which has suffered. This is proceeding on the spot in Cyprus, and we have in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office a special section which is collating information in this country. This will be relayed to Cyprus, and vice versa. I could not undertake to give definitive answers to the two questions asked by the noble Earl, but if he will put a Question down on the Order Paper I will see what I can do.
Viscount SLIM: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the chairman of the United Kingdom Citizens' Association in Kyrenia is at the moment severely ill after a motor accident and will be in hospital for at least three to four months? Is the noble Lord the Minister satisfied

1023
that the communications between the High Commission and the United Kingdom Citizens' Association are still good?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sorry to hear this information about the gentleman who has most effectively represented the British citizens in that part of Cyprus. I think that on the whole the communication between our citizens in Cyprus and the High Commissioner is effective. I receive complaints about difficulties and with my right honourable friend the Minister of State I try to deal with each case that comes to my notice. Indeed, if noble Lords have specific instances of difficulty, especially involving people in poor health, I shall be glad to have the details and do what I can about them.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us how many British citizens there are in Cyprus at this time, other than members of the Armed Forces?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think the figure for property-owning British citizens is some 300, of which a few under 200 are in the Turkish-occupied areas of the North.
Lord CARADON: My Lords, will the noble Minister agree that the disastrous situation we see in Cyprus at this time is partly, if not largely, due to the failure of Her Majesty's Government to meet their obligation under the Treaty which was signed in 1960? In particular, will he make any comment on the action reported in the Press of British citizens who are seeking to condone and profit from the armed intervention in the Northern part of the Island?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, if my noble friend will forward details bearing on the second part of his question I have no doubt that Her Majesty's Government would like to look at them. On the first point as to British obligations, I am sure that he is as familiar as we all are with the appropriate articles of the 1960 Agreement which obliged us to consult, not to act unilaterally.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, while of course nobody would wish to
1024
make anything more difficult in a very tricky situation, would the noble Lord make quite sure that the Government concerned are aware of the feeling that exists in all quarters of your Lordships' House about what has happened?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I give that assurance with reserve. It is a feeling which I and Her Majesty's Government share. I have said that the position is unsatisfactory. We are doing everything we can to improve it. I welcome the expressions of opinion during this exchange from all parts of the House.

GUARD DOGS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read P, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended until the Whitsun Recess.—(Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AIR TRAVEL RESERVE FUND BILL
3.8 p.m.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Beswick.)
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, in Committee the noble Lord was so good as to undertake to return to two points which were raised. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I briefly referred to them at this stage. In Committee, I raised the desirability of excluding from the Bill overseas flights carrying passengers to accommodation on board a British ship. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has subsequently confirmed that, in fact, such flights fall within the scope of the Bill. But under

1025
Clause 4 the Secretary of State will have power to make regulations to establish the level of contributions. I would ask for two points to be borne in mind when the regulations are applied so far as British companies involved in air travel are concerned.
The first point is one which I mentioned in Committee; namely, that the degree of risk is that much less when passengers are on board a British ship under the British flag. However, the level of expenses per traveller carried will be far heavier for a shipping company than for companies which are involved solely in providing air travel. Even the educational cruises, which I mentioned in Committee, will cost adults per day at least double the en pension terms which one could expect from a reasonably priced package holiday. Of course, there are reasons for this, the main one being that all the facilities are provided on board a ship. However, this means that shipping lines will be asked to contribute at a far higher rate of expenses per traveller accommodated, and I hope that this factor will be considered when the level of contributions in the Regulations is being made.
The other point is that in Committee the noble Lord also undertook to clarify the advertising methods which the Government will employ in order to let the travelling public know exactly who is and who is not covered by the Bill. The noble Lord has been good enough to send to me an outline of the steps which the Department of Trade intend to take, including a statement, Press briefings and general publicity. I understand that the publicity will include two leaflets, one of which will deal with the timing of the Act and the protection which it affords. May I ask the noble Lord this question? In that leaflet, which will be distributed through members of the Association of British Travel Agents, will there be a definite undertaking that the Bill guarantees the liabilities to travellers of companies which fall within the scope of the Bill? I realise that if there is a financial collapse, the liabilities of an air travel organiser will be a first charge on bonding and on the company's remaining assets. However, I am sure that the noble Lord will understand the anxiety of travel agents, who are the people who will have to pass on the advertising
1026
information, that they should be able to give a definite assurance to those who are covered by the Bill that so far as air travel organisers are concerned, in the final analysis their money is guaranteed.
3.12 p.m.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord. As he has said, when we were looking at the Bill at Committee stage I undertook to look into the matters which he has now raised. I was asked in the first place whether those who travel from this country by air to join a British ship for the remainder of their holiday were within the scheme. The answer that I gave to him then was that I thought they were, and I now confirm that they are within the scheme. The noble Lord asked me whether it would be possible to treat differently those operators who have this particular category of holiday. I did not have notice of that aspect, and I cannot readily see how one can say that their expenses are higher than those of another kind of operator. Nevertheless, the noble Lord has put his questions, and before the Regulations are made I will certainly see that consideration is given to them. As the noble Lord knows, the Regulations will have to be laid before this House. If, therefore, he wishes to do so, he will have another opportunity to raise the matter then.
May I make one further point about this matter? The noble Lord has not asked that those holidaymakers who use this kind of holiday should not be covered. Judging by what the noble Lord has said, I understand that the shipping companies have not said that their customers should be excluded from the scheme. Therefore it seems to me a little difficult to agree that they should be excluded from contributions to the Reserve Fund which would provide the back-up for this scheme. However, the noble Lord asked whether we would give consideration to the two points which he made on this matter, and I will certainly see that they are looked at. No doubt he will return to them when the Regulations come before the House.
On the question of publicity, I was asked by one or two noble Lords at Committee stage what would be done about publicising the benefits of this scheme. If I may be allowed to say so,

1027
I thought that that was particularly interesting, because throughout Committee stage I was told that we did not need a scheme; but when we came to the end and everyone agreed that we were going to have a scheme, they wanted to make absolutely certain that the prospective beneficiaries would realise what they were enjoying. I gather that the following steps will be taken when the Bill becomes an Act. The Department of Trade will publish two leaflets. The first will look to the future and will advise travellers on the protection provided by the Reserve Fund and what they should do to ensure that they are covered. The second leaflet will look back and advise those who lost money last year how they should make their claims. These will be distributed through the Association of British Travel Agents as well as through other travel agents outside ABTA. The leaflets will also be available through citizens' advice bureaux, local authorities' trading standards officers, libraries and other sources. There will be some advertising in the travel trade Press which will be aimed at non-ABTA travel agents and will offer them copies of the leaflets.
It is intended to provide a comprehensive Press briefing, especially for travel and consumer affairs writers and comparable radio and television programmes. Also, there is a need to provide information upon which air travel organisers are licensed by the CAA. This is a point which I raised at Committee stage. I confirm that the CAA publishes lists which are sent to ABTA members and also to non-ABTA travel agents who ask for them. These lists will also be available at the offices I mentioned above and will be published in Trade and Industry, together with amendments.
Looking to the future, I think it is probable that references to the Reserve Fund will appear in much holiday literature, such as tour operators' brochures, passport offices, exchange control literature and banks' overseas travel literature for customers. We have had discussions with ABTA and I expect that ABTA itself will provide considerable additional publicity which will be aimed at both the public and its own members who will be advising travellers.
I understand that ABTA have been in discussion with the noble Lord and have
1028
raised a point about a particular leaflet. They asked whether the word should should not be replaced by the word "will". The fact of the matter is that it is stated in the leaflet that three points must be satisfied. If the booking includes an overseas flight, if the booking is with a tour operator or ABC operator who holds an air travel operator's licence, and if the flight is one for which the organiser needs to hold an air travel operator's licence, then the prospective holidaymaker would be covered. The noble Lord has asked why the word should not he "will". This leaflet has been drafted with legal advice, and I am told that this is as far as one can go.
The fact of the matter is that if a holidaymaker goes into a shop in the High Street, chooses a holiday and pays a deposit or the full amount, when that travel agent hands over the money and puts the booking in the hands of the operator that holidaymaker should be covered if these matters are satisfied. If, however, the man in the High Street who is running the shop is not reliable and goes off with the money that afternoon, the holidaymaker would not be covered. If the noble Lord presses me and asks why he is not covered, I can only say that if he were to be covered we should need another Bill, and then I should again have to go through all the criticism that I have already had on this Bill that we are trying to police everything and everybody.
I do not think that that should be done. It is unnecessary. Most of the travel agents are members of the Association of British Travel Agents and have their own insurance scheme, which is the kind of action that the noble Lord likes us for. Of course, it would cover the case of a defaulting travel agent if he was a member of the Association. However. as he might not be a member of the Association, the leaflet goes as far as it can by saying that holidaymakers should be covered if these points are considered. In the light of those explanations, I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied and that the House can accept the Report stage.
Lord HALE: My Lords, will the noble Lord consider one point which arises out of this matter? If somebody goes into what the noble Lord called a shop in

1029
the High Street which is filled with holiday travel brochures and holds itself out as an agent, is it not also held out as an agent by the travel organisation which provides the brochures, which uses it as an agent, which accepts its money and which sends it tickets? Are these people to be allowed to carry on in business if they are not authorised agents? Is it really proper that this should be done, and will the noble Lord bear in mind that, in spite of all the references to the Association of British Travel Agents, there are very few people who have been in another place for some time who have not been constantly engaged in a long battle to try to recover for their constituents money which has been paid on a contract and which has become lost for some reason or other?
Does he not know that a considerable number of travel agents give a fair service when a tour operates, but who have a standard rule never to repay money in any circumstances whatever so long as they hold it, who use arbitration clauses which conflict with their insurance, so that the unfortunate traveller is sometimes worse off when he has insurance because he never knows who to sue? He is held up time after time and there is a steady process—of which I could give evidence on oath, if necessary—of attempting to defeat legitimate claims and not repay the money. Is the noble Lord satisfied that under the new scheme fuller protection will be available in this respect to the person who has paid money and who has not had a tour?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, this is a Report stage and not a Committee stage, but with the leave of the House possibly I can answer my noble friend. The answer is that this is a Bill which deals with the travel business from the point of view of the air travel operators. It does not purport to be a Bill dealing with travel agents. If we wanted such a Bill we should have to start again.
On Question, Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution):
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill he now read a third time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 3a.— (Lord Beswick.)
Lord HALE: My Lords, on Third Reading can the noble Lord say, if this Bill does not protect people from unauthorised agencies or from the shop in the High Street, whether it contains provisions which will protect a person who deals with the head office or branch office of a well-known travel agent and help in recovering money he has paid for a contract that failed, either because of the illness or death of the traveller, or because of frustration due to outside circumstances? What is the method of protecting the purchaser, through travel agents who are members of ABTA, and of ensuring the return of money when a contract has failed?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I am not sure that I can answer the noble Lord, although I shall be happy to discuss this with him. I will write to him, if he will be good enough to give me the details of any cases he has in mind. I can only say that we are here dealing with an area which has been fully discussed, and the area which he is now moving on to is quite different and I am not certain that the Bill deals with it. I think I know why the noble Lord has raised this matter. It is certainly true that some would hold that the man in the High Street, to whom I referred, is acting as the agent of an operator and therefore, having been appointed as an agent, the operator has liability for his actions. However, this is a matter which is being tested in the courts and I cannot say what might be the outcome there. May I suggest to my noble friend that he should discuss his concern with me and I will see whether I can help him.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendment.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass, but before we do pass it I should like to say a few words about the Committee stage and the one Amendment which we made then. I was sorry about the circumstances of the Division which forced that Amendment through. In Committee, noble Lords opposite were kind enough to thank me for being helpful, and certainly I found that the Opposition generally were most constructive and very agreeable during the course of the Committee stage; but there was the one Amendment. I understood the intention of that Amendment, which

1031
was twofold. First, it was intended to reduce the impact of the levy at the outset; and secondly, it was also intended to put back the date of the first contribution.
As to the impact, I thought with respect—and it was the view of many non-committed noble Lords in the House—that I met every point that had been made. No contribution would be made until the operative date. On the other hand, the cover would be provided prior to the operative date for the traveller, and provided out of Government funds. The three-monthly as against the six-monthly payment which was suggested in the Amendment would not reduce the total liability, but the Government had agreed to halve the liability in that first year by a 1 per cent. levy, instead of a 2 per cent. levy.
Then there was the question of the first payment, and the noble Lord made a very good case there that it would give further time for the operators to accumulate the necessary funds out of their bookings before the liability to pay the first contribution was reached. I thought it was a reasonable point and I undertook to look at it, but all that was ignored. The troops had been assembled; we watched them come in, completely innocent of any facts, and the troops being there the order to march had to be given. It is not unknown on this side of the House for a Division to be called when we have people here on a Whip. But there is a difference between this side and the other side. We can afford the luxury of a Division without doing any damage, because we can never exert our will over that of Members opposite. We have a built-in minority; they have an unrepresentative majority. The consequence was that a quite unnecessary Amendment was put into this Bill.
I give the assurance to the noble Lord that the point he made about the first contribution being made on 1st September will be covered in another place. All that has happened as a result of that Amendment is that a lot of officials have been put to trouble. There has to be a reprint—an absolute waste of money, time and effort and for no constructive benefit at all. I suggest to the noble Lord that there are occasions when strength should be used wisely. Having
1032
said that, I hope the Bill will now pass. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Beswick.)
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I have a feeling somehow that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, feels that he has been criticised heavily over this Bill. The workload of the noble Lord is, perhaps, as much as a Minister can reasonably put up with at a time. Of course, the noble Lord has to deal with the Policyholders Protection Bill tomorrow and it is only fair to remind him that it is on that Bill that he has received widespread criticism from all sides of the House. The Committee stage of this Bill went through in 2½ hours, and there was only one Amendment. May I just say to him in a rather more constructive manner that it is absolutely true, as he has said, that he did everything he possibly could, and could not have been more helpful in trying to meet me on the first half of the Amendment; namely, the coming into effect of the first payment of the contribution. If by any mischance the Amendment were not to be made, I know those who pay this particular levy will be most grateful if the Secretary of State, when he is making regulations, would look at the sort of date being suggested.
My Lords, the problem to which the noble Lord did not address himself when speaking just now was that, through no fault of his, he was not able to meet me on the second half of the Amendment. With great respect, he did not touch at all upon the frequency of payments in subsequent years; so there is a difference between us on this Amendment, and the problem of the amount of extra work to which people have been put was not in fact required for no reason at all. I think that this Bill, when it becomes law, which it obviously will do very soon indeed, will be an important safeguard to air travellers. May I make it clear that I now support the Motion, That the Bill do now pass.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I point out that the second part of the Amendment says,
" No such sum shall be payable before 1st September."
That point I have agreed to meet.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I apologise. For second "then, read "first ".
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, does not the noble Lord think that probably there is a remedy for the situation? Originally it was suggested that the 1 per cent. levy should be paid on a certain date. The result of the Amendment of the Opposition is that that levy shall not be paid until a later date. Therefore, is a 1 per cent. levy sufficient to meet the possible demands made? Would it not be possible to increase the levy from 1 per cent. to 2 per cent. as a result of the Amendment, so that all demands could be fully met?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, speaking again with the permission of the House, I will see whether the point of the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, can be considered.
On Question, Bill passed and returned to the Commons.

FAIR EMPLOYMENT (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.33 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I have had to introduce a number of measures concerning Northern Ireland to your Lordships recently, in the form of Orders in Council. Most have been uncontroversial and your Lordships have allowed me to bring them before you with only the briefest of explanations. The measure before us today is in a different class. It is a Bill of 55 clauses and, though I believe it will be uncontroversial, it breaks new ground in some respects, and in fact would not fit into the rules for Orders in Council. So I think your Lordships will expect me to give a fairly full exposition of its contents and this I propose to do.
This is a complicated Bill, dealing with a very simple subject. Its purpose is one to which few will demur; namely, to promote equality of opportunity in employment and occupation in Northern Ireland between persons of different religious
1034
between persons of different religious nation in employment or occupation on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion, or by way of victimisation; in plain words, to ensure that, where two candidates present themselves for a job, with equal physical and mental aptitudes, one should not be given preference over the other simply by reason of his religion.
The Bill is based on, and follows very closely, the recommendations of the Working Party, set up by the previous Administration under the chairmanship of the honourable gentleman Mr. van Straubenzce, to examine discrimination in the private sector of employment, which reported in June 1973. They produced an excellent Report and I congratulate the then Minister of State who chaired it and his colleagues who were widely representative of the areas concerned, with three members from the Northern Ireland CBI, five from the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and two from the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce. Their Report was unanimous and has since been favourably received by the CBI and the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.
Since many noble Lords, especially on the Front Bench opposite, will have read this Report and been convinced by its arguments, I shall not spend very much time in justifying the need for legislation in this field. Few people would maintain that there is no discrimination of this kind in Northern Ireland, though some would claim that some of the intensely bitter complaints of the minority are exaggerated. There is only one serious objection, and that is the sceptical one that you cannot make people behave properly by Act of Parliament. The van Straubenzee Report dealt with this argument, effectively in my opinion. Legislation, they maintained, is concerned with actions rather than attitudes, and they quoted in support the First Annual Report of the Race Relations Board in Great Britain—quoted also in the Sex Discrimination Bill. The Report said:
" A law is an unequivocal declaration of public policy;
" A law gives support to those who do not wish to discriminate but who feel compelled to do so by social pressures;
" A law gives protection and redress to minority groups;

1035
"A law thus provides for the peaceful and orderly adjustment of grievances and the release of tensions;
" A law reduces prejudice by discouraging the behaviour in which prejudice finds expression."
The Bill follows the van Straubenzee Report in adopting a mixed approach combining the voluntary with the compulsory; it provides a means by which employment practices which breach the principle can be identified and remedied. first by an effort at conciliation; finally, if necessary, by compulsion through the courts. It makes religious and political discrimination unlawful and provides machinery for remedy. It follows the Working Party's recommendation on establishing an independent body, the Fair Employment Agency for Northern Ireland with the duties of promoting equality of opportunity in employment and occupation; working for the elimination of discrimination made unlawful by the Bill reviewing employment patterns and investigating employment practices in order to identify the existence, or otherwise, of equality of opportunity; and receiving and investigating complaints of unlawful discrimination and achieving remedies for the complainant where it finds a complaint to be well-founded. Unlawful discrimination covers not only discrimination on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion, but also includes discrimination by way of victimisation, by discriminatory advertisements and also by inciting others to discriminate. The Agency will always have to proceed through conciliation but, subject to the operation of an appeals machinery, it will have wide powers of enforcement, which it will be able to use whenever it is necessary to do so. The powers given to the Agency in order to promote both equality of opportunity and to deal with unlawful discrimination are a measure of the importance which the Government attach to this legislation for Northern Ireland.
The Bill goes wider than the Working Party's Report, however. The Working Party's terms of reference were confined to an examination of conditions in the private sector, though they recommended that the Government should consider applying their recommendations to the public sector. The Government acquiesced, and the Bill before us applies to both the public and private sectors.
1036
The Bill provides an exception for the employment of teachers in schools—but not other employment in education. In so doing it recognises, as did the Report, that special considerations exist in relation to education, having regard to the system of education. However, it provides for this exception to be subject to review by the Agency. The Secretary of State will be able to reduce or remove the exception by order. It is not the function of the Bill to alter the educational system but, as I have already said, the exemption for school teachers will be kept under review by the Agency, which will be entitled to make recommendations to the Secretary of State as to what if anything should be done at a later date to further equality of opportunity for teachers.
I now turn to the contents of the Bill. Part I deals with the establishment of the Fair Employment Agency for Northern Ireland, to which I have already referred. Clauses 1 and 2 and Schedule 1 are concerned with the functions and operation of the Agency. In addition to the Agency's principal duties, which, as I have already mentioned, are the promotion of equality of opportunity and working for the elimination of unlawful discrimination, provision is made for the Agency to engage in activities of an educational nature, including research and publicity. The members of the Agency will be appointed by the Head of the Department of Manpower Services in Northern Ireland, and it is our intention to seek out the best qualified people, men or women, to fulfil what is bound to be a most exacting role.
Part II (that is to say, Clauses 3 to 15 and Schedules 2 to 5) is concerned with the promotion and provision of equality of opportunity, and is not primarily concerned with individual cases of discrimination, which are dealt with in Part III. The concept of equality of opportunity is the cornerstone of this Bill. Broadly, it means the opportunity for persons of different religious beliefs to engage in employment and occupation on an equal basis after making due allowance for differences in age, health, ability and other personal qualities. One of the prime tasks of the Agency will be to encourage employers to adopt employment practices which provide equality of opportunity. Reference to the courts must be a last resort only.

1037
This positive approach is demonstrated in Clauses 6 to 10 and Schedule 3, which deal with the Declaration of Principle and Intent. We hope that most, if not all, employers and vocational organisations will sign this voluntary declaration of commitment to the principle of full equality of employment opportunity and the rejection of discrimination. By signing the Declaration employers will be entitled publicly to call themselves equal opportunity employers. A register will be kept by the Agency of all subscribers to the Declaration. Failure to act in the spirit of the Declaration will lead to removal from it. The public will be able to find out whether or not a particular employer has signed the Declaration, as the Register will be available for inspection.
The remaining clauses of Part II (that is, Clauses 11 to 15 with Schedules 4 and 5) relate to a further positive function of the Agency: that of identifying and keeping under review patterns and trends of employment. The Agency will be able to investigate the employment practices of any employer or vocational organisation, or group of employers or organisations, in order to discover whether equality of opportunity is in fact being provided in an area of employment, whether defined geographically or by function. By "vocational organisations is meant bodies like trade unions, federations of employers, or professional bodies like, for example, the Law Society, the Institute of Chartered Accountants and so on. "Occupation "is defined in the Bill so as to make clear that it is limited to the means of earning a livelihood; it does not cover purely leisure activities. It will also be possible for the Agency to investigate bodies which confer qualifications for engaging in a particular employment or occupation, such as, for example, the Royal Institute of British Architects.
Where the Agency finds that equality of opportunity does not exist, it must try to solve the problem by conciliation. Failing this, it can issue directions which can be enforced through the courts. There will be a Fair Employment Appeals Board for hearing appeals against directions, but if there is no appeal, or the appeal fails, the Agency will be able
1038
to obtain an order from the court for their enforcement.
I now turn to Part III. Clauses 16 to 29 and Schedule 5 deal with unlawful discrimination. This is defined as discrimination on the grounds of religious belief and political opinion and also by way of victimisation. The Bill makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against new employees or in his treatment of existing employees; for example, in connection with promotion, training, transfer and dismissal. Part III of the Bill also deals with discrimination against contract workers, by vocational organisations, and in the granting of licences or other qualifications relevant to particular employment or occupation.
Clause 21, with Schedule 5, requires the Agency to investigate complaints of alleged discrimination made by individuals, provided that the complaint is not of a frivolous nature. Investigation and any subsequent consequential action, both conciliatory and through the courts, is undertaken by the Agency on behalf of the complainant, who cannot himself take legal action in the matter. The procedure following the completion of an investigation of a complaint is dealt with in Clauses 22 to 29, and is similar to that following an investigation into employment practices which I have already mentioned.
When the Agency finds that unlawful discrimination has been committed, it must first inform the parties concerned of its finding and then try to secure a settlement, and in appropriate cases obtain an undertaking to abide by such a settlement. Should the Agency fail to obtain a voluntary settlement, then it may issue a recommendation for action to be taken by the respondent in order to remedy the unlawful matter revealed by the investigation. An appeal to the county court against the finding of the Agency, whatever that finding, may be made by either the complainant or the respondent, according to whether the complaint is rejected or upheld. Finally, should a recommendation or an undertaking not be complied with, the Agency may apply to the county court for a remedy for the unlawful action, which may take the form of damages, or an injunction against repeating the action, or both.

1039
Part IV of the Bill deals with other unlawful acts. Clause 30 makes it unlawful to publish an advertisement which could reasonably be understood to indicate an intention to do an act which is unlawful under Part III of the Bill, with certain exceptions. Clauses 31 and 32 deal with aiding or inducing others to discriminate and vicarious liability.
Part V of the Bill specifies a number of exceptions to the scope of Parts II to IV, and these exceptions are crucial to the acceptability of the Bill. They include employment as a priest or clergyman, cases where a person's religious belief or political opinion is a genuine occupational qualification for a particular job, and employment in a private household. Also exempted are acts done in compliance with existing legislation for the purpose of safeguarding national security, public safety or public order; and in order to comply with the provisions of charitable instruments.
In order to keep the work load which we expect to fall upon the Agency within reasonable limits, we intend to begin by exempting small firms. Small firms employing 25 or fewer people will be exempted for the first two years after the Bill comes into force, and firms employing 10 or fewer will be exempted for a further third year. This is the shortest realistic time in which it will be possible for the Agency to undertake to cover all employers of all sizes, so that a staggered introduction, as we propose, is preferable to making the Bill apply to all firms from the outset. This part of the Bill confers also the exemption, already referred to, of teachers in schools.
Part VI of the Bill deals with a number of miscellaneous matters, of which the most important are those contained in Clauses 46 to 50, by which the provisions of the Bill are applied to the Crown, the police and other public bodies. Government Departments and public bodies will be subject to investigation by the Agency in the same way as private employers, subject, of course, to the usual safeguards about the disclosure of information by the Crown. However, should the Agency consider that the employment practices of a Government Department or public body
1040
should be modified, it will not be able to issue directions enforceable by the courts, but must content itself by making to the Government Department concerned a report which must be laid before Parliament. The Bill will apply in its full rigour to local authorities. The remainder of Part VI deals with general and supplemental matters and includes the interpretation clause. Clause 55 enables different parts of the Bill to be brought into operation at different times.
My Lords, this is a long and complex Bill, but one that is, we believe, comprehensive. It is designed to deal with a very difficult and deeply ingrained problem, in the unique context of Northern Ireland. It would be foolish to expect that this Bill on its own will provide equality of opportunity for all in Northern Ireland, but we hope and believe that this piece of legislation will provide both a lead and guide for a sustained voluntary effort, together with a solid framework of administration and legal support where it is needed. In the Government's view it will play a constructive and far-reaching part in the achievement of full equality of employment opportunity in Northern Ireland, to which objective your Lordships will, I am sure, subscribe. We all hope, I feel certain, that one day the change in attitudes, which is really more important than a change in actions, may grow—and perhaps this Bill will provide one element in that growth. I commend the Bill to your Lordships, and I now beg to move that it have a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
3.51 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the provisions of this Bill in some detail, because anyone glancing at it could be forgiven for wondering whether it is relevant to the realities of Northern Ireland today. If there are any such doubts, then it is worth recording that in 1972, when violence in Northern Ireland was at its height. representatives of all sides of industry sat down with the Government and nine months later published the Report to

1041
which the noble Lord generously referred; namely, the Report of the Working Party on Discrimination in the Private Sector of Employment. It was a unanimous Report from a Committee under the chairmanship of my honourable friend Mr. van Straubenzee. Broadly speaking, it is upon those recommendations that the Bill is based.
This is by no means the first attempt to try to move against discrimination. In, I think, the time of the premiership of my noble friend Lord O'Neill the Community Relations Commission was set up. It is interesting to see in Clause 2 that in the employment field the Agency is to take on many of those functions of a generally educational nature which were the sort of functions which the Community Relations Commission used to have. The Constitution Act 1973 prohibited discrimination in legislation or by public authorities, not only on religious but also on political grounds. That Act also established the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Feather. So there has been no lack of good intentions in the past, and indeed Lord Feather's Commission has been at work now for rather over a year.
Is it necessary then to introduce this legislation at all? The answer surely must be, Yes; necessary in order to carry forward the work to which both sides of industry put their shoulders two years ago; necessary in order to give people some rules and guidelines of a practical nature on which to act. Is this the right time to introduce legislation of this sort? Well, I think that neither the Working Party nor the Government are unaware of the difficulties with which this Bill will he confronted. Indeed, the noble Lord in his speech said as much.
In the introduction to their Report, the Working Party acknowledged the intensity of feeling which the question of religious discrimination generates, but recorded that they had found widespread agreement that, where it exists, religious discrimination
" ought to be dealt with in the interests of social justice and human dignity and of the social stability which is a prerequisite of economic expansion in Northern Ireland."
Surely those are compelling reasons for pressing ahead with this Bill. Of course
1042
there will be pitfalls. Possibly the Bill may need amendment, but I do not think that these are reasons for shrinking from the problems with which the Government are now attempting to deal.
In a sense, the Bill is divided into two halves. One is represented by Part II, which deals with promoting equality of opportunity, and the other is dealt with by Part III, dealing with the elimination of discrimination. Part II, it would be fair to say, is constructive in its outlook. Through the guide to manpower policy and practice, both employers and employees are going to have a clear lead as to what constitutes equality of opportunity and what ought to be done to try to achieve it. Through the declaration of principle and intent to which, as the noble Lord said, employers, trade unions, and other organisations will be invited to subscribe, both sides of industry and commerce will need to stand up and be counted, and of course the register is to be open to public inspection.
This positive concept of trying to promote equality of opportunity is not borrowed from other United Kingdom legislation already on the Statute Book. The idea, so far as this Bill is concerned, originated in the Working Party's Report which, in turn, took it from the United States of America. In practical terms this part of the Bill will enable people, by looking at the headings on notepaper used by companies, by seeing advertisements and by consulting the register to know whether or not a company is subscribing to the principle of equality of opportunity.
However, there is a sting in the tail of Part II. Causes 11 and 12 lay a duty on the Agency to investigate employment patterns and practices, and if the findings are unsatisfactory the Agency, as the noble Lord explained, shall rectify matters first of all by conciliation, failing that by giving directions, and failing that by going to the county court for an injunction. There could be a danger here that these investigations may lead the Agency to conclude that in particular cases a general imbalance among employees ought to be rectified. and this in turn may tempt the Agency in effect to start to allocate quotas. This was a solution which the Working Party warned against most strongly, and this point might be worth looking at again at a later stage of the Bill.

1043
Part III—in a sense the other half—defines discrimination and provides measures to prevent it. Broadly speaking, the measures are exactly the same as those being used to promote equality of opportunity; namely, conciliation, directions, and a final resort to the county court for an injunction. The whole process will be started by a complaint or following an investigation. Inevitably, a threat to this process is going to be that ill-disposed people may deliberately try to use the provisions of this Bill to stir up trouble. There are companies in Northern Ireland employing people solely of one religion just because the neighbourhood consists solely of people of one denomination. What will be the position, I wonder, of an employer who finds himself faced with an application from someone who, he suspects, is being deliberately planted on him to cause trouble? Looking at the Bill, it would appear that such an employer could very well find himself investigated under Part II or Part III. It is true that both processes allow for consultation and, indeed, appeal, but I think that consideration needs to be given to providing a channel of communication whereby an employer who believes he is being deliberately used can take the initiative, and perhaps get a ruling in his favour from the Agency or the Appeals Board. It may be that the Bill allows for this. I should like to ask the noble Lord about this again in more detail at a later stage.
What I am certain about is that the need to forestall an investigation or complaint against an absolutely reputable employer is very clearly illustrated by the position in which the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has found itself when construction work is being carried out on its behalf in an area which is either very strongly Loyalist or very strongly Republican. The Housing Executive has signed the Code of Fair Employment Practice, but it is only sensible for the Executive to employ workmen who are not obviously going to be at risk. One example of the consequences of not taking this precaution occurred some little time ago, when two Roman Catholics who were part of a large workforce doing repairs in the Shankhill were moved quickly to another project after the
1044
Housing Executive had received a 'phone call saying that they had just 10 minutes in which to move the two men.
The noble Lord gave a warning to the House that one cannot expect work patterns of many years to be altered immediately by this Bill. If employees are unwilling to work with other employees of a different denomination here is another difficulty which could make the position of a company which genuinely wants to become an equality of opportunity employer very difficult indeed. I find it hard to discern from the Bill who, in those circumstances, would be the respondent if the Agency found that such a situation constituted unlawful discrimination.
My Lords, these sort of difficulties and others arise from deep-rooted cause and effect. One of the most tragic effects of fear engendered by sectarian conflict has been the drawing together of people into clearly defined housing areas for their own mutual protection. I believe it is this more than anything else which leads to isolation of thought on the part of whole communities in Northern Ireland. Brought up in the Shankhill or The Falls, what opportunity is there for a man, a woman or a child to respond to an appeal for tolerance and understanding?—precious little.
I believe that one of the keys to the problem of discrimination would be some loosening of the iron ties which bind some of the Ulster city housing areas. Many people take the view that an equally vital factor is education which, as the noble Lord has explained is specifically excepted in the Bill by Part V. I am always rather suspicious of the claim that education, and education alone, is responsible for all the rights and wrongs of society. I do not believe that education either can or should work in isolation. I am sure that it needs to co-operate with other agencies and other services. But precisely because other occupations are going to be subject to this Bill, it is disappointing that it has not been possible to include teachers in schools in the scope of the legislation. Of course, higher and further education in Northern Ireland are not segregated except for the voluntary teacher training colleges. The educational problems of this Bill lie within the primary and secondary schools, not least because the rules for the composition of

1045
governing and managing bodies in control of schools generally would always afford them a Protestant majority. To change the system would entail change in the educational legislation of Northern Ireland. and I am certain that this is something which ought to be tackled not by Parliament at Westminster but by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
But in accepting, with some sadness, the education provisions of Part V, let us recognise the co-operation between the voluntary and controlled schools which exists to a far greater degree than is generally realised; let us encourage the development of mixed education for the youngest children, for nursery education is not bound by the same rules for managing bodies as are primary schools. Let us hope that some further development may be possible under Part V for keeping education under review.
To make this Bill work the good will and resolution of both sides of industry, of local authorities and of public bodies will be needed. There will also be a need for sound common sense on behalf of the Agency. There will be every opportunity under the Bill for equality of opportunity to be promoted, although I am relieved that the words "affirmative action" are not being used in the Bill. I have always thought that if a representative of the Fair Employment Agency talked about "affirmative action" to someone perched on top of a crane at Harland and Wolff he might get a ripe answer! What is needed are sensible and practical steps in the right direction, in language which everyone can understand; and for pointing the way to this we have to thank the Working Party and this Bill.
I would guess that the dividing line in Northern Ireland between hope for better things and the possibility of tragedy remains paper thin. These proposals could help to tip the scales towards a better future, and for that reason I hope that the House will give the Bill its support.
4.5 p.m.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, for his very full exposition of this lengthy and complex Bill. I have no doubt that it is an extremely well-meaning, well-intentioned effort, but none
1046
the less I believe it to be partly mistaken in content and wholly mistaken in its timing and method of introduction. Had I been confident of any support, I should have been inclined to table an Amendment on the following lines:
" This House, reaffirming its condemnation of religious discord and accepting the need for steps designed to improve the situation, nevertheless declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which, on balance, will not in its practical application contribute to religious harmony."
This is a very slightly paraphrased version of the reasoned Amendment tabled by the Conservative Opposition in another place to the Second Reading of the Race Relations Act 1968.
My Lords, I intend to ignore the philosophical objections to legislation of this sort—in other words, the libertarian arguments, valid though they undoubtedly are—and to concentrate on the pragmatic objections. The first is the question of acceptability. Employers nowadays are perhaps reconciled to being denied the right to exercise their full judgment and intuition in the selection of employees. In this country a male applicant with excellent qualifications on paper may apply to an employer. The employer may none the less have an intuition that he would not fit in for one reason or another, and he may safely act accordingly and refuse him the job. But if a well-qualified female applicant, or someone of African or Asian origin applies, woe betide the employer if he rejects them on similar grounds. The same constraints do not apply in practice to workers on the shop floor. This is highly relevant, because of the provisions of Clause 32 which, broadly speaking, make an employer responsible for his employees' actions.
I well remember a speech in your Lordships' House made by the late Lord Citrine from the Labour Benches, which I found extremely impressive—one of the very few speeches which caused me to switch my voting intentions midway through a debate. The noble Lord demonstrated with great clarity and forcefulness that no power on earth, and certainly no legislation, could force a trade unionist to work side by side with a man whom he disliked for personal reasons, because of his personal habits, possibly because of his extreme political opinions, possibly because of suspicions about his

1047
honesty, or whatever it might be. We all know the fate of the Industrial Relations Act. This ultimately had to go because trade unionists believed, or had been persuaded to believe, that that legislation had been introduced by a Government which was inherently hostile to trade unionism and trade unionists. If an almost identical Bill had been introduced by a Labour Government, it might well still be on the Statute Book today.
The suspected motives of those who initiate controversial legislation of this type are even more important in attempts in a tense and violence-ridden atmosphere, such as that prevailing in Northern Ireland. As things stand, a wide-ranging and in many ways revolutionary Bill is being introduced at Westminster where Northern Ireland MPs in general, and Northern Ireland MPs representative of the urban working class in particular, are very thin on the ground as a result of the under-representation of Northern Ireland at Westminster. In this connection, I should like to suggest that the fact that the three delegates from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions supported the provisions of this Bill is not necessarily indicative of the grass roots feeling of trade unionists in Northern Ireland.
I well remember visiting the Port London over 20 years ago and being astonished by the vehemence of the hostility of dockers towards their unions. Employers were comparatively well regarded in contrast. On the other side of the coin, Westminster contains a substantial minority of MPs who opposed, and have always opposed—long before the troubles of the past few years—the continued unity of the United Kingdom, at least within its present boundaries.
To crown it all, this legislation is not to apply to England, Scotland or Wales, a fact which will produce some astonishing anomalies which I will demonstrate in moment. A greater recipe for a suspicious, hostile and unco-operative reception for this legislation in Northern Ireland is hard to imagine. If it were possible for this Bill, either as it stands or in modified form, to be introduced in whatever Northern Ireland Assembly results from the deliberations of the present Convention—if it were proposed, discussed and minutely scrutinised by the elected repre
1048
sentatives of the Northern Ireland people—then it might receive a very much warmer welcome.
I suspect that some noble Lords must already be thinking: what chance does such a Bill have, in view of the attitude of the majority who have given the United Ulster Unionist Council 55 per cent. of the votes in the Convention elections? The answer to that is that it has generally been overlooked that the United Ulster Unionist Council have on several occasions confirmed that they would support a Bill of Rights which necessarily contained many, if not all, of the features of the Bill which is before us today. It may be that they are not sincere—I have no means of knowing—but I would guess otherwise, and it is surely worth while giving them the benefit of the doubt and delaying such legislation for a few months until the election of an Assembly, because if a Bill of Rights which contains many of the most important objectives of this Bill is supported by all Parties in Northern Ireland, then it becomes very much more difficult for individuals to oppose or to try to circumvent its provisions.
Directly leading from this is my second pragmatio objection. and that is the tragedy of a missed opportunity to unite the mutually suspicious political groups in Northern Ireland. For the United Ulster Unionists Coalition to be given the opportunity to propose and support a fairly contentious Bill of Rights would be a unique occasion, a really golden opportunity, for them to demonstrate their good will towards the minority—or really the minorities because it is simplistic to suggest that there is one homogeneous minority any more than there is one homogenous majority—and to demonstrate also their willingness to make at least some compromises in the direction of the centre; and it might well pave the way for fruitful co-operation on other contentious issues in future. To be able to agree on relatively anodyne and uncontentious legislation is no real test. Indeed, if the Assembly is to be restricted to the functions of a glorified county council. why have an Assembly at all?
Coming to the wording of the Bill. I suspect that the actual intentions of the Bill in using the phrase "religious beliefs" are to relate not specifically to religious beliefs but effectively to nominal religious

1049
affiliations. If it really is "religious beliefs ", then the lawyers are going to have a field day. Consider, my Lords, the case of a Roman Catholic employer, conservative and traditionalist in his religious outlook, who advertises for a personal assistant, a job which requires close co-operation and rapport with one's employer. An applicant comes forward who is also a Roman Catholic but who happens to hold strong liberal views, and during the course of the interview he reveals that he totally rejects the doctrine of Papal infallibility, is a strong believer in birth control and possibly even a believer in abortion. Were the interview to take place in London, Glasgow or Cardiff, the employer would be entitled to say, "I am sorry, Mr. Smith. Your qualifications are excellent but I cannot see us hitting it off on a day to day basis." On my interpretation of the Bill, that would be quite illegal in Belfast.
Then, my Lords, consider the case of an employer who advertises for an export salesman or an advertising account executive, occupations which involve plying customers or clients with a good deal of alcoholic refreshment, and the applicant happens to be a practising Methodist, a strong teetotaller who objects on principle to drinking or to offering other people drinks. He could well argue that he was perfectly well qualified for the job, and that in his experience it was not necessary to oil the wheels of commerce in this way. The employer might think otherwise, and there we might find another bone of contention, with an appeal and so on.
The main objections are really on the question of political belief, because I suspect that nearly everybody in Northern Ireland, younger people at any rate, do not have the purely religious bigotry of their fathers and grandfathers. The issue is basically a political one, and this is very much a hot potato. Even on this side of the water, we have seen trouble breaking out in North London, at the time of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, between Turkish and Greek Cypriots; Greek Cypriot employees demonstrating to demand the dismissal of a Turkish foreman and so on, and for all I know perhaps the other way round. I would not be surprised if at the time of the Pakistani Army's ruthless operations in
1050
what is now Bangladesh and the subsequent Bangladeshi persecution of the Biharis, similar trouble occurred among the Asian communities in Britain, although it would not necessarily have got into the newspapers.
I will cite an example which will be more easily understood by your Lordships. In the extremely unlikely event of Mr. Colin Jordan applying for a job with a Jewish employer in London, the employer would be perfectly entitled. politely or otherwise, to decline the offer of Mr. Jordan's services. In Belfast, this would not be possible, as I interpret the Bill, despite Clause 3(2) and, to add injury to insult, under the provisions of Clause 28(1)(c) it would appear that Mr. Jordan, were he denied the opportunity of a job, could be awarded damages for injury to his feelings. It is a very curious world in which we live, when parents whose children are killed in road accidents are denied compensation for the pain, grief and suffering that arise from their loss, while other people are given compensation for the alleged mental suffering received by being denied a job.
Do not let us forget in the Northern Ireland context the totally ruthless and violent groups which have emerged during the last seven years in Northern Ireland; the Provisional IRA, the Official IRA, the Irish Republican Socialist Party on the one hand and the UVF, the Red Hand Commandos and the Ulster Freedom Fighters on the other. Is it really unreasonable that people who give vocal, verbal support, not necessarily active support, to such groups should be refused a job, because of the objections which their employers or fellow workers, or both, have, to people of all religious groups? Even excluding those who give verbal support to murderers or men of violence, are not objections in connection with other political views relating to the very existence of the State understandable? I wonder whether noble Lords would have considered it wrong if, 38 years ago in Austria, an employer belonging to the Catholic Party or to the Social Democratic Party had been highly reluctant to employ a man who vociferously welcomed the impending Anschluss? We live in a very secure, homogeneous island and we have very rarely been threatened in several hundred years of existence, and it is therefore difficult for us to under

1051
stand the fears of people who live under a constant threat.
The fourth objection is that pertaining to identifications of patterns and trends of employment, the workability of this—Clauses 11 and 12 and Clause 13 in particular, and especially Clause 11(2)(b)—
" Where such equality is absent, the reasons for its absence … ".
The danger is that the Agency will be likely to proceed on a head-counting basis. It will ascertain that 35 per cent. of the gravediggers in Antrim are Protestants and that 27 per cent. of the chartered accountants in Armagh are Catholics and draw some sort of conclusion from this, that someone or other is either underrepresented or over-represented in these trades in relation to their total proportions in the counties in question. We must remember that throughout the world different cultural groups receive different types of education and unbringing and tend to gravitate into certain occupations. Examples of this are the Chinese in South-East Asia who tend to go into the mercantile trades; in Eastern Africa until recently it was the Asians; in the Middle East the Armenians and the Greeks, and in Spain the Catalonians, at the expense of the Castillians or Andalucians. In the United States, I often suspect that the Catholics of Maryland are more imbued with the dynamic Protestant capitalist ethic than are the neighbouring Protestants of West Virginia, many of whom are, incidentally, of Ulster descent.
A prime example of this is Canada—or, specifically, the province of Quebec. Up to 25 years ago, the French Canadians positively scorned the consumer society and the rat race; then in about the mid-1950s they realised what they were missing. The old clerical shackles were broken, and they decided that they wanted to participate fully in business and commerce. They resented it when they found that they did not get to the top immediately and they attributed this to discrimination on the part of English-speaking Canadians. Of course, there was a certain amount of discrimination, but basically their disabilities were self-inflicted in that their educational system and cultural background had not prepared them for the change. That is the difficulty of trying to classify statistics in
1052
this way. Wrong interpretations can be drawn and discrimination can be thought to exist where it does not exist at all. I believe that all these analyses may make people more self-conscious about religious differences, not less. Surely, that is not what we ought to be aiming for in the Ulster context.
I believe that Clauses 6 to 10 inclusive and the association with the rather Buchmanite declaration of intent in Schedule 3, which contains such woolly expressions as "social justice", which mean a thousand different things to a thousand different people, are superfluous in view of Clauses 13 to 33 inclusive. I am also worried about Clause 53(4), which reads,
" For the purposes of this Act a person is seeking employment if he is available for employment, whether or not he is aware of the existence of an opportunity for any particular employment."
This might leave an employer open to action under the Act if he were to offer a vacancy to, say, a close friend, a relative or an acquaintance, rather than advertising it publicly. More likely than not, the friend would be someone of his own religion or political views. I feel that there is this danger if the clause remains unamended.
My Lords, I feel that by now what I believe to be the psychological damage resulting from the introduction of the Bill into this House will have been done, so that there is therefore no point in opposing the Bill lock, stock and barrel at this Second Reading stage. However, in view of their delicacy. I hope the Government will seriously consider the matters to which I have drawn attention and will consider Amendments in Committee to make the Bill more acceptable.
4.27 p.m.
Lord O'NEILL of the MAINE: My Lords, I should like to make a few general observations about the Bill. Owing to the courtesy of British Airways. I have managed to get over from Northern Ireland in time to say a few words. Naturally, I welcome the Bill. Looking back over fairly recent history, one sees that there have been many tragedies. We were beginning to make some progress in mixing up in the housing estates the two sections of the population. Owing to the terrible events of the last five or six years. various people have been driven back into their own areas. That is a

1053
tragedy which was touched upon by the noble Lord. Lord Belstead. One of the things which I found most helpful in breaking down these ancient attitudes was the introduction of firms not originating in Northern Ireland—in particular, American firms. I used to go to America twice a year and we brought over 30 American factories into Northern Ireland. European firms and even new British firms were helpful also. It was difficult for people working in such firms to put pressure on managers who had not been brought up in the area to discriminate. To that extent, discrimination was being alleviated perhaps more than by anything else. So that is a good "plus" which has taken place during the last 20 to 25 years.
The thing which gave me the greatest pleasure was to see the bipartisan policy still in operation today, despite all that we have been reading in our newspapers during the last few days. What could be more bipartisan than to have a committee sitting under the chairmanship of a Conservative Minister which produces legislation to be introduced later on by a Labour Government? The bipartisan policy is, I hope and pray, still in operation. There are some misguided people in Northern Ireland who imagine that if only we could go back to 1912 again and if only the Tories could ally themselves, lock, stock and barrel, with the loyalists, and the Labour Party with—shall we say?—the SDLP, then Ulster's constitution would, in some mysterious way, be safeguarded. Nothing could be further from the truth. It would be a road to immediate ruin. Therefore I, for one, hope that the bipartisan policy will continue in the way that we have seen it demonstrated today. Finally, I felt that it was very nice to listen to two Englishmen discussing Northern Ireland affairs with such knowledge. I would say to the Minister that I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, made one or two very valid and sensible points and that I hope he will take them into consideration before the Committee stage.
4.29 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I shall detain the House for only three minutes. I did not realise until this morning that the Bill was coming up, and I shall speak
1054
only briefly. May I say how much I applaud the good intentions behind the Bill? As we all know, human prejudices, weaknesses, likes and dislikes are very difficult to legislate against. I have always thought that the matter of religious discrimination in Northern Ireland was perhaps rather exaggerated. No doubt, however, the Government have a weight of evidence to the contrary. It would be interesting if we could have the figures—and I understand of course, that the Minister probably cannot produce them now--to ascertain the proportion of unemployment pro rata to the religious denominations in Northern Ireland. Are there more unemployed Catholics, pro rata, or more Protestants? It would be interesting to know.
There is one aspect of the Bill which worries me, and I wish to refer to it for a minute or two. This is the question of political discrimination. I think it is easier to legislate against religious discrimination. I have been an employer in the past; I am hardly an employer now, because wages are too high. But let us suppose that as an employer I propose to start up a factory in Northern Ireland. I am thinking here—so far as the Bill is concerned—of a factory with more than 25 employees, because what I have in mind would not apply if there were under 25 employees. The factory which I propose to start up may have 30, 40, 50 or even 100 employees. I am now referring to Clause 17(a) of the Bill regarding discrimination in choosing employees. Suppose that two employees come to me and one is a responsible member of the Labour, the Liberal or the Conservative Party—a perfectly good man—while the other has the same qualifications but is a member of the International Marxist Socialists. Presumably his aim would be to blow up the factory, because I understand that the aim of such a body is to overthrow existing society by violence. If we were to stick strictly to the letter of the law as laid down in the Bill, I could be charged with an offence against the Bill if I did not choose the International Marxist Socialist.
I will sit down shortly, but I wish to point out what I regard as this weakness concerning discrimination for political reasons. It may act unfairly sometimes against employers and employees. My

1055
noble friend Lord Belstead brought up another point, which was valid, on this same clause. But with regard to religious discrimination, I must say, as I have said in the House previously, that if only the Catholics and Protestants in the State primary and secondary schools in Northern Ireland could be educated together, any discrimination which exists would soon disappear, certainly among the younger people.
4.32 p.m.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, I promise not to detain your Lordships for more than two minutes. I am glad to follow my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard. I understand that he has half his property on one side of the Border and the other half on the other side. Therefore, like the Irish judge, he will take a strict line between partiality on the one side and impartiality on the other. I want to say three things within the two minutes I have set myself. I apologise for not having heard the speeches by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, and my noble friend Lord Belstead. I wish to say to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, that we on this side understand the difficulties with which he and his colleagues are faced, and we appreciate the patience and the poise with which they are consistently grappling with them.
Secondly, I think it is very nice to see sitting in his place the noble Lord, Lord Grey of Naunton, who, when he was Governor in Northern Ireland, did so much to try to bring everybody together, and certainly was nothing if not completely impartial. Thirdly, it was nice to hear my noble friend Lord O'Neill of the Maine say that he hoped very much that the bipartisan policy would hold. As a layman who knows very little, if anything, about Northern Ireland I support that; in my heart I believe in that. Some of us think that if only my noble friend had been able to remain in his post some of the difficulties which we have since been faced with would have been less difficult and less extreme than they have been. Finally, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, that every measure which he and his colleagues produce which seems to be sensible and well designed to prevent animosities becoming
1056
worse in Northern Ireland will, I am sure, receive the cordial support of this side of the House. This measure seems to be sensible, and, as I believe my noble friend has already said, I am sure it will be supported from this side of the House.
4.35 p.m.
Lord STRANGE: My Lords, I shall he brief—I have risen two or three times. As the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, is here he can help me a lot. I want to know how all the trouble started. I think it was started by a young Irishman, quite a distinguished one, who had been fighting in Paris and who came over. He had French posters with him, he stuck them up and he started a revolution. 'The noble Lord can tell me whether that is correct. I think that was the beginning of this flare-up.
The noble Lord can also tell me—if I may ask him about this subject—whether there was not a civic organisation in Northern Ireland which was successful. It was stopping a lot of trouble. That organisation could, quite easily, have stopped the new foreign revolution which was taking place, but we sent over a Member of Parliament to deal with it. I understand that his solution was to put out of order and stop the one governing body which had kept Northern Ireland quiet for a number of years. I further understand that when it was suggested that he should not announce this on a Friday—which he wanted to do—because it was pay day at Harland and Wolff and there would be a lot of trouble, he said: "No, I must announce it and go back; I have done my job" or words to that effect. I should like the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, to put us right, because he is the one person who can put us right from the beginning.
4.37 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, doubtless the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, will write to the noble Lord, Lord Strange, with the answer to that question, which has not very much to do with the point we are discussing. I am grateful for the general reception which this rather difficult Bill has had. In particular, approbation from the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, is always valued on this side, and I am grateful for his general

1057
approval. I value his appreciation of the patience which has to be shown on this side of the House on this point.
The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, gave us credit for good intentions and I am happy to take that credit. They certainly exist. He said, as many people say, that the instances of discrimination are grossly exaggerated. But many other people feel so bitterly about this subject and are so certain that these instances are not recognised that I do not think it helps the situation to say that. I know this to be true. Two-thirds of our population think that these accusations are largely exaggerated, while one-third think that they are hopelessly understated. The Government simply have to act on the basis that there is something here which is wrong and which ought to be put right if there is any practical way of doing it. My Lords, I have a few unemployment figures, but I do not intend to quote them. I should prefer to write to the noble Lord and be sure that I have the position exactly right. I am not sure that the figures I have been given are exactly applicable to his interesting question. I think I know the answer, but I shall not anticipate it.
We are always pleased when the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, supports what we are doing. It is a great help to us to know that he thinks that it is worth trying to deal with this problem in the way in which we are trying to deal with it. No one has said that it is going to succeed, but we take the view that a basis of law, with a lot of good will about, can help those people who are threatened and who are otherwise under pressure not to behave properly. I am particularly grateful for the noble Lord's support and endorse with great enthusiasm his plea that our bipartisan policy should remain. At the moment it is as firm as a rock, and long may it remain so.
I was a little confused by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. What worried me was that he was in favour of what we were trying to do, but did not think we could do it. This seems to be a defeatist attitude, and I was unable to understand why he thought it was going to be positively harmful. He did not make that clear. He gave a number of marginal cases of which I think you will
1058
be able to find any number. Over the Race Relations Act, there were some good ones about Dutch cooks. These made the Act look ridiculous; but it has been a strength in this country towards nondiscrimination against blacks; and long may it last. I do not expect a Bill of this kind to do much more. The fact that some instances can be found that look rather silly is not very relevant. The noble Lord also seemed to object to our bringing in this legislation at Westminster; but Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom at the moment and at Westminster is the Government. If the Convention comes to a conclusion that sets up an Assembly which is acceptable to the Government at Westminster, then it may be that it would have been better for is to be introduced there. But this is anticipating something that we have no business to anticipate. We undertook to deal with the question a long time ago. I do not think that one should await the result of the Convention, which is not yet sitting, before taking action.
The noble Lord asked for a Bill of Rights as being something less controversial than this Bill. My own view is that it might be more controversial—
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I did not ask for a Bill of Rights. I said the United Ulster Unionist Council had themselves proposed a Bill of Rights.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord supported that. In any case the position over a Bill of Rights is that Lord Feather's Commission is looking at that now. It was announced the day before yesterday. That is something to go on with. I was worried about the noble Lord's un-Longford-like definition of a Catholic who did not believe in Papal infallibility, did believe in birth control and was not very sound on abortion. I wondered whether this was a fair case to put before the House; but my noble friend Lord Longford is not here so we can pass on.
My Lords, I think that what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said will be looked at very carefully by the Government. He made a number of points. Not least, I think, was that it is desirable that people should stand up and be counted on this kind of issue. The register that we propose will do just that. He made a point

1059
of which the Government are aware: the danger of the study of an imbalance giving way to an approval of quotas, what is known as benign discrimination. Both the van Straubenzee Report and we in Government deplore it and have no intention of getting involved with it. I give an absolute assurance of that. On the other hand, I think it is desirable that a body like the Agency should be able to look at trends and to estimate balances, provided it does not use quotas as a way of redressing them. That I think we shall do.
The noble Lord raised an important point about what happens if an ill-disposed character is planted in a factory to stir up trouble. This may happen; it very likely will. The procedure is perfectly in order. What happens is that the Agency, at the request of the ill-disposed person, goes to the company and says, "It is alleged that" certain things are happening. The company then, originally, in an entirely informal way, discuss the case. One of the things that they can say is: This man has been given £100 to do it. We know who it is from and will give evidence to prove it." This will have a big effect on any decision that the Agency will make. But the kind of decision that the Agency may make when it comes to the general practice of a firm, that is to say in advertising and the rest of it, is a business decision rather than a legal decision. It is for this reason that there is an appeal to a special body. The Agency appeal is here under Part II; whereas in Part III it is an offence against the law which is being investigated and the appeal is to the courts.
The noble Lord spoke about victimisation. Of course one of the things one wants to deal with is victimisation; but the proper recourse here is to the police. That remains the case. I am not particularly worried that the attempt to stop victimisation will be sabotaged. I think that it will help people to bring this matter out into the open more fearlessly than otherwise. The noble Lord was sorry about the exception of education. I do not think it was a starter, with the known views of the Churches on this subject. I think it would be a great mistake in a rather controversial Bill like this to try to force something through which one knew at least one side and half of the other were
1060
totally opposed to. Although this may come, it cannot come yet. It must be noted that it only goes as far as secondary schooling, and that all types of education above secondary are nonsectarian and the Bill applies to them.
I do not know whether I have answered all the questions. If not, I will try to do so when I read through Hansard. I am grateful for the general feeling that this Bill should have a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LITIGANTS IN PERSON (COSTS AND EXPENSES) BILL
4.49 p.m.
Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Before I try, briefly, I hope, to explain the purpose and provisions of the Bill, I should say a word about its progress to your Lordships' House. It was originally promoted by the Consumers' Association, particularly by the legal officer of the Association, Mr. Tench, in response to an obvious increase in court cases that were being conducted by litigants acting on their own, especially in the field of consumer protection. It was first presented in another place by Mr. Richard Luce, a Conservative Member. Unfortunately it fell at the dissolution of Parliament last February. It was then re-introduced by a Labour Member, my right honourable friend Mr. Bottomley; so it has all-Party backing. Indeed I understand that it is supported by the Law Officers and I hope by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor—certainly by the Law Officers in the other place in the present Government and in the previous Government Therefore, it has an impeccable pedigree.
The main reason for the Bill is that over a fairly wide field of civil actions in county courts in England and Wales—and, I understand, in sheriff courts in Scotland—complaining persons who are seeking redress are being officially encouraged to prepare and conduct their own cases without the assistance of solicitors. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord

1061
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, when he was Lord Chancellor, got his Department to provide a very good guide to people who wanted to conduct their own cases in the courts. We must take note of that official encouragement. The Consumers' Association has produced an admirable booklet on how to sue in the county court; and legal advice centres and consumer advice centres are also engaged in this work. There is plenty of legal advice available to the litigant who wants to go ahead on his own. If he does so, if he follows all this advice and encouragement, he is at a financial disadvantage. If he succeeds in the conduct of his case and is awarded costs in the court, he is not allowed, by long-standing rule, to include in those costs the expenses he incurred in preparing his case and presenting it in court, other than the out-of-pocket expenses that he would get for attending the final court proceedings.
The sponsors and supporters of this Bill contend that is exceedingly unfair to the person who has been encouraged by the law officers, by the Lord Chancellor's Department, by the Consumers' Association, and so on—even, in many cases, by solicitors themselves—to conduct his own case. The Bill seeks to remedy that unfairness. It is needed for two important reasons. It is needed in the field of consumer protection, because in our present complex trading system consumers can be caught in financial losses through buying, for example, domestic appliances that do not work properly, that break down, or buying goods that turn out to be faulty, or paying for services, say to a garage for repairs and maintenance on a motor car, that turn out to be inadequate, thus leaving the poor consumer with a useless piece of merchandise. The majority of manufacturers and traders who value their good will replace faulty goods or recompense customers who have bought them, customers who have real complaints. But even if the minority of cases is only 1 per cent. of all the millions of trading transactions that occur every week, the number of such cases where redress has to be sought in the courts is very large. I am sure with all the advice and encouragement to litigants to go ahead on their own, the number of such cases will grow.
1062
Most of these cases are not exactly welcomed by solicitors. The case usually involves a sum, even if the case is won and costs are awarded, which seldom covers the value of the work carried out by the solicitor on the case. It simply does not pay solicitors to deal with most of the cases. The time and work spent on preparing a case involving a faulty article worth £100 is not much less than the work which has to be carried out on a £1,000 or £2,000 motor car that has broken down and the purchaser wants the solicitor to help him get his money back. Now that so much legal advice is available to the "do-it-yourself" litigant—if I may so call him—solicitors are also encouraging people to conduct their own cases. The solicitors themselves are joining in the encouragement if it seems that the person concerned has a reasonably good chance of winning.
Much of the work that has to be done in preparing a case to be conducted by a solicitor needs to be done by the plaintiff. He has to produce the appropriate documents, sales slips, guarantees, correspondence with the trader, and so on. Usually he has to write out a full account of the transaction about which he is complaining, so the additional legal work required to complete the case can, with proper advice, be carried out by himself. Much of the work involved in preparing the particulars of the claim, issuing proceedings, serving notice on the defendant firm, preparing documents, attending the court for papers and the pretrial hearings and all the other work, takes up a great deal of time. If the litigant wins and is awarded costs, the expenses he has incurred in all this work should, we believe, be recoverable in the costs awarded to him. Moreover, there is another point in helping the litigant in person. one which I hope will be accepted. Because of the changes which have been made in the county court procedures, there will be a great increase in the number of cases settled by arbitration. There is no reason at all why a great deal of legal expenses should be involved in preparing a case for the registrar of the court who, under the new arrangements, can act as the arbitrator and decide whether the litigant is entitled to damages and costs and how they should be provided.
There is a second important reason why I say the Bill is needed. This was

1063
expressed far better than I can express it by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, a week ago, when we were discussing the increase in legal aid assistance. If I may quote the noble and learned Lord, he said.
" … our legal services provide the services free for only a tiny segment of the population, broadly speaking those who are actually on supplementary benefit; and the contributory aid, that is to say, aid partly provided for by the State and partly provided for by contribution from the person's own pocket, is only, I suppose I must say, a moderately larger segment of the population."—[Official Report, 12/5/75; col. 538.]
He went on to say, at column 539:
" … sooner or later, my conviction is that legal services which consist in providing complete aid only for those on supplementary benefit or thereabouts, and partial aid only for those in a very small band above that, are not very satisfactory and in the end somebody will have to introduce a scheme by which legal services are available either by insurance or on a more generous scale."
What I suggest is really needed in the field of consumer affairs is to ensure that the legal advice available to litigants who want to appear in person is satisfactory and that the courts understand and accept. as I am sure they do now, that the litigant in person is someone to be helped to get satisfaction if, on the facts of the case. he is really entitled to it, and that he should be encouraged to go ahead.
For all these reasons, cases conducted by the litigant in person will undoubtedly increase in number. Therefore we believe it to be wrong in these circumstances to continue the present unfair discrimination against the person going it alone in respect of costs and expenses. It is surely decidedly unfair to say to him, "You have been encouraged by the highest legal authority in the land to be your own lawyer. But when you have won your case and been awarded damages and costs, we intend that you shall still be out of pocket because we are not going to allow you to recover the expenses you incurred in preparing your case." We must remove that unfairness.
There is an argument which was put forward when this question was tested a few years ago in the Appeal Court. The distinction between a solicitor acting on his own who gets his expenses paid, and a non-solicitor, a non-legal person or, in the words of the judgment of the court, "a person who is not a skilled legal
1064
person ", was, I think, made on the grounds that because the litigant in person is not a skilled legal person, he is not entitled to legal expenses. With all the advice now available to the man who conducts his own case, such a man becomes—admittedly, within a very narrow and specialised range of law—a skilled legal person. Generally speaking, all he probably needs to know about the law governing his claim are two of the crucial sections, Sections 13 and 14 of the Sale of Goods Act, which cover most of these cases. In addition, of course, he needs to know the procedure involved in bringing his case to court so that the distinction between the solicitor and the layman with regard to expenses is surely now on the way to disappearing, if it has not completely gone already.
Turning now to the Bill itself, obviously questions arise about what is meant by "recoverable expenses". The Bill refers to, "any expenses and losses incurred and to work done ". When the Bill was being considered in another place, there was some disagreement about what could or should be included under the heading of "work done". It was accepted that the words covered the cost of preparing documents, issuing summonses and so on—what I would call, for the sake of of brevity, "clerical work"—but whether it also covers loss of earnings by a person taking time off from his job to go to the the court, to issue the summons, attend the pre-trial review, see witnesses and so so on, is doubtful.
Although there was some disagreement during the preparation of the Bill as to whether a man could cover an allowance for time and labour spent on the job as well as for loss of earnings, this concept of compensation for what might be called "leisure-time work" seems to have been accepted and is now implicit in the Bill. To clarify the position over loss of earnings, the words "or losses" were added during the progress of the Bill in another place. As I am sure my noble and learned friend will remind me, these words were only guides offered to the Rules Committees of courts, as expressions of Parliamentary opinion to be taken into account by those committees in the calculation of costs and expenses for a successful litigant in person. But I think there is no doubt about the attitude of

1065
at least the majority of the Members who took part in discussions on the Bill in the other place, which is that some payment for leisure-time work should be included in the rules.
Finally, I am quite convinced that this Bill will not encourage the vexatious litigant or the person with a deep-rooted grievance who, having been told by solicitors that he has no case, goes on pursuing it and causes a lot of trouble. After all, the Bill will only reimburse litigants who succeed and the litigant who loses will have to pay his own expenses and probably also the costs of the other side. So I do not think there is any substance in the suggestion which I believe has been canvassed, that the Bill will encourage vexatious litigation.
This Bill, although it contains two clauses, is really a one-clause Bill and it is in four parts. The first part of Clause 1 sets out clearly what the Bill intends, which is to reimburse the litigant in person for his expenses in the conduct of his case. It is phrased so as to cover the courts' proceedings in England and Wales. Subsection (2) slightly alters that to deal with the situation in Scotland; and subsection (3) says that this can also be applied to Northern Ireland. Clause 2 really follows up what is implicit in the first part of the Bill—in other words, that it is the rules committees of the various courts which will decide how to put the principle of the Bill into operation. When those decisions have been taken by the various committees, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will decide on the days on which the Bill as a whole, or the separate parts of it, shall come into operation.
The Bill will make no difference, I suppose, to the present situation in which small claims for sums under £75 have no legal costs attached to them. The litigant who is dealing with a claim of under £75, even if he spends some money as he obviously must, will recover only a small sum, if indeed he recovers anything at all. I understand there is some disagreement about the wording of Clause 1(2) as to whether "outlays and losses incurred" should be applied to Scotland and whether that is really what we intend in the Bill. I do not know whether it will be necessary to amend the Bill, or whether an expression of opinion about
1066
the alteration of the rules in regard to litigants will overcome that difficulty, if it exists. But I hope we can come to amicable agreement about this point.
I should like to deal with one final point by posing a question to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor as to whether, in view of the proceedings which are bound to develop at the Lands Tribunal it would be desirable, in all the circumstances, to extend the provisions of the Bill at some time—and I do not know whether this can be done during the course of the general proceedings in your Lordships' House if there is general agreement about it—to litigants who appear before the Lands Tribunal. I have studiously avoided some of the legal arguments which arose in another place, for reasons which are apparent when one looks at the speakers who are to follow me. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Darling of Hillsborough.)
5.8 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, may I say at once that I welcome the Bill and should like, on behalf of the House, to congratulate my noble friend Lord Darling on the felicitous way in which he has introduced it. He brings to the subject his distinguished Ministerial experience, particularly in the consumer field. It is indeed a splendid thing that he has taken over the Bill for introduction into this House. We have been waiting for it patiently. It has taken a long time coming and I am happy that it has now come.
The Bill is different in its content, but not in principle, from when it was first introduced. The principle has been clearly explained by my noble friend. The intent is, as he has said, that the litigant in person who wins his case should be put, as far as possible, in the same position as a represented litigant, and should be able to recover his costs. In effect, this Bill will reverse the longstanding rule, affirmed in this House in the case of Buckland v. Watts, that the litigant in person cannot recover in respect of the work he does in preparing his case for court.

1067
The number of litigants in person coming before the courts is continuing to grow. There have always been those who, for reasons good or bad and with cases good or bad, have wished to go to the court themselves and to do so without legal representation. However much we improve the availability of legal services, we shall not—and I do not think we should try to do so—stop the inherent right of any man or woman to present his or her own case in court. In spite of the old adage that the man who appears for himself has a fool for a client, many litigants in person have scored some remarkable successes. I am delighted to see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, is to speak this afternoon, and although I am not inviting him to pursue this theme—patient and forbearing as I have known him so often in the Court of Appeal to be with litigants in person—I am sure that if he thought fit he could enlighten us on this matter. But whereas some litigants in person have succeeded, others have failed lamentably and, as my noble friend has said, the cost of doing so could be considerable indeed—what they themselves have incurred and of course the costs for the successful party—especially in the High Court.
No one should be forced to seek the help of a lawyer, but equally nobody should be discouraged from doing so, because in the considerable majority of cases the help of the lawyer is needed for the conduct of litigation. But there are some cases where I think it may well be better for the litigant to act himself, partly because in the case of small claims it would be quite uneconomic to employ a solicitor; and it is gratifying that changes in procedure have been made to make his task as easy as possible. In the county court the procedure for small claims has now been made very simple, with a view to enabling the litigant in person to take his own case. The system is being increasingly used and two-thirds of the cases formerly tried by registrars in the county court now go to arbitration before the registrar under the new simplified procedure.
To remove the fear of having to pay the other side's legal costs if the litigant loses, the rules provide that in cases under £75—and it may well be time to increase that figure—no legal costs may
1068
normally be allowed other than a very small sum for issuing the summons. I should not in these small cases like to replace the fear of high and disproportionate legal costs with the fear of having to pay the costs of the litigant in person, and so in these small cases I share the view of those sponsoring the Bill that the no-costs rule should apply to all costs, be they of a solicitor or a litigant in person. This will still, however, leave a large field where this Bill will, I believe, make a positive contribution. These are the larger cases in the county court, all civil cases in the High Court and divorce cases. The House may be interested to know that, in a recent week, of all divorce petitions filed at the Principal Registry office in London one in seven were filed by litigants in person.
To assist the litigant in person my Office already issues a booklet, Small Claims in the County Court. which explains the simplified procedure. I understand that the Consumers' Association has done likewise. A further very helpful advance has been the provision of draft particulars of claim at every county court, which require the litigant in person for standard situations only to complete the answers to some simple questions to give his opponent and the court an outline of the case. For those embarking on their own divorce petitions "self-help divorce" may not be an entirely felicitous expression, but for those so seeking divorce there is also a booklet to assist them. My Office is currently preparing a booklet on enforcing a judgment after it has been obtained. However, in this context I should sound a cautionary note that, however just one's claim, there is no point in pursuing a man successfully who is not worth powder and shot. I occasionally find that I receive complaints from successful litigants who have won their case unfortunately the defendant has not a farthing to his name, and then they ask me why it is that I do not ensure. by provision, if necessary, of public funds, that the court's judgment is duly enforced. Unfortunately, even in the days of a generous Welfare State I do not think that we can go quite so far as that.
The Bill does not seek to do more than state the principle that a litigant in person who wins his case should, so far as possible, be able to recover his costs. The

1069
detailed provisions are to be made, as has been said, by rules of court. The rule-making authorities in all three jurisdictions will have what I think is conceded to be a difficult task in deciding on the general guidance they must give in order to ensure uniformity to the taxing officers in all the courts. In England and Wales the rule-making authorities are the Supreme Court Rule Committee, the Matrimonial Causes Rule Committee, and the County Court Rule Committee. There are similar bodies in Northern Ireland and also in Scotland to which the Bill will apply. Indeed, the fact that it applies to Scotland accounts for the separate provision in Clause 1(2), with the use of the language familiar and used in Scotland. The rule committee there will also deal with these matters. The Supreme Court Rule Committee consists of the Lord Chancellor as Chairman, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Family Division, the Vice-Chancellor, a Lord Justice, two puisne judges, two practising barristers and two practising solicitors. So there is a good deal of experience and, I hope it may be thought, expertise in that body for dealing with these difficult problems.
It may be helpful if I briefly put the Bill in context. At present, as my noble friend has said, the litigant in person can get his out-of-pocket expenses. That means that his costs of travelling to court will be paid, and indeed since two fairly recent decisions, Malloch v. Aberdeen Corporation and McKenzie v. McKenzie, his position has much improved. in 1973 the Chief Taxing Master of the Supreme Court issued guidance to all taxing officers so that a litigant in person will at present recover, first, the costs and fees of any solicitor and counsel whom he properly employs to advise him in the conduct of the proceedings; secondly, the expense of any expert properly employed; thirdly, the cost of his own attendance as a witness and the fees of witnesses whom he may call on his own behalf; then, the cost of typing and reproduction by any process of copies properly made for use in the proceedings; his own out-of-pocket expenses for travelling on a proper occasion, and, finally, any other out-of-pocket expenses properly incurred.
1070
Your Lordships will see that no provision is made in that list for preparing or arguing his case in court, and that is the great step forward of the Bill. In even a small action in the county court, above the financial limit of £75 at which I have indicated no costs should be allowed, there is, as my noble friend indicated in his speech, a considerable amount of work to be done. There will be many occasions where he will have to visit diverse places and equip himself to argue his case at the hearing. For none of these things will he presently be recompensed.
As my noble friend has indicated, there is one matter of principle which the authorities will have to decide. It is the question whether the litigant in person should recover as "costs" a sum in respect of work that he does in his leisure time. This must be a matter for the rule-making authorities with their long experience of court procedure. However, I think I should remind the House that costs are in the nature of an indemnity. They cover only the pecuniary loss suffered by a party in litigation. Even so, they are not always a complete indemnity because the costs recoverable from the unsuccessful party are, in the words of the Rules of the Supreme Court,
" Only such costs as were necessary or proper for the attainment of justice or for enforcing or defending the rights of the party whose costs have been taxed ".
This means that in most cases where the litigant is legally represented the solicitor delivers a bill to his client, known as a solicitor and own client bill, for further costs which are not recoverable from the other side. This is a constant source of disappointment, I fear, to the litigant.
In considering whether to allow the litigant in person to recover for "work done "in his leisure time, the rule-making authorities will obviously have to consider whether, and to what extent, the indemnity principle should be breached. The difficulty of assessing what a litigant in person should recover by way of costs would be far greater if he had, in fact, suffered no financial loss by which it could be measured. I am sure we are all agreed that this Bill should not put the litigant in person in a better position than the represented litigant, but it is for consideration whether allowing him a sum for work done in his leisure time, in

1071
respect of which he suffers no pecuniary loss, would not produce that very result. I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate the heavy burden which will have to be carried by the rule-making authorities in considering the several problems which the Bill creates, but I believe that they are in the best position to solve them.
In conclusion, the House may care to know that we as a country are not alone in moving forward in this field. The Law Reform Commission of British Colombia are about to present a report to their Legislature with a view to legislation on very similar lines to this. South Australia has also decided to embark on similar legislation. And when, with the leave of the House, I was recently in New Zealand, they, too, indicated that they had similar ideas in mind.
My noble friend asked whether extension of the provisions of the Bill to proceedings before the Lands Tribunal is being contemplated. It will certainly be given the most sympathetic consideration, and I may well have something further to say on that matter at the later stages of the Bill. With the assistance of the sponsors, a number of improvements were made in another place by the Government, and I consider that the Bill is now in a form which properly can go on to the Statute Book. There are matters of detail, and in so far as these need further discussion we can certainly examine them closely at a later stage of this Bill, which I warmly commend to the House.
5.24 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, may I commence by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Darling of Hillsborough, on introducing this Bill to your Lordships' House and, if I may say so, for the charming and non-contentious way in which he introduced it. Indeed, it is a Bill which will commend itself to all parts of the House, in that it removes an anomaly which has existed against the interests of the litigant in person for, some would say, far too long. If it is in order, perhaps a measure of congratulation is also due to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and also to his predecessor, my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, for the impetus and help they have given to the Bill and its sponsors.
1072
Speaking as an erstwhile practitioner, I suppose that the prospect of a litigant in person is a figure to be greeted with mixed feelings. I do not suppose that on occasions there can be a more ferocious opponent than a litigant in person, who feels sincerely and deeply about his own case. Probably he has devoted all his spare time, and may even have given up his job to prepare his case. Certainly, he will have devoted a good deal more time to his case than a junior with a reasonably busy practice can afford to devote to it. He may well have spent many hours looking up cases on the law, and these may or may not be in point. However, he is nearly always treated with what seems—at any rate, to the practitioner—as excessive indulgence by the judge. at least so far as the rules of procedure are concerned. Nevertheless, up to now such a person, if he is successful, will have had what may be described as a raw deal over the matter of his costs.
At this moment, it may not be out of place to venture to welcome the application of the Bill to Scotland. Even if we have never practised there, those of us who live in Scotland sometimes feel that Scotland lags behind England in legal reform. Therefore, a Bill of this kind—if I describe it as modest that is not meant to be offensive—is welcome, even though in the other place the Lord Advocate was perhaps less than welcoming over the language used. Although the Bill is simple, its passage through another place seemed to provoke considerable passion which was out of all proportion to its innocuous character. The non-lawyers attacked the lawyers; the legal profession attacked each branch in turn; and at one stage even the court officials were attacked. That is not a trap into which I intend to fall.
There are two points which I would make, and they are these. First, the litigant in person is in a position where he can save substantial fees to solicitors and counsel. As has been observed, even a successful litigant who has the benefit of a solicitor and/or counsel will not recover all his costs. It depends on how they are taxed. Even at the end of the day he will not recover 100 per cent. of his costs. It may well be that a would-be litigant is put off venturing to press his case, because he feels that although his

1073
cause is just he may not at the end of the day be able to afford the shortfall so far as his pocket is concerned. Secondly, there are people who, for one reason or another, are considered too affluent to enjoy the benefits of the legal aid scheme, but who cannot afford to engage solicitors and counsel. This Bill will at least ensure that they are treated no worse than a legally-aided citizen.
So far as the question of quantum is concerned, I do not want to touch upon Committee points, but as the measure of costs has been mentioned by both the noble Lord, Lord Darling of Hillsborough, and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, may I say that I understand that it will not be easy for the Rules Committee to devise rules; nor will it be easy to apply them to litigants in person. For instance, if a plaintiff is acting in person and is the victim of a motor car accident and then revisits the scene, which may be many miles away, to take photographs or to get witnesses' statements, besides his travelling costs he will incur many hours of work—and proper work—in preparing his case. One wonders, therefore, particularly in view of what has been said by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, whether he is to he encouraged to prepare his case outside the hours of his employment—at weekends or on a Saturday, or even during his holiday. As I understand it, if he does so he may well be judged by an unfriendly committee not to be out of pocket. Therefore, he will not recover his costs. On the other hand, if he performs this vital part of his preparation in his employer's time, later on, as I understand it, he will be able to recover such costs at a certain scale if he is successful. One also comes to the matter of how valuable his time is, but I think that is too complicated to be taken further.
Equally, if a man takes time to prepare his case—and as a litigant in person he must do that—he may take much more time to prepare it than would a competent solicitor. The litigant in person may be honest and he may do his best, but it is a matter of competence and training. Nevertheless, it is perhaps unfair that at the end of the day the unsuccessful party should have to pay a higher sum by way of costs than he would
1074
if the litigant in person had had the benefit of a solicitor.
Finally, fears have been expressed—and the noble Lord, Lord Darling of Hillsborough, touched on this point—that the Bill will encourage to come forward to the courts a mass of litigants of a manifestly unsuccessful type, possibly even people with hopeless cases. People would come who otherwise would not. They might be people who had applied for legal aid and had been turned down by the committee, because in their opinion they did not have a valid case. I myself do not think that this will happen. People of such a nature are not put off by whether or not they get something by way of costs at the end. In any event, the new small claims procedure and the arbitration service, which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has described this afternoon, will encourage many of these litigants not to seek their rights in what I might call the "traditional manner". What this Bill will do is to go some way to remove the anomalous position of those who exercise their inherent right of presenting their case to a court themselves.
5.32 p.m.
Lord DENNING: My Lords, I welcome this Bill and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Darling of Hillsborough, for introducing it. It remedies a small injustice in the law. I see many litigants in person. Every Monday morning, three or four come into my court. Even this morning there was a lady who had been locked out of her workroom; she had been still locked out by the judge; she appealed to our court; she had counsel against her and she won. We let her back. But it is not only on Monday mornings. On other days we have cases, sometimes at great length, and let me tell your Lordships particularly—and it is a defect in our law—that when people are sued for libel and defamation they cannot get legal aid. They have to do it on their own. I may tell your Lordships of a Labour councillor who spoke up at a council meeting and said something derogatory of a Conservative councillor, whereupon the Conservative councillor sued the Labour councillor for damages for slander. The Labour councillor had to defend himself. He failed before the judge, came before

1075
us and he won before us—but what costs did he get?
Perhaps even worse than that there is the case which may last many days in which a minority shareholder discovers that those in charge of a company are fleecing it. Such a person can, and has, brought actions. He may issue a circular to shareholders and then they sue him for libel, or he may bring an action on behalf of the minority who are being oppressed. He can get no legal aid. We had a case that went on for days concerning a young stockbroker's clerk. He virtually spent years trying to get matters put right. What costs can he get? I am afraid it was a decision of the Court of Appeal five years ago—I was not sitting!—which said "nothing for his labour ".
Then a man employed a surveyor who had done wrongly in the building of his house and he sued in person and won. He got his out-of-pocket expenses—what he had paid out for paper and the like—but he wanted also to charge, if you please, 10 shillings an hour for preparing the case. He said that a solicitor would get it. It was agreed that if a solicitor was in person he would get it, but I am afraid that gentleman did not get it. Going back several hundred years, the practice of the courts has been that a litigant in person cannot get anything except his disbursements. I am glad to say that this Bill will remedy that. May I say, in passing, that I hope that as a result of recent recommendations in the libel cases that I have mentioned legal aid may be permitted in the future. But that needs an amendment to the Act.
There is one further point which has not yet been mentioned. We have spoken of the cases where a man in person wins his case. I should now like to take the case of the man who loses it—and that does happen. He may have quite a reasonable case; a poor man taking it on and for some reason he has not got legal aid. If he loses his case he has to pay all the costs of the other side, and he is often opposed by leading counsel, junior counsel, solicitors and so on. He has to face all the costs and the courts have no discretion in the matter.
Only last week, we had a man who had been standing on a picket line. He
1076
lost his case and he was ordered to pay all the costs of the other side, including leading counsel and the like. If he had been to the court and asked for legal aid we should have had a discretion to deal with it. When a person is legally aided by Statute, we can consider the means of the party, we can consider his conduct in the case and we can help him. We can, so to speak, help the shorn Iamb so as to mitigate the costs which he has to pay. But if a litigant in person loses his case, we have virtually no discretion except in extreme cases. Going back in the authorities, the rule is that he has to pay all the costs of the other side, in contrast to a legally aided person, where we have a discretion. It does not come into this Bill, but I hope it may soon be a matter for consideration whether we shall have discretion.
May I say what a great improvement this Bill will be; it will enable us to do some justice to the litigants in person. But, my Lords, do not allow too much for the leisure time. The amount of leisure time which some of them spend on it is enormous. Let them have a reasonable amount, but not over-much. However, I hope that the rules which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor prepares will deal with any questions of that kind.
5.39 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, I, too, should like to welcome this Bill and to congratulate my noble friend Lord Darling on his introduction of the Bill; and also, if I may, to congratulate the Consumers' Association who, as I understand it, inspired the production of the Bill. The Bill is a small but not insignificant contribution to law reform because, after all, it affects a large and growing number of people, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has pointed out.
It is right to remind those who sometimes attack the legal profession—and there are people who do, as we all know—that in our legal system it has always been an inherent right for the citizen to conduct his own case. This is a right which the legal profession has always been sedulous in supporting, so the notion that lawyers are solely concerned to try to make business for themselves is by no means borne out. Moreover, as has already been pointed out, our courts

1077
lean over backwards to be fair to a litigant in person. The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, pointed out that this is sometimes rather irritating to a professional opponent, but in the interests of fairness our courts lean over backwards in this way. If I may say so in his presence, we are very happy to have with us this afternoon the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who has unrivalled experience and quite extraordinary patience in dealing with litigants in person. Exercised so skilfully as to deter them from unnecessarily taking up too much of the most valuable time of the court, this is an object lesson to everyone as to how these problems should be dealt with.
My main object in intervening briefly in this debate is to draw attention to the fact that, though this is a significant point affecting injustice with regard to litigants in person, it is also part of a wider problem. After all, the litigant in person has an impact over the whole range of the legal system, and affects the course of the whole administration of justice. It is important that we should not lose sight of this point. I wish to remind your Lordships that as long ago as 1971 that eminent body Justice produced a report on this subject. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, will be familiar with it because I believe Justice consulted him, as well as other eminent members of the Judiciary. The Committee of Justice produced a most useful report making a number of valuable recommendations, one of them being, incidentally, with regard to the unfortunate omission as mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, that at present no legal aid is available in defamation cases. One is happy to have seen in the recent Faulks Report on Defamation the recommendation that legal aid should be extended to these cases. One hopes that that recommendation will be soon implemented.
On the wider issue, this committee made a number of valuable recommendations, by no means all of which require legislation. Several can be dealt with by changes in the rules or practice directions. They also made the valuable point that a further inquiry should be instituted with regard to the county court because, of course, their present inquiry was directed only to the High Court. I entirely appreciate that with regard to small claims
1078
up to £75, we now have a new arbitration procedure. But as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out, there are many cases arising in county courts affecting litigants in person, which involve larger sums. Here, the whole problem of the litigant in person arises.
One would hope that the initiative taken by my noble friend Lord Darling of Hillsborough in introducing this Bill into this House will possibly lead to further consideration of these wider problems, so that the whole issue may be examined in context so far as it affects the administration of justice. One would also hope that we may, at some time, have a more comprehensive approach so that changes may be made which will not only render justice to the litigant in person and those opposed to him—because, after all, one must consider both sides—but will also facilitate many aspects of the administration of justice which, to some extent, are impeded and clogged by certain complications arising when litigants in person are involved.
My Lords, I do not wish to take up any more of your Lordships' time on these matters. In conclusion, may I once again warmly commend to this House this particular piece of law reform.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I think it is very brave of me to intervene in this debate, since everyone who has spoken so far has been a lawyer of immense distinction. I have no qualifications of any kind in legal matters, but I want to say a word or two in support of my noble friend Lord Darling of Hillsborough. When I was chairman of the Consumer Council, he was at the Board of Trade. We met many times, and I received a great deal of help from him. He was always very sympathetic to the matters we brought forward in the days when we were starting the movement which has now come to have such considerable effect in the sphere of consumer protection. When I saw that he was going to move this Bill, I thought I should put in a word of support to what is being suggested. I have also been written to by the indefatigable Mr. Tench of the Consumers' Association.
This Bill will be a great asset to many consumers. It is a very short Bill, but it is apposite on this subject. In many

1079
capacities today we are being invited to "do it yourself". This is a "do it yourself" legal Bill, as my noble friend Lord Darling said. It will be of great help. I have had no personal experience as litigant in person, never having been involved in any litigation; but in a long life one has come to know of cases of different kinds, particularly in connection with matters such as my noble friend Lord Darling mentioned—things like motoring, engineering, house building or house decorating, or matters which affect the ordinary person. When such matters go before the court they can now be dealt with by a person who is prepared to do it himself. This will be of enormous help.
The case brought to my notice in the memorandum sent to me by the Consumers' Association is one which is well known to those who studied the matter; namely, that of the television engineer, Mr. Buckland, who finally won his case against the surveyor, was awarded no costs and could not charge any costs for the work he had done. This Bill will remedy decisions of this kind. I believe the Act under which present methods of litigation are operating dates back to 1884. If many things had not changed since 1884, we should be in a very strange position in the country today, because 1884 is a long time ago.
My Lords, this is a useful Bill. I am sure it will he welcomed by those who find themselves in the position of having to bring an action. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said, on many occasions these cases are brought before him, and no doubt before others as well in the courts. This Bill will give those people an opportunity of defending themselves, and of not being out-of-pocket as a result. I hope your Lordships' will give the Bill an unopposed Second Reading, and that in all its stages will proceed speedily through the House, as it has been recommended by legal people on both sides of the House. As an ordinary consumer I am very glad to add my support to the Bill.
5.50 p.m.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I hope the House will forgive me for intervening. I was looking around to sec whether any other member of the legal profession to which I belong would add a word or two in commendation of this Bill. In
1080
view of the fact that no one has done so up to now, I hope your Lordships will allow me to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Darling of Hillsborough, who has done a considerable amount of very interesting work in another place. I am not surprised that he has taken up a matter of this kind. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, said that people sometimes misunderstand the attitude of the profession in these matters. I would say, as a solicitor, that we are often very pleased indeed to give help, privately and in certain organisations, to people who wish to take their own cases. They are a little difficult at times. Some of the people who want to take their own cases are a bit stubborn on occasions; they have the idea that they can very easily understand, the law. Litigants who carry on their own cases sometimes ultimately realise that it is not as easy as they think and that the problems they have to face are fairly difficult ones. But if a litigant does want to carry on his own case, we in the solicitors' profession certainly think he should be allowed to do so and should be given every possible assistance in so far as the courts are concerned.
I should like to add my voice, and the thanks of the profession. to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for the manner in which he has dealt with cases of this sort. It must be very trying to anyone who is a judge when a person who cannot possibly be conversant in most cases anyway, with the rules of the court, and so on, comes along to conduct a case. I would add my thanks and congratulations to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for the manner in which he has helped. I want your Lordships to realise that so far as the solicitors' profession is concerned, and the same has been expressed on behalf of the other branch of the legal profession, we welcome a Bill of this nature. We certainly shall be glad to see it in operation and doing as much as can be done for the litigant.
5.52 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, no one could have listened to this fascinating short debate without reacting to it, and I react to it. The overwhelming view I have formed—and I did not read the Proceedings in another place or

1081
anything leading up to it—is that if had a case that I wanted to take up in the House of Lords and I wanted it effectively, courteously and efficiently done, I should ask the noble Lord, Lord Darling, to undertake it, because he did just that. But I was not absolutely convinced that it was all "whiter than white ". That is why I think it right to react. It would he presumptuous of anyone who has not detailed experience and knowledge of his own to go against the overwhelming unanimity of people who should know. The testimony we have had in your Lordships' House this afternoon has shown that people who have intimate knowledge of the subject think that the general principle is good, and there is no question of my wanting to contest the strength of the principle behind the Bill so admirably proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Darling.
It may well be that my reactions are reactions which ought to be taken into account by the Rules Committee, which I understand will be setting the standard of anything that will flow from the general direction which this Bill gives. The first thing we should be absolutely certain about is whether we wish to encourage people to be their own litigants. I accept at once that those who intend to look after their own cases ought not to be discouraged. It is right that those who think that they can deal with their own cases with intimate knowledge, because they can give more time to it than the lawyers could or would, should not be discouraged. That should go without saying.
But we ought to give some thought to whether we should encourage people who under the old rules would not have taken their own cases to do so. I think that on balance one ought not to set out to encourage litigants to take up their own cases. I hope that when the Rules Committee look at what will flow from this Bill when it becomes an Act, they will not encourage litigants, against what would be their normal reaction, to undertake their own cases. There are many reasons for that. The first is that it is often not in the litigant's best interest that he should. Nowadays, with courts on television and all sorts of things brought into people's homes, I think that
1082
as a nation we are more articulate than we have ever been. There are now more people prepared to stand on their feet and argue a case than ever was the case in the past. That has been a change in the general reaction of our nation. Not very many years ago we were not an articulate nation in that sense. Committees, and courts in particular, frightened people; today they are not so frightened. I do not think that that sort of reaction ought to be encouraged to a point where it would not be in the litigant's best interest, particularly in intricate cases.
I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Darling, say that many cases would come along because of the times and conditions in which we live, the electrical things we buy, the financial agreements we enter into and all that sort of thing. I should have thought that that was all the more reason not to encourage people to think that it easy to remedy what they believe are difficulties they are having to overcome. They should be encouraged to consult a solicitor, so that in the early stages advice can be given as to whether or not there is a case at all. I hope the Rules Committee will not make matters so attractive, even marginally, that people will not take that elementary precaution.
As regards the courts themselves, if one makes it too easy to undertake a case, is the administration of the courts going to stand up to it? My experience is only as a magistrate, the lowest rung of the ladder. When people look after their own case it takes up a very great deal of time. I noted the great compliment paid to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, because apparently he is able, with his vast experience and his personality, to get the people who appear for themselves to cut down the time-wasting, but there are not many Lord Dennings in England sitting in the courts. The experience of those who do is that when the litigant is looking after his own case, it very often results in a very great deal of extra time. If you try to cut them down to what you think is reasonable and proper, they feel that they are not getting justice, so you are getting the worst of every possible world. Therefore, I hope that when the Rules Committee are looking at this matter they will do so from the point of

1083
view that the general principle is sound, that those who would in normal circumstances take up their own case should not be discouraged, but that they should not he encouraged.
One point that I would emphasise was mentioned in passing by the noble Lord, Lord Denning; that is, the question of leisure time. That lends itself to abuse unless one is very careful. One noble Lord asked whether, if people did this, they should be pushed to do it at the week-end or in the evening, or allowed to stay away from work. The one rule I hope the Rules Committee will try to agree upon is that if this is work which could be done in leisure time it should be judged so to have been done, so that people are not encouraged to leave their work to take a photograph of something on the road, or something of that sort, that could be done in leisure time. I should think that this would be the trickiest part of the whole thing. I consider that it would be right, in the interests both of justice to the litigant and the saving of the court's time for the leisure time allowance to be very stringently controlled. Those are my reactions to a fascinating debate.
The general case, when one first heard it, made one want to put both hands up with overwhelming enthusiasm, but as the debate went on and I saw the various aspects that could arise, I was not so certain. I think that on balance the principle is made. The unanimity of the people who should know is sufficient in itself for us to say that this Bill should get a Second Reading. However, I hope that when the Rules Committee take the steps that will flow from this, they will take into account that it is not all so rosy as the opening speeches in terms of principle may well have led us to believe.
6.0 p.m.
Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, the noble Lord and I have crossed swords before and I suppose that we shall engage in controversy in future. I think I need to be rather more polite in this House than I have on occasion been in the other place in replying to the noble Lord, and will just say that the cautionary note that he has sounded is one that we must obviously consider. But I think it will be quite
1084
impossible for him to put the clock back on the encouragement that the authorities are giving to the "do it yourself" litigants.
Even with the cautionary note, the Bill has had a unanimously favourable reception. In view of the fact that there are other Bills to be considered, I think it would be wrong of me to try to reply to the points that have been raised. In any case, as other noble Lords have pointed out, if we approve the Bill and later pass it and it becomes a Statute, the real work has then to be done by the Rules Committees, and we have an assurance from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that the Rules Committees will take into consideration the views that have been expressed here. Therefore, instead of making, I think, seven votes of thanks, may I just say that I am very grateful indeed, and also thank those noble Lords who have, given their support to the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

COAL INDUSTRY BILL
6.2 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of ENERGY (Lord Balogh): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Balogh).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord AMHERST OF HACKNEY in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Grants to National Coal Board to meet expenditure under pneumoconiosis compensation scheme]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord TAYLOR of MANSFIELD: Before this Bill passes through your Lordships' House I should like to make a few observations on Clause 1. It will be apparent to your Lordships, particularly after the Second Reading, that Clause 1 deals with three matters; first,

1085
pneumoconiosis, that dreaded disease common among so many coalminers; secondly, an agreement between the National Coal Board and the unions whose members are directly working in the production of coal in the British coal industry. I would point out that that is an agreement not only between the Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers, but between the two other unions—that representing the deputies and shotfirers, and the British Association of Colliery Management. The third point about this clause is a Government grant not exceeding £100 million to give effect to, and to implement, the agreement to which I have just referred.
On 16th June 1974, there was a most interesting article in the Sunday Times, and I shall read a few words from it. it is in connection with the grant that is being made by the Government of the sum that I have mentioned. It said:
"The Government's offer to make lump sum compensation available to miners with pneumoconiosis, the diseases caused by pit dust in the lungs, is a singular executive humanitarian act to the men who will be affected."
I am sure your Lordships will bear with me for a few moments if I take this opportunity to make a few observations on this important matter of men's lungs being affected by the inhalation of dust in the course of their employment. Those of us who live in the areas from which some of your Lordships come meet every day someone, even near relatives, who is affected by this dreadful disease. I also recall that years before lung infection under the name of silicosis was a prescribed industrial disease, we used to wonder why some men's breathing was affected as it was.
My mind goes back, and I recollect it vividly, to a two mile walk in-by to the working face. There were no riding facilities for the men; they came later. To use a local colloquialism, we had what we called "buttoning places ". These places for a few minutes' rest were almost like an oasis in the desert. We used to bid one another, "Good morning. And how are you feeling this morning?" Then this was a common reply, "Well, I'm a hit thick in the wind. The old breathing apparatus
1086
is very much impaired. I could do with the old blacksmith's bellows to pump some puff into me." Remember, it was the same distance out-by and the same experience at the end of the shift—maybe worse when men were tired—but the prospect of the surface and daylight was very alluring.
We were somewhat confused and ignorant, and we used to wonder why there was this impairment of the breathing apparatus. Then, I think, in 1928, this lung condition was prescribed an industrial disease, at that time in the name of silicosis. The victims, who were medically certified, became entitled to benefit under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1925. Those of us who have had experience of coalmining breathed a sigh of relief at that time when, at long last, lung impairment was recognised as something that was contracted at work. But the prescription in 1928 was certainly not a generous one. The scheduling of silicosis was so restricted that it had to be affection of the lungs by silica dust, hence the definition of silicosis. Further, to indicate the lack of generosity in the prescription, coalminers had not only to be medically certified as suffering from silicosis, but there was a condition that before a person could receive benefit under the Workmen's Compensation Act there had to be a percentage of silica in the strata where he was working. This restriction lasted for 10 years and was not removed until 1938. I am sure your Lordships will appreciate that when those factors were taken into consideration it was not too generous a prescription for this condition of the lungs.
In 1943, there was a growing dissatisfaction in all areas of the British coalfields respecting the numerical growth of those becoming affected by the impairment of their lungs and breathing. I was a member of the deputation of the miners' group in another place which met the Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, which was then the responsible Department for workmen's compensation. We met Sir Osbert Peake as he then was, later to become Lord Ingleby. It was at that time that the word "pneumoconiosis" was conceived. Until 1943 the word pneumoconiosis had not been heard of. It was arising out of those discussions that this word was coined.

1087
The importance of the word "pneumoconiosis", as laid down in the Statute at that time, was that it brought about an important change, in that any person whose lungs were affected by any kind of dust at work—not silica dust alone—came within the ambit of a prescribed disease. If medically certified as suffering from pneumoconiosis before 1948 a man was entitled to benefit under the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1925, and since 1948 to benefit under the Industrial Injuries Act. In connection with the change that Clause 1 of this Bill brims about, I should like to say that it is a payment on the basis of an agreement between the employer, the NCB, and the unions for damages at Common Law, and has nothing whatever to do with the benefits under either the old Workmen's Compensation Act or the Industrial Injuries Act.
The obtaining of damages at Common Law, particularly in the sphere of industrial diseases, was not easy, certainly before 1948. There were many hurdles to surmount before a claim could succeed, and may I mention one or two. First, there was the cost of litigation. Before 1948, an affected person had to make his choice between receiving benefit under the Workmen's Compensation Act on the grounds of negligence by the employer, or having other benefit. The affected person could not have both. Further—and to some of us this is very important—the existence before 1948 of the doctrine of common employment was the biggest hurdle of all to surmount for a claim to be successful. I would mention only one point in this connection. A committee was appointed under the chairmanship of Sir Walter Monckton, later to become Lord Monckton, to recommend alternative remedies. One of their recommendations was that the doctrine of common employment should be abolished.
Since 1948, the pathway to obtaining damages at Common Law for negligence is much less difficult than it was pre-1948. For this long-delayed measure of justice, I would give credit to a coal miner, a man who had seen so much tragedy in the pits, so many victims of accident and industrial disease. In 1945, this coal miner became the Minister for National Insurance and he was respon
1088
sible for the legislation giving a greater measure of justice to all the victims of accident and industrial disease. I refer to Jim Griffiths who will be known to many of your Lordships, and, if by any chance, in his eventide of life and with his health impaired, these words of mine should reach him, I hope he will regard them as a tribute to his work in this field. Before 1948, damages for pneumoconiosis at Common Law were very rare indeed; only a few cases succeeded and I should like to mention only two.
Lord JACQUES: May I remind my noble friend that we are in Committee and that a great deal of business remains ahead of us tonight?
Lord TAYLOR of MANSFIELD: I admit that I appear to he making a Second Reading speech, and if my noble friend thinks I am out of order I willingly accept his ruling. I wanted, in this period of great change, and particuarly in the context of Clause 1, to focus the attention of your Lordships on the dreaded disease of pneumoconiosis and what it is proposed to do for its sufferers. In view of what my noble friend has said, I will cut my speech short and will not go into the question of what happened in 1933. But I must mention briefly the well-known and interesting case of Mr. Pickles, a miner who left the pits and who was advised by the AEU, his union when he was working in a factory, that he had a case for damages at Common Law. The Court of Appeal gave permission for the issue of a writ and the NCB settled for £7,500 in the form of damages. It is really arising out of that case that we have Clause 1 in this Bill, for in the period that followed the Pickles case in 1968 no fewer than 3,500 actions for damages for pneumoconiosis were instituted against the NCB, and as was stated on Second Reading there are about 40,000 pneumoconiotics alive today.
The Working Party set up at the end of the stoppage in 1974 said that pneumoconiosis was becoming a stumbling block in the way of good industrial relations, so the agreement referred to in Clause 1 was accepted and the details can be seen in the Working Party's Report. In view of the intervention of my noble friend Lord Jacques, I will omit from the remarks I had intended to

1089
make all the other points. I conclude by congratulating my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on what he has done in this sphere in persuading the Government, at this time of financial stress, to give £100 million for the implementation of the agreement reached between the NCB and the unions, and I also congratulate the Government most heartily.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [New right of Board to withdraw, support to enable coal to be worked]:
6.25 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 28, at end insert—
(" ( ) shall relate only to land which is worked by one mine; ")
The noble Earl said: Perhaps I may be permitted to say, first, how moved I was, as I am sure all noble Lords were, by the tribute paid by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, to his colleagues in the industry. I, too, support Clause 1, as I am sure all Members of this House do, and I was only sorry that the Minister was not able briefly to express his thanks to his noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield. In moving Amendment No. 1, I should point out that both it and Amendment No. 2 stem from a genuine anxiety that the rights of private individuals will be trespassed under this Bill. We live in an age of very rapid change in this vitally important coal industry, and in a climate of support to equip the industry to meet the modern needs of the NCB's workings. But there is anxiety lest Parliament, while attempting to streamline the statutory procedures, erodes and damages the safeguards that have existed for many years, particularly since 1938, for private individuals.
This is a very important Bill for the industry and for the private individual. I think I am correct in saying that not since 1938 have the procedures to simplify the statutory duties been really examined or have come within the scope of a Bill. In 1938, the coal industry was very different from what it is today. In those days, it was fragmented into many small colliery companies and notices to which this Amendment particularly
1090
applies were of a purely local interest, physically limited to the area which the small colliery companies operated. But the scene today is totally different. The NCB has an immense job to do and has immense powers, and I am advised that to date it has handled these powers when dealing with private individuals' interests with tact, care and delicacy, but within its statutory limits. It is surely very important today, doubly so than in 1938, that Parliament should draft and write into legislation certain safeguards and statutory duties to protect the individual against the NCB. I say "against ", but I do not use that word in an unfriendly spirit. I use it simply in an effort to protect the individual, just in case the NCB should ever slip up in dealing with individuals by serving the notices that are required.
The purpose of the Amendment is simply to limit the scope of a notice—indeed, defining the notice to one area, and to one mine in particular—which the NCB will have a duty to serve when it has a desire to start some workings. I do not think the Amendment would cause a great burden to the NCB. On the other hand, I am advised that it would give a good deal of security and would safeguard the individual. Without the Amendment the NCB could, technically, serve a notice which covered the whole country, and such a policy would deride the whole purpose of notices. I am not sure how the Government view the Amendment or how the NCB have reacted to it, but it has been suggested by those concerned in the industry. It is not tabled lightly and I hope that the Minister will give it sympathetic consideration. I beg to move.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: As the noble Earl said, this Amendment is related to Amendment No. 2. I fully understand the fears which the noble Earl expressed, but I hope I may be able to persuade him that they are groundless. We accept that it would be undesirable for the National Coal Board to issue notices covering very large areas of land under which it may not intend to operate for many years ahead. We have already looked very carefully at possible ways of preventing this without placing unreasonable restrictions on its operations and forward planning, and without forcing it into inefficient methods. Unfortunately the Amendment

1091
could do just that, without necessarily producing the desired effect of restricting the currency of its notice. Quite apart from problems of defining what is meant by "one mine" in this context, it would raise practical problems.
It may be the Board's intention to work a panel of coal from one shaft. It publishes a notice in reference to that and then, because it encounters geological or other difficulties, it may become more efficient to work it from another shaft—what, in the words of this Amendment, might be "another mine". To make the necessary changes would require complicated provisions about the withdrawal, reissue and amendment of notices; yet, so far as people on the surface were concerned, it would not matter whether the coal was worked from one shaft or another. So the Amendment would introduce an undesirable and unnecessary complication which could hamper the flexibility which the NCB needs for its operations. It might seem that a possible way of preventing the issuing of blanket notices would be to limit the currency of each notice to a fixed number of years, as Amendment No. 2 seeks to do. The problem is that the circumstances of each case are likely to be very different. To attempt to cover them all would require very complex legislation and, even then, we might find something cropping up which would have unfortunate effects on the efficiency and progress of the Coal Board's operations.
We put this problem to the Chairman of the National Coal Board, Sir Derek Ezra, and he pointed out that it has always been the Board's policy to behave reasonably and properly in these matters and that, though they have had similar powers all along, they have never had any complaint about their practice in publishing notices of intent. I believe that noble Lords will agree that the Coal Board's record in this respect is excellent. Sir Derek has given a written assurance that the Board would intend to continue in this way—that is, to publish the notices it needs to cover the operations it foresees. Because the Board works on a five-year rolling programme, this would mean, allowing for possible delays in starting up, that their notices would normally cover the areas they would expect to work over the next seven or eight years.
1092
That would be the general pattern, though in some areas it might have to take longer.
For example, in a case like Selby, where it is essential for the proper planning of the project that the Board should as soon as possible have assured knowledge of the reserves available to be worked throughout the "take", the notices would need to cover a longer time ahead. However, Sir Derek has given an undertaking that where, for example, the working of a new scheme is concerned, workings which were planned under land in respect of which a Clause 2 notice had been published more than 10 years previously, the Board would give informal notice of its intentions exactly as would be required under Clause 2. Moreover, as noble Lords know, the Board is always ready to answer, in detail if necessary, inquiries from members of the public about its plans for working particular areas. In view of these very firm assurances by the Chairman and of the excellent record of the Board in the past, I hope that the noble Earl may decide not to press the Amendment or Amendment No. 2.
The Earl of KINNOULL: Perhaps we could deal separately with Amendment No. 2. I apologise for holding up the Committee. I am very happy with the reply and with the Government's assurance and the undertaking which the Chairman of the National Coal Board has given. I am sure that it is valuable that it should be on the record. I am quite content to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.35 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 35, leave out ("and") and insert—
("( ) shall be effective for a period of ten years from the relevant date of publication and").
The noble Earl said: This is the second Amendment which concerns the rights of the private citizen. I hope that it may be accepted by the Government. Its purpose is to place some limitation on the life of a notice which is served. I think that that is a reasonable request. The type of anxiety which has been expressed to me is that the National Coal Board

1093
might, within its five-year rolling programme, decide to issue a notice to, say, plan a new working for 1975, and that work would then be delayed so that by 1977 the plan would be scrapped. Then in 1995 the National Coal Board might go back to the plan and, without notice, enter on to the workings. That sort of situation—particularly if, during the period of 15 years between the issuing of the notice and the working, the land had changed ownership—is a matter of concern outside the House. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davies, can give a sympathetic reply. I beg to move.
Lord SLATER: Listening to the noble Earl, the thought was running through my mind when he said that certain individuals had been in contact with him that I did not know whether he has any knowledge as to how a mine is worked, either from the surface, by drift, or going down in a cage to a seam where men are seeking to extract coal from Mother Nature. One can have what is known in a mine as a big fault. In Durham, we had what was known as the Buttonhole Fault, which ran right across all the strata of coal in the Durham coalfield. Therefore some way had to be found to get round that fault and to extract the coal on the side opposite that on which the coal had already been worked out. Unless that had been done, all that coal would in all probability have been lost, because it would have cost too much to reopen what had already been in operation before. One can find oneself in a position in which a new entrance has to be opened up to extract the coal.
Not very far from where I live now, three drifts have been put down to extract an area of coal that could not be extracted from three deep pits because of a particular fault. Nevertheless, there were within that basin millions of tons of coal that would have been left unless the new drifts had been put in. If the noble Earl is worried about subsidence which might take place because of extraction, I do not believe that his worries ought to be set against the importance of extracting the coal in the way I have explained, because of the nature of the problem. Whichever way one looks at it, deep mining is not like working in a factory; One cannot just press a button. Ways
1094
and means of extracting the coal have to be worked out so that one can get round these problems, and unless that is done it will be a great loss to the nation. Therefore I sincerely hope that the noble Earl will be satisfied with the reply of my noble friend and will withdraw the Amendment. I am speaking now as one who, before he ever became a Member of Parliament, served 30 years in the pit and who knows something about the subject under consideration.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: First of all, may I say that I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Slater who has pointed out some of the problems covered by these two Amendments. Often much time is required when obstacles are encountered. I can only repeat the assurances that I have given in answer to Amendment No. 1. We accept that it is undesirable for the Coal Board to issue blanket notices and we have been examining ways of preventing that in a reasonably simple way. We have considered the possibility of imposing a time limit. All this would put undue rigidity on the Board's legitimate operations, and we have been unable to find a satisfactory way. I wish to make the point to the noble Earl and to your Lordships that the Board has never been in the habit of issuing blanket notices, and an assurance has been given that it will continue to behave in a reasonable and responsible manner in this matter. We have every reason to accept the Board's assurances. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl feels that he can withdraw the Amendment.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Slater, for his intervention. I assure him that I do not purport to have any special knowledge of the mining industry, and I suspect that the Government also do not speak from personal experience. I was merely suggesting that there are certain statutory rights which the National Coal Board has to observe and that these should be preserved. I am happy with the assurance that the noble Lord has given, but I hoped that he could go a little further and say that if a notice of a scheme is served and the scheme is subsequently abandoned, the notice will have to be reserved if the scheme is re-adopted. That is a particular worry which, I am advised,

1095
causes concern. I do not know whether the noble Lord can give a reply to that.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: I have already referred to that matter with regard to the first Amendment, in relation to the assurance given by the Chairman of the Coal Board. We have a written assurance that the Board will continue in this way and that where working is planned under land in respect of which a Clause 2 notice has been published more than 10 years previously, it will give informal notice of its intention, exactly as would be required under Clause 2.
The Earl of KINNOULL: With that assurance I am happy to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.43 p.m.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Douglas of Barloch): I wish to point out to your Lordships that if Amendment No. 3 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 4.
The Earl of KIINTNOULL The Earl of KIINTNOULL moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 16, leave out from (" Act ") to end of line 20 and insert (" the right to withdraw support from land reasonably required for the working of any coal pursuant to subsection (1) of this section shall be subject to a duty by the Board eithe—
(a) to pay proper compensation for damage arising from disturbance of the land: or ")
The noble Earl said: The Committee now turn to the vitally important part of the Bill—other than Clause 1—which concerns the compensation terms to property owners for subsidence. I regret to say that an error crept into my Amendment. It should have read:
" to pay proper compensation for damage arising from such workings to that land."
A claimant for compensation due to subsidence or working by the National Coal Board may be a householder, a shop-owner, a tomato grower, or a farmer. I understand that at present a claimant has two choices in regard to service of a compensation claim: either he may elect to serve his claim under the 1957 Act, which restricts the compensation to the buildings and land, but gives no consequential damage; or he may rely on what is often regarded as a wider context of
1096
compensation, based on the 1938 Act, which incorporates many Common Law rights.
Let us take a practical case. I understand that if a householder suffers damage, it is more than likely that his professional adviser would say that there is no consequential damage involved in the case and that therefore the client is quite safe to apply under the 1957 Act. But a business may be damaged in some way. I particularly cite a tomato grower, who has glasshouses with a tomato crop underneath. One night the glasshouses may be damaged, and the adviser, I am told, would almost undoubtedly recommend his client to elect to serve a notice of compensation under the 1933 Act, for the simple reason that consequential damage could be claimed.
There is some doubt in the minds of certain people that the 1933 Act is not strictly set out. It is left, to a certain degree, in abeyance and there has been no case law to establish whether the consequential damage is included. But it is of merit to note that the very fact that advisers would advise clients either to elect to proceed under the 1957 Act or, alternatively, the 1938 Act, must suggest that, particularly for businesses, compensation has a wider context in the 1938 Act.
We are now dealing with a number of Amendments on this subject. I should perhaps explain to the Committee the difference between my Amendment and the Amendment nut down by my noble friend and what is at present written into the Bill. My Amendment—subject to the correction that I gave earlier—brings back into the Bill the whole of the 1938 provisions. The Amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal and his noble friends seeks to spell out whatever one believes to be in the 1938 Act; that is, not only compensation for buildings, but also the consequential loss that may be incurred.
There is a real fear in the minds of many people on the technical side of the subject that the Government, by the wording in the Bill, are limiting the compensation that has always been available under the 1938 Act. In another place the Government stated that the Working Party had been looking into all aspects of compensation arising under the 1957

1097
Act. While one appreciates in the course of this Committee stage that the compensation matters under the coal Acts are very complex, nevertheless this Working Party has now been working for some three years, and to many people its progress resembles that of a snail with two legs in plaster climbing un a window. Its terms of reference are concerned only with the 1957 Act. It has no duty at all to look into the working of the 1938 Act. One immediately asks the Government why the Working Party does not include in its terms of reference the working of the 1938 Act. It is vitally important not just to take one Act but to look into all the Acts. I hope that in reply the Government will say something specific about this.
In another place the Government stated during the Committee stage that this Bill is, as I said previously, not regarded as a proper vehicle to make changes in the compensation provisions, and all that Clause 2(3) does it to repeat in substance the provisions of Schedule 2(6) to the Coal Act 1938. The purpose of my Amendment is to say to the Government that in the view of many people outside this is not what the Bill does at present. If the Government really intend to put back what was in the 1938 Act they should accent my Amendment. I would support the Amendment of my noble friend because it sets out much more clearly what many people feel the 1938 Act has always done. I beg to move.
Lord SLATER: I listened most attentively to what the noble Earl said about his Amendment, but I take a completely different line to the one he has taken in relation to the 1957 Act. If ever the Labour Government made a mistake it was during the period of the nationalisation of the mining industry, and it concerned subsidence. My noble friend Lord George-Brown is here. He probably has more knowledge than I have of how the Bill and everything else was introduced during 1945 to 1950 before I became a Member of another place. I was in the industry at the time.
I have always believed that the Government of the time made a gruesome mistake in fixing upon a global sum of money which was disbursed among the coal-owners throughout the country in
1098
all the particular coalfield areas, for compensation for those assets taken over by the nation, without in the first place setting to one side a certain amount of money to meet contingencies that might arise from mining subsidence that appeared following the extraction of the mineral under private enterprise in the first place.
The liability was placed immediately by the next Labour Government in 1957 in the Coalmining (Subsidence) Act on the National Coal Board, and in regard to dwelling houses application can be made because of mining subsidence and its effect on the property. People have to prove their case before drawing compensation for that mining subsidence. I know of no particular case in my own particular area—a mining area where we get mining subsidence more effectively than anywhere else—where property is seriously affected. I do not now know why the Government should be dragged in once more to impose on the National Coal Board the burden of having to find more finance—or the Government to find more finance and pass it on to the National Coal Board—to meet new contingencies that might arise under the noble Earl's Amendment.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My noble friend is quite right. I made my maiden speech in the other place on the question of how we should nationalise the coal mining industry. He is right in saying that I opposed the terms. Is he aware that none of us who have ever sat for a mining constituency would ever accept that the charge for mining subsidence should be placed upon the Coal Board? This was something which the nation decided to do. If the nation decided to do it, it is something for which the nation should pay. I entirely agree with my noble friend that Bournemouth should pay for the subsidence in Swadlincote because Bournemouth burns the coal.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I intervene now, since there are a number of Amendments on the question of compensation. Perhaps I can speak about the general question of subsidence. For Lord Balogh's peace of mind, may I assure him that even those who were brought up to speak English as their native tongue are not quite sure

1099
whether it is "subsidence" (with the accent on the first of the three syllables and a short i) or " subsidence" (with the accent on the middle syllable and a long i.) When we have seen what kind of reaction this proposal elicits from the Government we can go back to which Amendments we like best and see how we proceed in that way.
First, may I make it clear that we are anxious to see the coal extracted and we do not want to add unnecessarily to the cost of the coal. Having said that, I think, if I understand it correctly, that I find myself at variance with the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, because it seems to me that it is vitally important that the Coal Board must pay prompt and comprehensive compensation for damage and loss which they inflict on anybody, be it a private landowner, a householder or a business. Let us suppose that somebody is carrying on an ordinary livelihood; somebody else burrows a great hole beneath him; suddenly his livelihood can be seriously interfered with. Somebody must compensate him for that.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My predecessor as the Member for Belper in the other place was Sir Herbert Wragg. Sir Herbert Wragg pulled in clay works, the civic centre and everything. No Conservative ever asked Sir Herbert Wragg, Conservative M.P. for Belper, to pay for what he was doing. Will the noble Lord please tell me why that should be charged to the Coal Board when it was not charged to Sir Herbert Wragg?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: I am not in a position to argue history with the noble Lord. I am ignorant about it. I would stick absolutely to the simple principle that if the Coal Board interferes with anybody's business or private rights it seems reasonable that they or the Government—and the distinction is not entirely clear in any case—should be responsible for total compensation for the damage they cause.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: They did not do it with Sir Herbert Wragg.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: I am sorry if the noble Lord is upset about Sir Herbert Wragg. I am hearing about him for the first tine. But
1100
I do not think it is relevant to the Bill we are discussing in Committee.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: He happened to be a Tory.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: I am sorry that the noble Lord is making this an intense Party issue. I do not believe it should be. The noble Lord, Lord Balogh, himself, on Second Reading agreed that the Bill was,
"giving it "—
the NCB—
"a new right to withdraw both lateral and vertical support ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, c. 464; 8/5/75.]
That can create new subsidence and consequent damage. We get into a slight difficulty here in following this matter through. Various more or less contradictory assertions were made both here and in the other place by way of assurance on these points. The noble Lord, Lord Balogh, went on to say in the same Second Reading speech:
"There is no question of any great numbers of people being affected by mining subsidence who would not have been affected before."
He added that the Bill largely re-enacted the existing provision in regard to compensation for damage due to mining subsidence.
In another place, although the word "compensation" is mentioned at least six times in the Memorandum on the front of the Bill there was an attempt by a Minister to say, as my noble friend has said, that this was not a compensation Bill and it was not the moment to deal with that question. They apparently relied on the Coal Act 1938 and the Coal-mining (Subsidence) Act of 1957. It is curious to find this Government relying on the Coal Act 1938, which was pre-nationalisation. One thought that anything that happened pre-nationalisation was something of an anathema. But particularly after the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, has intervened, I do not want to develop that point.
The 1957 Act, I am assured by those who have to work it, is neither clear nor adequate. Surely it is clear that there are problems since Mr. Eadie in another place on 11th March mentioned that ex gratia payments were being made by the Coal Board for consequential losses. I suggest it is a very unsatisfactory situation

1101
for the law of the land to be relying on the good will of the Coal Board. Although naturally one welcomes it, it is not a very satisfactory situation to have to rely upon their willingness to make ex gratia payments.
We further had an admission by the noble Lord on Second Reading that some disquiet had been expressed about the question of compensation. He pointed out that it was an extremely complicated issue which was being studied by a Working Party. If there was need for a Working Party it suggests that all is not well in this area. The noble Lord enjoined us to display a little patience in this matter. I think that we are in a difficulty here. I understand that this Working Party was appointed in 1971, which is a very long time ago. When does the noble Lord expect this Working Party to report? I should be very surprised if he was able to give us an undertaking that he would accept the recommendations of this Working Party and guarantee to bring in legislation in a relatively short time to enact its recommendations. We cannot be fobbed off with allusions to the Working Party. Even if we cannot get a complete solution to what we admit is a difficult problem, this is no reason why we should not try to go some way towards improving what is, by definition, a rather unsatisfactory state of affairs at the present time.
The two Amendments in the names of myself and my noble friends are designed to do two things. Amendment No. 4 seeks to get over the ambiguity of the ill-defined words "proper compensation ". I am assured that this expression has never been used in any Act except the 1938 Coal Act. We seek to make sure that Common Law principles of compensation are enshrined so that they are not eroded by Statute, exactly as my noble friend Lord Kinnoull mentioned. The second Amendment seeks to make it clear beyond argument that compensation will be payable not only in respect of the damage itself, but also for the consequential loss, whether it is short-term or on a more permanent basis. Other noble Lords may give examples of such situations arising; we have heard one or two already.
1102
I should like to remind noble Lords of the very statesmanlike comment made recently by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. He said that he would not stoop to criticise an Amendment on the ground that it was badly drafted when he was really disagreeing with the underlying principle. We have taken a lot of trouble to draft these Amendments—we have had a good deal of help, and I should like to thank those who have given us that help. It may he that these Amendments are still defective. If the noble Lord is prepared to accept the underlying principles, we should be only too delighted to get together with him or his Department to see whether we can produce Amendments which achieve the objectives we are all seeking in a way satisfactory to all parties.
7.5 p.m.
Lord BALOGH: I want to thank the noble Earl and the noble Lord for the conciliatory way in which they put forward a very complicated case. This Amendment is related to Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, and I shall now give the Government's view. We welcome very much the noble Lord's assurance that he wants to get the coal extracted. We are, after all, in a situation of extreme energy price crisis and obviously anything we can do to help the Coal Board to do its statutory duty is to be welcomed.
Before I go into details, I agree with the noble Lord, and not with my noble friends, about who should pay compensation. It seems to me the social cost of coal includes the cost of subsidence and damages; and, obviously, to give a coal subsidy on behalf of people who suffer as a result of the extraction of coal is not the right way of putting the burden, which the nation must, in any case, bear, where it should rest. It seems to me that social costs must be included in this extraction. Although one cannot do it with pollution and other damages, it should not lead us to adopt the wrong solution.
Having said that, I must confess that the two noble Lords who spoke before me more or less said all that I have in my brief, so it is easy for me to talk about this. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, said, the Government do not consider that this is a

1103
Bill in which the very complicated and complex question of reforming the law of compensation should be carried out. Because we are giving certain rights to the Coal Board—part of those rights it has possessed de facto, but only recently was the right of withdrawing lateral support challenged—therefore if there is no case law it means there are not serious damages which have not been properly compensated. The very fact that the noble Earl could say there was no case law means that under the 1938 Act people did not ask for compensation when the Coal Board withdrew lateral support not knowing that it had no right to do so. I think this very fact ought to still certain difficulties. In practical terms it is, except fortuitously, a physical impossibility to withdraw support from the land vertically and not disturb lateral land. The Coal Board has always carried out operations as if it had the right. It would never have been able to mine any coal had it not done so.
The latest concern is with the words of the Statutes. Doubts have been cast as to whether the words in paragraphs 5 and 6 in Schedule 1 to the 1938 Act meant what they were taken to mean. The sole purpose of Clause 2 is to clarify the doubts to make it clear that the Board does have the rights it had assumed it always had. The present proposals aim at clarifying the Board's mining rights. The basic provisions have been in operation since 1938 and are simply repeated in this Bill. In the meantime, there have been the 1950 and the 1957 Acts. May I remind the noble Lord that the 1938 Act was one of a number of Tory nationalisation Bills. It nationalised mineral rights just as petroleum mineral rights were nationalised in the 1934 Tory Act. Therefore, on the whole, I do not think I commit a sin against my partisanship if I accept that.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I wonder whether the noble Lord would allow me to interrupt for a moment? He said that this Bill adopts what was in the 1938 Act. What I must suggest to the noble Lord is that this Bill does not adopt the provisions of the 1938 Act, because it says in Clause 2(4)(a): "pay proper compensation for the damage ". Perhaps the noble Lord would refer to page 3 of the Bill? I also have a copy of the 1938
1104
Act with me, and if the noble Lard will refer to that Act he will see that in Schedule 2, at paragraph 6(1)(a), it says:
" to pay proper compensation for damage arising from such working to that land;"
Those are the words in dispute.
Lord BALOGH: Unlike the noble Earl, I do not have a copy of the Bill, but I am assured on the highest legal authority that the wording of the Bill covers the same object. I will certainly look into this. We have, after all, time to investigate further and I can promise the noble Earl that those who have not supplied me with a copy of the 1938 Act will tell me in what way the point is covered. Against the background of this legislation, the Board exercises a good deal of discretion. It is their declared policy to do everything possible to avoid individual hadship. If noble Lords know of any case of individual hardship and will pass the details to the Department, we shall certainly ask the Board to investigate.
It will be within the knowledge of some of your Lordships that the Board have reached full agreement with the National Farmers' Union about compensation and co-operation relating to farmers in the Selby area, since this area may he particularly affected by such provisions. Moreover, the values of land liable to mining subsidence naturally reflect that fact, and also the relevant compensation provisions and current practices. Therefore, industrialists and local authorities who may need to incur additional expense in one way or another because of mining subsidence have the compensating satisfaction that they are likely to be able to farm the land at lower values.
The present compensation arrangements have been in operation for 18 years and the worst problems have been covered in one way or another. The Coal Board will do everything possible to minimise any hardship on the part of a large organisation if people suffer from disadvantages. Nobody would argue that the present compensation arrangements are perfect. We have an Interdepartmental Working Party, about which the noble Lord has asked. This has not been instructed to look into the working of the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Act, but it is to review the whole question of compensation for mining subsidence damage, root and branch.
The Earl of KINNOULL: Including the 1938 Act?
Lord BALOGH: Most certainly. It is not limited at all to the 1957 Act; it is dealing with compensation in general. The other point I want to make—and I think this may influence noble Lords opposite—is that the Working Party has not concluded its job. We thought it was concluded in the autumn, but in the meantime this Bill went through another place and several questions raised there have had to be taken into account. Therefore, I can assure your Lordships that the Working Party will consider seriously and carefully what has been said here. They will adopt whatever course they think necessary, in which case we shall be able to discuss the matter further. Of course, it is highly desirable that this should be so, and when Ministers have had time to study the conclusions a full statement will be made. So I would ask noble Lords opposite, repeating my own words, to have a little patience in this matter. If we were to have sonic kind of Heath Robinson arrangement without the benefit of the legal advice which cannot be made available in such a short time, we might not advance the cause of the just compensation which, in our hearts, we all wish to achieve.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My fears regarding my own Amendment, which I know is defective—
Lord BALOGH: As the noble Earl noticed, I did not refer to that.
The Earl of KINNOULL: The noble Lord did not stoop to that. I am grateful for his sympathetic consideration of this matter. My main burden, as I have already said, was to see that the compensation provisions of the 1938 Act were re-embodied in the Bill. The noble Lord has said the Government intend to do that, in which case there is really nothing between us. I hope the noble Lord will look at the Bill again, because I am assured that there is a difference as at present drafted. Perhaps I might also ask the noble Lord to re-check the position of the Working Party because, according to advice given to me on good authority by a member of the Working Party, it was intended only to review the 1957 Act.
Lord BALOGH: I can assure the noble Earl that that is not so.
The Earl of KINNOULL: Of course I accept that assurance entirely. It would appear that the noble Lord is asking us to wait for the Report of the Working Party, and I personally shall be perfectly satisfied to do that, so long as we make quite certain that we embody in this Bill the compensation entitlements for those suffering from land subsidence that exist in the 1938 Act. I do not know what attitude my noble friend will take on his Amendment, but I know it has been drafted carefully and that he has taken advice on it. If he feels that his Amendment should stand, there will be no damage to the Bill. It would simply mean writing in very clearly what the rights are.
On the fact that there has been no case law, I am not quite sure that I entirely followed the whole of the noble Lord's argument but would venture to say that, knowing the cost of case law and understanding the skill of valuers, how they work and give and take with one another, I can well understand why there is no case law. Nevertheless, it is very unsatisfactory when one hears that members of the valuers' profession say that they do not know precisely what the 1938 Act means but interpret it as covering consequential damage. I am happy to beg leave to withdraw my Amendment, and also Amendments Nos. 5 and 6. But I shall also await with interest what my noble friend says about his Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.19 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, leave out line 20 and insert—
("(a) pay full and proper compensation for the damage including such consequential loss as would be recoverable in a common law action for damages in respect of that withdrawal, or ").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 4 and shall not make any further general remarks, beyond saying that it seems clear there is at least a case for looking at what the noble Lord has said. It seems to me we are basically in the situation of being asked to accept assurances from the Government and the Coal Board. As a general observation,

1107
this is never a totally satisfactory state of affairs, however much we may trust the people with whom we are dealing in the Government or, indeed, in the Coal Board. Both of these groups of individuals can change, and I think the noble Lord would agree that it is not a very satisfactory legal situation that the rights of groups of people and individuals should have to rely upon assurances, even if they are given in the Houses of Parliament by Ministers or by the good will of the Coal Board.
I believe that one or two of my noble friends would like to make contributions. I am sure they will be greatly heartened to know that these will be taken into consideration by the Working Party. I think our proper course is to urge the Government to give most careful thought to these Amendments, and to say that we shall be looking at what they have said about them and will consider whether it is necessary for us to move similar Amendments or redrafted Amendments at a later stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
7.22 p.m.
Lord MIDDLETON: May I speak also to Amendment No. 7 at the same time as No. 4 because they run together? The purpose of Amendments Nos. 4 and 7 is to improve the wording from paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 2 to the Coal Act 1938, as my noble friend Lord Kinnoull has told us. The wording has been lifted out of that Act and written into Clause 2(4) of the Bill in paragraphs (a) and (b). The word "proper" as a measure of compensation, as my noble friend Lord Strathcona has said, appears in the 1930 Act only and nowhere else in law. There is a great deal of doubt as to what "proper compensation" is. This was argued at length in Committee in another place in March. Payment for damage to property as a result of coal mining can be perfectly proper without adequately and fully restoring what has been lost and the consequential damage that may persist for some time. The term "full compensation" comes from the Public Health Act 1875 and has been in use for 100 years. So this Amendment proposes the insertion of the words "full and proper compensation for the damage ". In order to make quite clear what is meant by "full and proper com
1108
pensation" the words defining "consequential loss" are added.
The other objection to the wording of the 1938 Act which appears in Clause 4 is that subsection (4)(b), which provides for making good damage by the Coal Board, is an alternative to paragraph (a); so actual physical damage to structures or to drainage works, for example, can be made good to the reasonable satisfaction of the injured person but without, it would seem, compensation for consequential loss. So if, for example, a farmer opts for remedy (b) he can get his land drains relaid free by the Coal Board, but under this Bill there is no obligation on the Board to compensate for crops lost or for damage—perhaps temporary, perhaps permanent—to the land resulting from flooding. It has been made clear from the Coal Board's proposals as to the method of working the seams at Selby that such flooding could persist for as long as 10 years while the 11-foot thick strips are being taken in succession from under a farm. Similarly, a manufacturer could get damage to plant and machinery restored under paragraph (b) without any compensation for, for instance, having to lay off labour while the repair was being done. Hence the proposed addition to the end of subsection (4)(b) in Amendment No. 7. The Opencast Coal Act 1958 gave a more satisfactory basis for compensation than the Coal Act basis we are now criticising. One of the purposes of this Bill is to give additional compensation to farmers whose land is subject to opencast mining, and Clause 6 of this Bill makes such provision. It seems anomalous that under this Bill as it stands a farmer is treated much better if his land is damaged by surface mining than if it is damaged by under-mining.
May I refer briefly to the arguments the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, put forward just now. May I refer to the fact that he said—it was said also by the Under-Secretary of State in another place—that this Bill is not a proper vehicle to make changes in compensation provisions. My noble friend Lord Strathcona referred to this point. The Bill contains new compensation provisions for pneumoconiosis and for opencast mining, and I hope that the Government will consider whether they cannot improve the 1938 wording and give us some assurance that they may

1109
be able to do so. The other argument which I think was stated in another place was that compensation is mainly dealt with under the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957. That may be so, but under that Act the Board is not obliged to pay compensation for consequential loss and the Board's liabilities are strictly limited under that Act. I hope that the Working Party will produce some useful recommendations soon. I feel that although we ought to be patient, as Lord Balogh has said, we can expect some delay before any recommendations are produced, and therefore I would ask the Government to consider whether an Amendment of the kind which is being moved could not be implemented for the time being until a careful working out of the implications of compensation has been done.
Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, referred to the way in which the Coal Board operates under existing provisions and he quoted communications with the National Farmers' Unions among other interested parties concerned with Selby. They expressed the present good intentions of the Board. The Coal Board claim that in the past there has been no trouble about agreeing upon what should be proper compensation. That may well be so, but the Board is about to embark on one of the most important coal mining ventures ever undertaken and this will take place under 110 square miles of Yorkshire. The intentions of the Coal Board, which are on record, with regard to compensation for the consequent letdown of the land over this huge area are admirable. But it would surely help the National Coal Board, the valuers and the arbitrators who will have to assess the inevitable surface damage to have clear statutory reference as to compensation payable, and this must include making good consequential loss. I fully believe that the Board's officials now serving intend to compensate amply. But present good intentions are not enough. We have a new coalfield about to be opened which will be of the greatest benefit to the nation. Above the coal are industries, and one in particular, agriculture, which will be in production long after the last seams at Selby are exhausted. We must ensure that the damage to these industries as a result of extracting the 600 million tons of coal is minimised.
Lord BALOGH: May I answer one question concerning Amendment No. 7. The proposed wording appears to be providing for the same thing twice over. It seeks restoration in a clause which already demands restoration and at the same time requires payment for damage.
Lord MIDDLETON: As I read subsection (4)(b), the Coal Board can compensate for damage to the reasonable satisfaction of the person who is damaged, but there is absolutely no provision for consequential loss. If he is a farmer, for instance, they can physically make the drains right, but they cannot compensate him for the loss of crops.
Lord BALOGH: I apologise for having expressed myself badly. If the Amendment is carried, with the consent of the owner the land or buildings have to be repaired. At the same time, where appropriate, the compensation which is set out in this subsection is payable. At first blush, it appears first that the Board has to restore the damage and then to pay for the damage—that is to say, to pay twice over. The Government want to know whether this can be looked at again.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: The situation is that you do some damage and put it right, but that is not quite enough because the man could have been out of production for three years and he may have had to pay compensation for the labour that he had to lay off during that time. Even though you have put right the physical damage, consequential loss could have been incurred by the person concerned, and it is that which we are trying to cover in Amendment No. 7. I have already said that we are prepared to withdraw Amendment No. 4 in order that all of us may have another look at it to see whether it needs to be returned to at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.32 p.m.
Viscount LONG Viscount LONG moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, leave out lines 26 to 28, and insert (" and the damage shall include damage to land and to anything lawfully on that land whenever constructed or brought thereon.").
The noble Viscount said: In moving this Amendment, once again we appear to be dealing with compensation matters.

1111
Many views on compensation have been expressed during this Committee stage. We have discussed compensation on buildings, on factories, et cetera. However, in this Amendment we are seeking to enlarge the basis of compensation. If the National Coal Board pays compensation for damage done to a building, we believe that there should also be compensation for other items. If, for instance, one's factory, farmhouse or building is put out of action, we believe that compensation should also be paid for the machinery one is using—let us say, a tractor or a similar machine—which is put out of action. One cannot make any further use of it, and probably one is losing money at the same time. In this Amendment we are seeking to achieve compensation for all things that go on and which are damaged on or around that land. I beg to move.
Lord BALOGH: May I repeat that all of these Amendments deal with the problem of compensation for mining subsidence. This Amendment has the disadvantage of introducing a substantial measure of uncertainty about the liabilities of the Board. How one proves that the consequential damage has been caused by subsidence and not by other factors is something which is very difficult to define. As it is now phrased, the wording of this Amendment would hamper the Board in its work, because it introduces total uncertainty about its liabilities. Again, therefore, I should like to ask the noble Viscount and the noble Baroness to withdraw this Amendment. The Government will have another look at it, and then perhaps we may discuss it before the next stage of this Bill.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: I apologise for the fact that a long-standing engagement prevented me from getting to the House in time to participate in the Second Reading of the Coal Industry Bill. However, I have read the Report of the Second Reading debate in this House, and the Reports of all the proceedings in the other place. Like my colleagues, I welcome the provisions of the Bill, particularly those in respect of the compensation to be paid to sufferers from pneumoconiosis. I am well aware that some eyebrows may be raised at the fact that I should have plunged into a Bill dealing with this subject. However, for just over a year I
1112
was a candidate for Aldridge, Brownhills, and on my first tour I was plunged into the problems of subsidence. Indeed, it is as a result of some of those former colleagues thinking that they might have found a voice in your Lordships' Chamber, that representations were made to me to raise issues on the question of compensation about which there is a very real concern.
A moment or so ago the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, said that it is very important that the Coal Board should know the extent of their liabilities and be sure that anything they are called upon to pay should be as a result of subsidence. However, there is equal concern among the urban, the industrial and the farming communities that this Bill takes away areas of compensation which have applied hitherto and which, under the Robens agreement, have operated very fairly. There was hard bargaining as to the extent of the sums to be paid, but at least people knew the basis upon which that compensation would be paid.
I must confess that we are being asked to take a great deal on trust. We were told that a committee would look into the question of compensation, and that committee was set up in 1971. I was amazed to hear the noble Lord say that it is to report shortly, because when I made inquiries last week I was told that it had been "definalised"—whatever that horrible word means! However, after the noble Lord's comment this afternoon, I assume it means that they were ready to report but because of this Bill they decided they had better look at it again. So, having been finalised, they "definalised" the report and they are coming back with it later—nobody knows when. People who have been affected and who, indeed, have considered the Coal Board's attitude to be helpful, are deeply concerned when they see wiped out so many of the bases upon which they were previously due for compensation.
The purpose of these Amendments is to ensure that any undertaking given by the Board prior to the Bill—such as the Robens agreement which was an agreement not covered by Statute and in that sense not legally binding—will be honoured. We are anxious to be assured that there will not be an occasion when

1113
somebody will say, "Oh, the law is the law. It is not in this Act. Therefore, thee agreements which welt made between the Coal Board and various undertakings, such as county councils, areas and individual industrial undertakings, no longer apply ". I am perfectly certain that noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite have seen the joint representations which were made by the City of Coventry, in conjunction with the Chamber of Commerce and the Coventry Engineering Employers' Association. It was a joint approach about the urban housing in a very densely populated area, with the immense amount of capital investment—hundreds, possibly thousands, of firms in that conurbation and the enormous amount of employment provided. There is an agreement in existence, and this is why I wish to place these facts on the record, although apologise for keeping your Lordships to so late an hour. flowever, it is important that we should be clear about the present position, and state what we fear will be the position if this Bill passes as it is now drafted.
Under the agreement of 1968, the immense value of the Coventry complex was realised, and no one needs me to point out, with the vast capital going into the car industry, how absolutely vital and important is this complex. Here I must say that there are a couple of hundred factories, including Courtaulds (who employ me) in Coventry, but Courtaulds is not to be compared with the motor car complex, which was the main reason for the 1968 agreement. But what worries us is the taking away of lateral support. At the moment, I believe that coalmining is to a depth of 1,500 feet below Coventry and lateral support gives a 32 degree angle from that. That is a great deal of land on which there are factories and houses and homes, which, on a strict reading of this Bill as it is, will no longer be entitled to the compensation which they had under the Robens agreement.
The Bill says that agreements binding on the Board will continue to be upheld, but the Robens agreement is not really an agreement in law as this House understands it, and since coal is so valuable a commodity it could be that at a future time the Government, or the Board, would reject it. We want to be sure that the Government are willing to uphold
1114
these agreements and to spell them out in some form in the Bill so that people may be reassured. Subsidence can put at risk not merely what results from physical damage; it can put at risk millions of pounds worth of domestic property, industrial property and plants, and if these are damaged employment is at risk.
Not long ago we passed in this House the Health and Safety at Work Act. Cracked pipes through some heating process, flooding that might appear dangerous or a cracked wall, could make it obligatory on employers to lay off their work force until repairs were undertaken, and interested people in Staffordshire and Coventry have represented to me that they are not happy with this Bill. Would it, for example, compensate them for shoring up, and if their work force had to be stood off? It need not be 500 people on a factory floor, because we saw only a few weeks ago how one component factory could put a whole industry like the car industry out of work, and that might occur as a result of damage from subsidence in one factory.
Therefore, we welcome the Bill for what it seeks to do, but we want much firmer assurances from the Government that in supporting this Bill we would not be losing those very necessary safeguards on which industry and local authorities, with their housing estates, have in the past been able to rely. They are perturbed and until we have the terms of compensation from this long-sitting Working Party I am afraid that those perturbations will continue.
Lord BALOGH: I think the noble Baroness is under a certain misapprehension. If I am not right, I apologise in advance. She says that people cannot rely on something on which they have relied before. I think she is not quite right, because they could not legally have relied on the Robens agreement. That was not a binding agreement, but it was taken by the Board to be a binding agreement and it was confirmed by the Board at all times.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: Certainly.
Lord BALOGH: So that it is not really right to think of the present Bill as being derogatory of existing rights. I would ask the noble Baroness and the

1115
noble Viscount who tabled this Amendment to have a little patience, because this is one of the questions on which the Working Party is deciding. The situation is not changed by this Bill. In my opinion, nothing in either the 1938 Act or the 1957 Act has been revoked. What has happened is that additional assurances about compensation for additional losses have been put off. They have not been at all reduced—they have just been put off so that, if necessary, we can bring in a satisfactory general measure to deal with compensation. I hope the noble Baroness will realise that nobody is taking anything away from anybody; I can assure her of that. The problem is that, perhaps, we do not give certain additional things, which we may or may not think right, in the way in which perhaps the noble Baroness wishes to see them given.
Viscount LONG: I should like to thank the noble Lord for giving us a very good hearing, and my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith for covering the Amendment so ably. As I understood from the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, that he is interested in having another look at this clause I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.49 p.m.
Viscount LONG Viscount LONG moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 4, leave out line 23, and insert—
(" (a) any agreement or arrangement binding on or affecting the Board immediately before ")
The noble Viscount said: I come now to another part of my speech on Second Reading when I questioned the Government on the Roberts agreement, that under the new Bill there was no undertaking that the Robens agreement would be upheld. I think this was a general worry on the part of the industrialists, and especially in Coventry where they had known this agreement so well. We had the suspicion too that the National Coal Board could well have been hiding behind this new Bill and any other legislation, or the Robens agreement might not be used at all. So we are really raising this point to expose the Bill and to see what we can do with it.
The Robens agreement as applying to Coventry, for example, worked practically and satisfactorily, and it really is not clear that such agreements of an
1116
informal kind will be upheld in future. This is the other suspicion that lies behind the tabling of this Amendment. Perhaps the noble Lord could give us an assurance that the Robens agreement will not be "chucked out of the window ", if I may say so, but will continue to be of use for years to come in order to help industrialists. It struck me that we were given an assurance by the noble Lord that this agreement would apply only to certain areas. We feel it would be a good idea if the agreement could apply not just to some areas, but that it might cover all those areas where it was needed. It would be a great tragedy to drop it altogether, as it has been working so successfully. Can the noble Lord assure me that this agreement will continue?
Lord BALOGH: As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, when she raised the matter of this agreement in connection with the previous Amendment, there is absolutely no danger of the Robens agreement being infringed. In any case, if there were any possibility of that, much compensation would be payable, and nobody would be so foolish as to proceed in that way. To extend this kind of agreement over the whole country is a matter very dear to my heart, because one of the greatest coal deposits ever discovered in this country is under Oxford. Obviously, some kind of agreement will have to be reached with Oxford. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Robens, although he has not been to Oxford, is as good an Oxford man, perhaps better, as any of those who have spent a considerable part of their life in Oxford.
But to extend a legally binding force on privately arranged general agreements, understandings, assurances and so on in our opinion would be far too wholesale. This does not mean, and it has not meant in the eight years that the Robens agreement has been in force, that the Board has diverged one iota from that agreement which, as the noble Baroness said, was not legally binding and therefore one could not have sued. It seems to us that this sort of assurance is a better form of protection than making informal arrangements which are sometimes difficult to embody in legal form, and therefore cover a very much wider area than can be covered in very strict legal instruments. I do not think these should have statutory backing. A great many constituencies

1117
would he in grave danger if any Government did anything of that sort in a populous area, or even in an area of scenic beauty of which there are many to protect in this country.
Viscount LONG: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, for his answer. However, I find it rather tragic that we cannot extend the Robens agreement throughout the country. I am sorry if it is found to be too wholesale, as he said. Nevertheless, as long as the agreement will be upheld, especially in places like Coventry, then I am pleased. I was amazed to think that Oxford has a coalmine underneath it. I have often wondered why the Oxford people were always so warm and comfortable, studying their economics and so on. I have had an assurance from the noble Lord with regard to the Robens agreement. It seems to me that the Government and the National Coal Board will continue to recognise the agreement, so I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount LONG Viscount LONG moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 5, line 21 at end insert—
(" ( ) Where a notice under this section has been published any person who incurs expense in taking protective measures with a view to minimising the effect of any damage which may he incurred by reason of the withdrawal to which the notice relates may claim from the Board the expenses reasonably and properly so incurred by him and any such claim shall be deemed to be a claim made under sub-section (4) of this section.")
The noble Viscount said: With this Amendment we are seeking to protect the National Coal Board. We feel that unless this Amendment is added to the Bill, the National Coal Board could find itself in quite a lot of trouble financially. We wish to minimise the expense which the National Coal Board will have to bear if precautionary measures are not taken by the people who can take them, when they suddenly find they have a mine underneath them. If these measures are not taken, many millions of pounds could possibly be paid out by the National Coal Board. Perhaps the noble Lord could enlarge on this. Not only does the National Coal Board need protection when a mine is opened or is being worked, but people need protection, too. Sometimes people can play very funny
1118
tricks which may cost the National Coal Board a lot of money; so I hope the noble Lord can enlighten me on the point raised in the Amendment, which I now beg to move.
Lord BALOGH: This is one of the Amendments which the Working Party has under consideration. The problem here is that there is no simple answer. The Amendment would make a substantial change in the present position. On the whole, it would be inadvisable to do that, as it will make things even more difficult. Far from protecting the Board, the Amendment might work to the contrary, because who takes the precautionary measures, which way, and at what cost in advance of any danger is extremely difficult to determine. I would again appeal to the noble Viscount, Lord Long, to leave the matter until we have seen the Report of the Working Party, which is very active on this particular question.
Viscount LONG: Did I understand the noble Lord to say that a Working Party was looking into this?
Lord BALOGH: Yes, that is right.
Viscount LONG: In that case, as soon as it has finished work we shall be delighted to read the Report. This is a complicated subject. I fully realise the difficulty, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Right of Board to work coal in former copyhold land]:
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS Lord LOVELL-DAVIS moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 6, line 16, leave out from (" pay ") to (" compensation") in line 17.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 12. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I add that this is related to Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 and No. 22 on the new Schedule, which I shall move formally. This list of Amendments to Clause 3 and the apparently formidable new Schedule have the sole purpose of setting out a procedure for dealing with

1119
notices of retained interest and the payment for compensation and for the settlement of disputes.
This has been occasioned by the decision made in an attempt to meet the wishes of the Opposition in another place to provide that compensation to owners of retained interests shall be paid at the time when the National Coal Board begin to exercise their rights to mine the coal in which those interests lay rather than when they gave notice of their intention to do so, as was provided in the original draft of the Bill. There may be a substantial lapse of time between these two events,and closer study of the way in which the revised arrangement could operate in practice has suggested that great difficulties might arise if the amended clause was left as it is at present; for example, in a case where land in which retained interests reside was sold off, possibly to a multiplicity of new owners, before the Board began to work the coal lying underneath it. The procedure is set out in the new Schedule. The Amendments to Clause 3 are mostly consequential to this, in that they revise the clause in order to make it compatible with the new procedure. I think it is sensible therefore to explain the new Schedule first and deal with the Amendments to the clause afterwards. With your Lordships' permission I will take this course.
Turning to the new Schedule, paragraph 1 is introductory. Paragraph 2 provides for the Board formally to accept or reject a claim in respect of a retained interest within three months or such longer period as may be agreed. Paragraph 3 requires the Board to pay the legal expenses incurred in establishing a claim as soon as is practicable, since it may be a long time before the compensation itself becomes payable. Paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 deal with cases where more than one persons claims to have a retained interest in a piece of land. The principle is that once a claim is accepted it becomes a thing of value in its own right and does not pass automatically with the land if it is sold. This is fair, since the buyer of the land will be aware of the fact and the price may be adjusted accordingly. Paragraph 4 provides that once the Board has accepted a claim it can reject any subsequent ones,
1120
for example by a new owner if the land is sold. Paragraph 5 lays down the procedure for the settlement of disputes by application to the county Court. Paragraph 6 specifies that the person to whom the compensation is payable is the person whose claim is accepted, not necessarily the owner of the land when compensation becomes due. Paragraph 7 specifies that payment of compensation by the Board on production of the notice accepting the claim will discharge its liability. Paragraph 8 enables the Board to discharge its liability by making a payment in advance and in lieu of compensation by agreement with the person who has the right to receive compensation. Paragraph 9 prohibits the Board from acquiring a retained interest by agreement once it has issued an acceptance notice in respect of that retained interest. This is to prevent it paying twice over for the same thing. Paragraph 10 relates to the keeping of records, and paragraph 11 applies some procedural provisions from the Coal Act 1938.
As I have said, the Amendments to Clause 3 are consequential on the new Schedule. Amendment No. 12 removes some words no longer appropriate under the new procedure. Amendment No. 13 introduces the new Schedule itself. Amendment No. 14 revises the reference to the person who receives the compensation to make it compatible with the new procedure. Amendment No. 15 restricts the expenses payable in relation to the compensation to those incurred in valuing the retained interest, which is clone at the time compensation becomes payable. Under the new procedure costs of establishing the claim are paid when that is done, which is likely to be at a much earlier date. Amendment No. 16 makes it clear that the Board can continue to acquire retained interest by agreement if they wish. Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 make subsections (8) and (9) of the clause apply to the new Schedule. I beg to move Amendment No. 12.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Alport): With your Lordships' agreement, I will take it that Amendments Nos. 13 to 18 are moved formally en bloc.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 13 to 18.
Amendments moved—
Page 6, line 25, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
(" (5) Schedule (Retained interests: notices and compensation) to this Act shall have effect for supplementing the provisions of this section.")
Page 6, line 37, leave out (" the owner of a retained interest ") and insert (" any person ")
Page 6, line 39, leave out from (" reasonable ") to end of line 43 and insert ("valuation expenses incurred by him for the purpose of ascertaining the value, at the date referred to in subsection (4) above, of the retained interest to which the compensation relates ")
Page 6, line 46, at end insert—
(" ( ) Subject to paragraph 9 of Schedule (Retained interests: notices and compensation) to this Act, the service of a notice under subsection (2) above shall not prevent the Board from acquiring by agreement any retained interest in coal or a mine of coal comprised in or lying under land in the area to which the notice relates.")
Page 7, line 14, after (" section ") insert (" and Schedule (Retained interests: notices and compensation) to this Act ")
Page 7, line 22, after (" section ") insert (" and Schedule (Retained interests: notices and compensation) to this Act ").—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Supplementary provisions relating to right to withdraw support]:
8.4 p.m.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS Lord LOVELL-DAVIS moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 16, line 6, leave out ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 19. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I say that this Amendment is related to Amendment Nos. 20 and 21, which I shall move formally. These are technical Amendments which seek, in disputes between the National Coal Board and other parties as to whether or not there exists a liability in a particular case from an arbitrator, as in the present draft of the Bill, to transfer jurisdiction to the Lands Tribunal or the Lands Tribunal for Scotland. This would be more in accord with modern practice. The Lands Tribunal has great expertise in these matters. To go outside them would only mean not to employ and make full use of the Tribunal. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: I beg to move Amendment No. 20.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 7, leave ouf from (" provision ") to (" as ") in line 9 and insert (" or ").—(Lord Lovell-Davis).
one Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: I beg to move Amendment No. 21.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 15, leave out from (" obligation ") to (" Any ") in line 16 and insert (" and ").—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: I beg to move Amendment No. 22.
Amendment moved—
After Schedule 1 insert the following new schedule—

SCHEDULE

  RETAINED INTERESTS: NOTICES AND COMPENSATION
  1. The provisions of this Schedule apply where a person (in this Schedule referred to as "the claimant ") gives to the Board notice of a retained interest as mentioned in section 3(3)(b) of this Act (in this Schedule referred to as a "retained interest notice ").
  2.—(1) Together with a retained interest notice given by him to the Board the claimant shall furnish to the Board adequate proof of his title to the interest at the time the notice is given.
  (2) Within the period of three months beginning on the date on which the Board receive a retained interest notice or within such longer period as may be agreed between the Board and the claimant the Board shall serve on the claimant either—

  (a) a notice in the prescribed form accepting his title to the retained interest and acknowledging the obligation of the Board to pay compensation in respect of it under section 3 of this Act; or

  (b) a notice rejecting the claimant's retained interest notice;

  and in this Schedule a notice under paragraph (a) above is referred to as an "acceptance notice" and a notice under paragraph (b) above is referred to as a "rejection notice ".
  (3) A rejection notice shall specify the ground or grounds on which the Board reject the claimant's retained interest notice.
  3. Subject to paragraph 5 below, as soon as practicable after the Board have served an acceptance notice on a claimant, the Board shall pay to the claimant any reasonable legal expenses incurred by him for the purposes of

  (a) establishing his ownership of the retained interest to which the acceptance notice relates; and

  1123

  (b) giving the retained interest notice by virtue of which the acceptance notice came to be served.

  4. Subject to paragraph 5 below, where, after the receipt of a retained interest notice, the Board have served an acceptance notice in respect of the retained interest concerned. the service of that acceptance notice shall be a valid ground for the service of a rejection notice in respect of any other retained interest notice received by the Board after the first-mentioned notice and relating to any of the land in which subsists the retained interest in respect of which the acceptance notice was served.
  5.—(1) A claimant who—

  (a) has served a retained interest notice relating to any land (in this paragraph refer, red to as the relevant land"), and

  (b) is aggrieved by the service on him of a rejection notice relating to his retained interest notice, other than a rejection notice served pursuant to an order under this paragraph,

  may, within the period of 3 months beginning on the date of service of the rejection notice make an application to the county court for an order directing the Board to withdraw the rejection notice and to serve an acceptance notice in respect of the retained interest which he claims.
  (2) On an application under this paragraph. the court may direct that, in addition to the applicant and the Board, any other person who has given a retained interest notice relating to the whole or part of any of the relevant land shall be made a party to the application unless—

  (a) the Board have already served a rejection notice in respect of that person's retained interest notice; and

  (b) the time within which he might have made an application under this paragraph in respect of that rejection notice has expired without such an application having been made.

  (3) On an application under this paragraph the court shall determine whether—

  (a) the applicant, or

  (b) any other party to the application who contests the applicant's claim, or

  (c) any other person (whether a party to the application or not) on whom the Board have served an acceptance notice relating to the whole or any part of the relevant land,

  was at the time he gave his retained interest notice entitled to a retained interest in the whole or any part of the relevant land and shall order the Board (so far as they have not aready done so) to serve an acceptance notice on that person or, if more than one of them were so entitled to a retained interest in the same piece of land, on that one of them whose retained interest notice was given first.
  (4) An order under sub-paragraph (3) above may contain such provisions as the court consider appropriate to secure—
  1124

  (a) that a rejection notice is or has been served on every party to the application (other than the Board) on whom an acceptance notice is not ordered to be or has not been served; and

  (b) that, where it appears to the court that an acceptance notice has been served which should not have been served, that notice is cancelled and that the Board bring the cancellation to the notice of the person who, if the notice had not been cancelled, would for the time being have been entitled to receive compensation under section 3(4) of this Act in respect of the interest to which the acceptance notice related.

  (5) If, in accordance with sub-paragraph (4) above, the court orders the cancellation of an acceptance notice, it shall be conclusively presumed for the purposes of section 3 of this Act and of the provisions of this Schedule other than this paragraph—

  (a) that the person on whom the acceptance notice was served did not have a retained interest in the relevant land at the time he served his retained interest notice; and

  (b) that the Board served a rejection notice in respect of that retained interest notice.

  (6) Nothing in paragraph 3 above shall affect the power of the court on an application under this paragraph (or in any subsequent proceedings) to make such order as to costs as it thinks fit; and any such order may make such modifications, if any, of the Board's obligation under paragraph 3 above as appear to the court to be just in the light of the other provisions as to costs contained in the order.
  6. The person having the right to receive compensation under section 3(4) of this Act in respect of a retained interest to which an acceptance notice relates shall be the person on whom that notice was served, notwithstanding that he may not own the retained interest at the time when the compensation becomes payable and, accordingly, that right shall devolve on his death and may be assigned in like manner as the right of a creditor under an unsecured debt.
  7. Notwithstanding anything in paragraph 6 above, if, at the time at which compensation becomes payable in respect of a retained interest, the Board pay compensation in good faith to the person who produces the acceptance notice relating to that interest, the surrender of that notice to the Board by way of receipt for the compensation shall constitute an adequate discharge to the Board of their liability to pay that compensation, without any further proof that the person producing the acceptance notice is entitled in accordance with paragraph 6 above to receive the compensation.
  8. If at any time—

  (a) after the Board have served an acceptance notice in respect of a retained interest, and

  (b) before the date on which compensation becomes payable in respect of that interest,

  1125
  the Board enter into an agreement in that behalf with the person who for the time being has the right to receive any such compensation, then, on payment to that person of such consideration as may be agreed, the Board shall be relieved of any contingent liability under subsection (4) or subsection (6) of section 3 of this Act in respect of that retained interest; and where any such agreement is entered into, paragraph 7 above shall apply in relation to the payment of the consideration agreed as it applies in relation to a payment of compensation at the time referred to in that paragraph.

  9. Without prejudice to paragraph 8 above, at any time after the Board have served an acceptance notice in respect of a retained interest, they shall cease to be entitled to acquire by agreement that interest or any other retained interest in coal or a mine of coal comprised in or lying under any of the land in which subsists the retained interest to which the acceptance notice relates.
  10.—(1) The Board shall keep, at such places as may be prescribed, a record of—

  (a) all retained interest notices given to the Board and all acceptance notices and rejection notices served by them, and

  (b) all sums paid by way of compensation under section 3(4) of this Act,

  and that record shall contain a description of the land in which subsists the retained interest for in the case of a rejection notice, the claimed retained interest) to which each such notice or payment relates sufficient to enable the land to be identified.
  (2) The record kept under this paragraph shall he open to public inspection at all reasonable hours, and different places may be prescribed for the keeping of the record relating to retained interests in different areas.
  11. Section 55 of the Coal Act 1938 (service of notices, etc.) shall have effect as if the provisions of his Schedule were included in that Act.").—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 2 agreed to.
  Schedule 3 [Suspension of public rights of way; Amendments of Schedule 1 to Opencast Coal Act 1958]
  8.8 p.m.
  Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY moved Amendment No. 23:
  Page 20, line 12, leave out (" or district") and insert (" district, parish or community ").
  The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to add district, parish and community councils to the list of those councils who can, by lodging a formal objection, force a public inquiry into the proposed suspension of a public right of way. This Amendment would in fact bring the National Coal Board into line with all others of any standing who
  1126
  wish to impair rights of way, for whatever good reason, under the Highways Act 1959, where any local council by lodging an objection can automatically cause a public inquiry to be held. My main object in raising this Amendment is that I see no reason why the Coal Board. however good it is in practice, should be treated differently under the law in this matter. I am well aware that it was treated differently under the last law dealing with this particular matter, but I think it is right that it should be brought into line with the building industry or any of the other people who are from time to time forced to ask for closures of rights of way.
  I will not go into the theoretical motivations behind this Amendment, because I know your Lordships would agree with them. This is no time to be lessening the protection of the environment. It is no time to be lessening local democracy and the effect that people have over their own lives where they live. I know noble Lords on all sides of the Committee would agree with that. If anything, we want to be increasing our protection of the environment, and increasing the power of small bodies to control what happens in their areas. When the noble Lord comes to answer, may I just say in advance that I do not think it is sufficient to say that the National Coal Board always behaves extremely well, and that the Minister always pays great attention to the objections of small local councils. I am sure that both of these are accurate statements, but it seems to me that we must establish rights before the law, and that proper reasons should be given why this Amendment, even if it may be said to be unnecessary, would in some way be a bad thing. I believe that there certainly ought to be a statutory right to a local inquiry. Therefore, I beg to move the Amendment.
  Viscount LONG: Before the noble Lord replies, may I just say that I agree with the noble Lord's Amendment. There is a feeling about that when these footpaths are destroyed no plans are ever made. Plans ought to be made of these footpaths, and that goes also for tunnels, mines, and so on, so that people may know what is happening. To deposit them with the parish councils or the county councils is a safe measure and it

  1127
  is a good place to put them; otherwise how are people going to know in the future where these mines or footpaths were? I think that the noble Lord's Amendment is quite a good one if it is not going to cost the National Coal Board or the Government a great deal.
  8.11 p.m.
  Lord BALOGH: This is an extremely important Amendment, and despite the late hour I think that I ought to reply somewhat in detail, with the permission of the Committee. Under the existing procedure for the suspension of footpaths there is the anomaly that any objector, no matter how remote or flimsy his interest, can force a public inquiry. There is the much more important matter of authorising the site of opencast working to which only district and county councils can make objections. That is to say, the Amendment would now introduce a procedure whereby opencast working could be authorised against the wishes of the parish council, but a footpath could not be diverted without the approval of the parish council.
  It is true that the present procedure has not resulted in a great number of inquiries, again a proof that on the whole the Coal Board has behaved decently. The significant new factor is that the Coal Board would have formally to notify parish councils to close a footpath. These formal notifications would thus be put on the agenda of the parish council, and since no one is likely to be in favour of an opencast mine in his neighbourhood obviously there will be some protesters. If we are then giving them the right of objecting—and parish councils have a tendency not to be always fully representative—we get ourselves into a situation in which absurdities will arise.
  In another place the Liberal Member on the Commons Committee put down a similar Amendment to this one. In support he argued that it was wrong to differentiate between district and county councils, on the one hand, and parish councils, some of which, as he rightly said. represented big and important towns on the other. Unfortunately very many represent areas of small population, have little financial strength, and are perhaps served by only one part-time official. Without in any way denying that they are important in local affairs they are
  1128
  undoubtedly different from even small district councils. So any general provision that they must be, as of right, treated exactly like district councils is not common sense. Moreover, where in these opencast cases a footpath has been suspended an alternative way has to be provided, unless it is absolutely unnecessary, and the original right of way must be restored when the opencast mining area is restored. As the noble Baroness who has now left us said, the safeguards in regard to opencast mining have been strengthened, not weakened, by this Bill—indeed they have been strongly reinforced. Moreover, this is a very different matter from the closure of a way for all time, perhaps without an alternative being provided. In other words, this is a completely special case. It has no parallel so far as footpaths are concerned, but, of course, there is no compensating advantage for the locality.
  Very often footpaths are closed because new housing estates are built and therefore the community and its immediate representatives, the parish council, obtain an advantage from the closing of the footpath. Nobody can pretend that an opencast mine is something which benefits the immediate neighbourhood, while of course it is essential for the nation as a whole. Therefore I think that the arguments which the noble Lord so persuasively put forward are not altogether as persuasive as they look at first sight. Full assurances have been given that wherever any objector—and that certainly includes parish or community councils—is not willing to have his objection dealt with by written representation, then the Secretary of State will not dispense with a public inquiry without first consulting the Secretary of State for the Environment, whose Department is the guardian of the public interest in these matters.
  Further assurance has been given that each application for suspension of a footpath will be personally seen by the Minister. Moreover, there can be no question of a big Whitehall Department insensitive to local issues driving a steamroller over the objections of the little parish council. That simply cannot happen, because if there were really substantial local concern and the parish council were quite unable to make the central Department listen to their case, then all they have

  1129
  to do is persuade their district council to make the objections and the public inquiry is mandatory. Therefore their interests are fully safeguarded at the centre and at the local levels.
  Technically, under this Amendment a parish council could not submit a formal objection without there having to be a public inquiry. But they may very well not want to have a public inquiry, which can be costly in money for the briefing of counsel, in the time which needs to be spent on the full preparation for oral presentation of their case and in background briefing for cross-examination, and so on. Moreover, the public inquiry procedure requires many months before a decision can finally be made, and it is often in the interests of all concerned for a decision to be made quickly one way or another. Certainly a parish council could avoid this by making its objections informally outside the scope of the Bill, but the council might not feel that such informal objections would carry quite the same weight as a formal written objection which the Secretary of State was required by law to take fully into account. The Amendment introduces an element of rigidity into procedures which parish councils might find very unwelcome when they realise the cost involved. For all these reasons, I earnestly hope that the Committee will not accept this Amendment.
  Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: I accept a number of the noble Lord's arguments, particularly a number of assurances that he has given, and I take the point about the distinction between an objection to a closure and the objection to a suspension. I quite see that it is not entirely on all fours with the 1959 Act. Nevertheless, I am not entirely satisfied by the noble Lord's arguments, because it seems to me that in the last few paragraphs of his answer he contradicted himself. If I understood his argument correctly, he was saying at the beginning that one of the reasons for not giving the right was that there would be too many objections which were frivolous, because parishes were naturally against this kind of development. They would start off by not being fully representative—I think we could argue that—and might not neces the people. He finished by saying that, of sarily be representing the real washes of course, the whole procedure was extremely
  1130
  expensive, would take a lot of time and trouble, because of this parishes may not want these powers. It seems to me that those are mutually contradictory arguments.
  Lord BALOGH: I do not think there is any contradiction. There might be one or two people with extremely strong views on a question like this who could involve a parish council in an inquiry which might turn out to be very costly and rigid. I do not believe that the beginning of my brief was contrary to the end of it.
  Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: Perhaps not, but it seems to me that the noble Lord has got himself into a position of paternalism, where he is saying that he must not give the parish council these powers because they might not know how to use them and might get themselves tied up in knots. That does not seem to me to encourage the kind of grassroots democracy which we all want to see. I do not wish to press this matter tonight. but it would be untrue to say that I am fully satisfied, and I and some of my friends—and the newly nominated President of the Footpaths Preservation Council, has joined me so we have reinforcements here—may be bringing this Amendment back at a later stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Schedule 3 agreed to.
  Remaining Schedule agreed to.
  House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.

WILD CREATURES AND WILD PLANTS PROTECTION BILL
8.26 p.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill was introduced into another place by Mr. Peter Hardy who, as your Lordships will remember, was responsible for a Badgers Bill which amalgamated with that of the noble Earl, Lord Arran, and was passed into law a couple of years ago; so conservationists generally have a second reason to be grateful to Mr. Hardy.
This Bill is an amalgamation of the Wild Plants Protection Bill and the Conservation of Wild Creatures Bill, two Bills to which your Lordships gave a Second

1131
Reading earlier in this Session. I do not propose therefore to weary your Lordships with exactly the same observations that you heard last time in extenso; they must be fresh in your memories. I propose however to remind your Lordships of the underlying principles. I will then draw your Lordships' attention to such differences as are of importance between this Bill and the original Wild Creatures Bill; and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, will do the same with the Wild Plants Bill, for which he was responsible. Earlier conservation legislation was designed to defend birds and their eggs which were already rare, and as such were objects of desire to unscrupulous collectors, and from becoming more rare by being collected and sold. Many of these species, as your Lordships will know, were brought to the verge of extinction, and some indeed became extinct altogether in this country.
That was followed by Bills giving seals complete protection where necessary, and then came the Badgers Bill under which it is possible to give badgers complete protection. But no other wild creatures and no plants can be given complete protection, however much that is necessary. This Bill is intended to fill the gap.
If your Lordships will turn to Clause 12 you will see that any species of our entire fauna and flora which—and I quote:
" has become so rare that its status as a British wild creature or plant is being endangered by any action designated as an offence under this Act "—
that is to say by the killing, taking or selling of wild creatures, or by the picking or uprooting of wild plants—can be put in the Schedules and given complete protection. That is why such wild creatures as are already in the Schedule are there. All are rare and as such desirable things for unscrupulous collectors. It is because they are already rare this collection would make them even more rare.
In some trade papers your Lordships may read of advertisements by collectors, offering for sale the skeletons of the greater horseshoe bat to schools and the like. There are advertisements by pet shops offering to buy dormice and smooth snakes and the like, because they are already rare and can be sold at a high
1132
price to people who do not realise what they are buying them for.
In addition in Clause 12 your Lordships will read that if an animal becomes so common that it no longer needs protection it may be removed from the Schedule and no longer given the protection which it needed formerly. That is the modern principle of conservation—trying to manage wild populations as a farmer would his domestic stock. That is why the part of this Bill referring to wild creatures was called a conservation Bill, and both the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and Mr. Hardy accept the fact that this is a conservation Bill and should be so entitled. I shall move an Amendment to that effect in Committee.
So much for the fundamental principles of this Bill, principles which your Lordships have already accepted. I need not weary you with any further explanation of the inevitable sequelae of that principle which come in the other clauses. There are a good many changes in the wording, improvements in general of the wording of the Bills on which this Bill was founded. So far as wild animals are concerned there are three significant changes to which I think I should draw your Lordships' attention. The first one, relatively minor, is in Clause 3, under which originally all mammals as well as protected wild creatures were defended against being ringed or marked by people who did not know what they were at, and under the Bill it was allowed only under licence. That is now confined to bats, I think sensibly, because they are the only wild ceatures, other than the protected ones, which are likely to be at risk if subjected too often to that sort of interference.
Clause 15 is interesting because it now brings in parish or community councils for the first time in a Bill of this nature. It authorises them to take such steps as they think necessary to bring the Bill to the attention of people in their areas, and I look forward with considerable hopes to parish councils, which, after all, are much closer to the ground—and it is the ground actually and not figuratively which matters in this case—than are the larger authorities, watching over the wild life in their parishes and taking every action they can to protect it. There is a new provision in Clause 16 which I think is the only controversial addition that has

1133
been made to the Bill. Your Lordships will remember that when the Badgers Act was going through this House the Minister told us that in certain parts of the country badgers had been found to be infected with bovine tuberculosis. In addition, all of us knew that there was a risk of sylvatic rabies breaking out in this country, when every rabies-susceptible animal, including badgers, would have to be killed for a considerable area around the original outbreak to prevent spreading. A clause giving the Minister power to licence the killing of badgers in order to prevent the spread of disease by any means specified in the licence was therefore introduced into the Badgers Act and passed without any opposition. That phrase seems clear enough, but it has subsequently been found that it is overridden by the provisions of the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and it is illegal to use poison, including using poisonous gas for the killing of badgers, which many people think is the most humane way of doing it. This clause was introduced in another place as a Government Amendment.
There are people who look upon this new clause from diametrically opposite positions. There are those who accept it, who feel that it is a more humane method of killing badgers, who accept the fact that it is to be used only in this one single case—I do not mean individual case but one single instance of the necessity to kill animals to prevent the spread of disease—and who are therefore ready to accept it. On the other hand, there are people who feel that it opens the door to the use of poisons on badgers and indeed other animals, other than those which are specified in the Protection of Animals Act; that it opens the door to the use of gas and other poisons on other animals and that it may be impossible, once the door is open, to close it again. They are two points of view which do not really concern us today, but I think your Lordships should have your attention drawn to them. Doubtless we shall discuss the matter in Committee and your Lordships will then decide.
My Lords, I have not explained the Bill at great length, but if any of your Lordships feel that I should have done so I hope you will raise any points and if there are any questions which I can
1134
answer when I come to sum up, I hope they will be put to me. I hope that even with this rather inadequate explanation of the Bill your Lordships will remember what we have already done, because if this Bill is passed, giving us this power to offer protection to our entire fauna and flora, we shall have a series of conservation measures, with this one as the coping stone, which will be second to none in the world. I beg to move.
8.35 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, we are all extremely grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, for having introduced the Bill into this House, as he has so many other conservation measures in the past. I particularly owe a debt of gratitude to him for having now formally taken my part of the Bill under his wing—it was always informally very much under his wing. I have benefited greatly from his advice and tutelage, and I am delighted that he has introduced the whole Bill into your Lordships' House. It is the second time that the noble Earl has introduced the wild creatures part of the Bill, it is the third time that I have introduced the wild plants part of it, and therefore I imagine that your Lordships will be gratified if I do not repeat my speech once again for the third time but keep my remarks short, so following the pattern set by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook.
The principle behind the Bill is quite simple. There is a continuing deterioration in the position of a large number of species of wild plants. A typical case history is that changes in land use diminish the occurrence of a plant very drastically; this leads to scarcity which, as in the case of creatures, as the noble Earl said, then leads to collectors, and that in turn leads to extinction. This Bill will do two things—or at least the plants side of the measure will. First, it will give protection to all plants from being uprooted by anyone who is not authorised to do so; by anyone, that is, who is not their owner or an agent of the owner of the land on which they grow. Second, it will Protect the rarest plants of all, those which are in real danger of extinction, from all forms of damage.
I think it is almost as important to say what the Bill will not do, because there

1135
has been a certain amount of misunderstanding about this among the general public. No one is prevented from picking any plants by this Bill, except for the 20 rarest wild plants, and these, by their nature, are very seldom come across. Everyone is protected from an offence committed by mistake; if people do not know what the rarest wild plants are, then they are protected if they pick them by mistake. It is unlikely to happen in fact because one of the characteristics of these wild plants is that they tend to be in very inaccessible and often unattractive areas. That is possibly one of the reasons why they have still survived in those areas when they have been wiped out elsewhere. A large number of them are not even very attractive to look at and therefore I feel that the risk of anyone even straying into the danger area of committing an offence is very small; but even if he does he is protected by the Bill. Nobody is prevented from doing anything that he wants with the wild flowers or wild plants on his own land, except for the arest 20, and even then he can, alas!, if he needs to, do so in the course of agriculture. So although it is occasionally said to have dangerous implications for civil liberties and to stop little children from picking flowers, it does nothing of the sort. It is an extremely mild Bill.
I would mention two major differences from the previous Bill. We have left out part of one clause which dealt with the Nature Conservancy Council. Under the old Bill, people were protected when dealing with the rarest plants—that is, the plants on the Schedule—if they were doing anything in furtherance of any obligation imposed, or the exercise of any powers conferred by or under an Act of Parliament. This also applies in the present Bill, but we had a proviso in the last Bill which provided that,
" if an owner or occupier of land within a site of special scientific interest, who has been informed in writing by the Nature Conservancy Council within the previous 12 months of the site within that land on which a protected plant is growing, carries out work which results in the uprooting or destruction of any protected plant, he shall be guilty of an offence against this section unless he has given notice in writing to the Nature Conservancy Council of his intention to carry out such work not less than 28 days before the commencement of the work."
The point of that provision was that people were able to destroy even the rarest
1136
plants if they could say that they were doing it in
" the exercise of any powers conferred, by or under any Act of Parliament."
Acts of Parliament give a great deal of power to a great many people.
We thought that there should be some safeguard against this provision being abused. Therefore, we worked out this machinery to give notice to the Nature Conservancy Council of such acts or works and to give the Council and anyone else concerned, such as the Botanical Society of Great Britain, the chance to make representations, to argue, if necessary to try to bribe and if absolutely necessary in the last resort to try to transplant the plant in question before it was destroyed. That provision has not been included in the Bill but we very much hope that it will go in at a later stage. We are at present waiting for a statement by the Minister about the attitude of the Nature Conservancy Council on the matter. I do not know whether he will be making it this evening or at the Committee stage, but I am sure that we should have something like this in the Bill.
That is the major difference. The second difference is that of additions, actual or possible, to the Schedule. The Schedule originally consisted of 20 plants. There is an illustrated guide which I have deposited in the Library of your Lordships' House. It gives the names and pictures of those 20 plants. Since then, however, the fingered sedge has been included as the twenty-first such plant. In addition to growing in the constituency of Mr. Peter Hardy, who moved the Bill in another place and to whom our very warm thanks are due for his work on this Bill as on previous conservation measures, this is a borderline case. I am not at all sure whether it should be included. It is undoubtedly decreasing, but whether it is as rare as to have reached the danger stage or not is a matter which can be argued by the experts among your Lordships at the Committee stage.
Almost the same applies to the field cow-wheat, which is a plant which was mentioned in another place by Mr. Stephen Ross, the Member for the Isle of Wight. Again, it grows in his constituency. It is undoubtedly fairly rare but, again, it is a borderline case. The

1137
Government have promised to come back to us with a comment on this and a decision on the matter. I hope that they will make that decision on the basis of whether or not the plant is rare and not on whether it is or is not a weed. This is a Bill to preserve rare species, regardless of whether humans, regard them as flowers or weeds.
Both the matters which I have mentioned can be argued, and no doubt your Lordships will produce other Amendments to the Schedule at the Committee stage. I should just like to make one plea. I am sure that we are right, both in the Part of the Bill which deals with wild creatures and in that which deals with plants, to make the Schedules of those which are to receive as near absolute protection as we can give them as small as possible. I am sure that it is desirable to confine it to those creatures and plants which are in genuine danger of extinction. If we start to go beyond that principle we shall destroy half the point of the Bill and, certainly, the basic agreement which has been reached by all Parties as to what the Bill should be about. Therefore I hope that your Lordships will, when it comes to the Committee stage, consider the possibility of adding anything to the Schedules strictly on this basis, remembering of course that the Bill gives the Secretary of State powers to add to, to remove from or to alter the Schedule at any time. My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in putting the Bill forward to your Lordships' House. I am grateful to all those who have helped me on very unfamiliar territory, and I commend the Bill to your Lordships' attention.
8.48 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I believe that the whole House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for introducing the Bill. This joining up of the two Bills which we discussed previously makes very good sense. It is also satisfactory to have had the explanations repeated in a simpler form than previously. Also, I am glad to see that the foster father of the Wild Creatures Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, is here to speak again.
1138
In the earlier debate on the Wild Creatures Bill, I asked what the Bill was being used for and if there was some hat to be hung on a peg. Little did I think that Clause 16 would be the hat to go on the peg about which I was asking. Clearly, that will upset some people. I believe that it is important to recognise that, as my noble friend Lord Cranbrook has said in the past, it is sometimes necessary to cull to improve a species. We had this in the Seals Bill. For instance, if in certain areas there are badgers which are suffering from bovine tuberculosis, not only is there the possibility—which your Lordships may argue about in one way or another, though I think on balance that the evidence tends to show it—that they are causing infection to some cattle, but if they are suffering from bovine tuberculosis, as the evidence shows that in certain areas, in Dorset, Devon and Gloucestershire, 20 per cent. of them at least are so suffering, it may be in their own interests for them to be reduced. Then badgers would be a healthier species which would survive longer in the long run. So it is important not to say that every time the Minister, having taken careful advice, gives consent to his experts for the putting down of an infected species, it is necessarily bad for the species.
The clause which my noble friend Lord Cranbrook picked out and which deals with parish councils having a "watchdog" power in their villages I find very useful. This may be coupled with Clause 13. That is the clause which requires local councils to draw these matters to the attention of schoolchildren. These clauses will be the nub of the Bill. We should interest the young in this subject, which is fascinating. Botany classes could be assisted by the use of simple pictures of some of the species and plants. I hope that the Government will give every encouragement to local councils to carry out their functions in this regard and that parish councils will, in turn, nudge other local authorities.
My Lords, the noble Earl will have taken the point about my interest in bats. I am glad to see that they still have their immunity from being tagged or ringed. Whether our friend the natter-jack toad will be happy at having his immunity from this practice removed, I

1139
do not know. I was glad to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said about adding and removing from the plant life. If there is a doubt, it is right to include the plant or species which may be in danger. As the noble Lord said, it can always be changed later. Of course, if one becomes stupid and has too large a list, it will suffer by being disregarded. But it must be right to include borderline cases. I am grateful to both noble Lords for having said what they said.
8.51 p.m.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, it is a pleasure to rise to support this Bill, and it is a particular pleasure to welcome back the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, for whom I had to deputise on 21st November. I am glad that I have not been obliged to deputise for him on this occasion, because his ability in this field is so outstanding. It is always a pleasure to listen to him on this subject. The Bill is a composite of two Bills which have already been before your Lordships and, clearly, it does a highly important job. Its job is to conserve, to look after, the wild life of this country. This matter is of considerable importance to us all, because it concerns part of our heritage. All sorts of things take place which may, at times, be unfortunate. I recollect many years ago being told about a well-known naturalist of some academic standing who claimed to have found a new species of plant on an island off the Scottish coast. However, it was later suspected—and, in fact, clearly shown—that he had himself imported the species. He had taken the species over to the island where he had later "found" them. This sort of trickery may occur, but it should not have any influence upon us when we consider how we wish to conserve the wild life of this country in the future.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, said, there was on a previous occasion a certain amount of banter and play about such things as the great horseshoe bat and, I think, the natterjack toad. Such matters were discussed in an air of amusement. We may laugh about such things in that sort of way, but we all know that it is an extremely important matter from the point of view of conservation. I call the attention of your
1140
Lordships to the fact that this Bill which we hope—and are reasonably confident—will become the law of the land is a companion to another Bill, the Endangered Species Bill, for which I had to carry the responsibility.
There is sometimes a little confusion in the matter, so I should explain that this Bill deals entirely with species indigenous to this country, whereas the Endangered Species Bill deals with trade, with the import and export of species all over the world. When your Lordships gave a Second Reading to the Endangered Species Bill, my noble friend Lord Melchett gave an assurance—which I have since had confirmed in writing by another Minister of the Crown—that it is the intention of the Government to see that the Endangered Species Bill is made effective, in one form or another, preferably by the autumn, but certainly by the end of this year. Therefore, when this Bill is passed and when the Endangered Species Bill—in one form or another—is passed, we shall have a clear set of legislation which makes it possible, first, to ensure that within this country our own native species are conserved; and, secondly, that we, as a country, are playing our part in ensuring that throughout the world endangered species are looked after, and that we do not allow an immoral trade in them. My Lords, I strongly commend this Bill to the House.
8.57 p.m.
The Earl of ARRAN: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook—whom, I am sure, we are all delighted to see—and to my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley, this Bill is, frankly, a bit of a mess. It is an attempt to bring together the protection of wild plants and wild animals—two entirely irrelevant and inconsequent species. One might have thought that more urgent business would have concerned your Lordships. But it is one of your Lordships' splendid traditions to discuss minutiae, even though our country is in danger; in other words, to fiddle, one might say, while there is a strong sense of burning. For instance, on Friday, 1st September 1939, two days before the opening of hostilities, your Lordships were actively engaged in considering a Bill concerned with restrictions on loans and mortgages on which no

1141
doubt many noble Lords felt strongly. In other words, whatever the circumstances, we managed to "keep our cool ".
I am not concerned with the protection of wild plants. It is to my shame that I confess to knowing little or nothing about them, though naturally I wish them well. Wild animals, alas! are an entirely different matter. Having introduced the Badgers Act it is now my duty to see that it is not undermined. This is exactly what it is proposed to do by a seemingly innocent Bill which has suddenly become a matter of significance and now contains the sinister Clause 16. This is a complicated matter and I shall try to be as simple as I can in dealing with it. In Clause 16 the Government seek to make it a defence in proceedings under Section 8(b) of the Protection of Animals Act 1911 or Section 7(b) of the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912—each of which restricts the placing on land of poison—if the act alleged to constitute the offence was done under the authority of a licence granted by the Minister (under paragraph (d) of subsection (1)), and any conditions specified in the licence were complied with. If I have got it wrong, perhaps the Minister will correct me. It is a very complicated business. This subsection is one which empowers the Minister to kill or take protected wild animals within a specified area by any specified means. Note the absence, incidentally, of a clause which in the Badgers Act forbids the cruel ill-treatment of any badger.
This masterpiece of draftsmanship I find totally confusing, but it boils down to this. The Minister is seeking powers to eradicate all badgers in all areas where they are suspected of spreading bovine tuberculosis. The badger, the largest animal involved, is seemingly to be poisoned where and when and by whatever means it occurs to the right honourable gentleman to do so. Small wonder that the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, said of the Bill on its previous Second Reading that he found it impossible to believe that this list of six animals and one insect—he was corrected by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, on this—could constitute a full-blooded Act of Parliament. I think he has changed his mind since then.
The simple question for your Lordships is this. Is it the badgers which infect the
1142
cattle or is it the cattle which infect the badgers? No one knows for certain the answer. There is said to be circumstantial evidence in favour of the badgers being the miscreants, but no Minister has said categorically that there is proof. How can he do so when there is none? Please note that we are erroneously talking about bovine tuberculosis when we should be talking about badger tuberculosis.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: I hope the noble Earl will forgive me, but surely the control of bovine tuberculosis is relatively easy; the control of badger tuberculosis is something of which we are incapable. We have no control over the badgers. So far as I am aware, there are no herds of badgers.
The Earl of ARRAN: My Lords, no doubt the noble Lord is thinking of 1950 when almost all cattle with the disease were eradicated. It is true that badgers are very hard to detect and their spoor or faeces may be more difficult to find. To that extent I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones.
In a letter the Minister, who has been most courteous to me in this matter, said:
" By now it is of course quite widely accepted "—
"By whom?" one asks oneself—
" that badgers do get intected with bovine tuberculosis and could transmit it to cattle. My officials "—
the right honourable gentleman is referring to his officials—
" have discussed this in depth with representatives of the RSPCA, the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, the British Veterinary Association and the Mammal Society."
I think the Minister has got the position a little askew.
I am authorised to say on behalf of the RSPCA that they have told the Minister that they accept, "albeit reluctantly ", the statement made by Dr. Gavin Strang in another place. They add that they do not wish to see badgers killed, most of all by snaring; but they would accept hydrogen cyanide as a humane method of gassing. The Minister has made it clear to me that he still insists on snaring, which he must know is the cruellest method of extermination available to him. As to the British Veterinary Association, I

1143
quote their highly authoritative analysis which ends with the words:
"However, badger infection is probably concentrated in isolated pockets of the population, and any indiscriminate slaughter of this species in the hope of removing the reservoir of infection would be quite unjustified. Further work is needed to determine the most reliable means of identifying infected badger communities."
My Lords, I shall listen with the greatest respect and attention to the speeches. which are yet to be made, and I look forward to the Minister's reply. I hope particularly to hear from him that he has incontrovertible proof that the badgers are responsible. In passing this Bill—which I am sure we shall, and I hope we shall—I would humbly ask your Lordships to put to yourselves the question commonly put to jurors. Are your Lord-shops convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that the badgers and not the cattle are at fault, before passing sentence of death on these wretched animals? I should add that in the Committee stage we shall naturally be proposing Amendments to Clause 16 for which, to my mind, there is no possible justification. My Lords, whatever the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, has said, this is not the end of the affair.
9.8 p.m.
Lord BIRKETT: My Lords, I shall not weary your Lordships long with comments upon. this Bill which, as the noble Earl who preceded me said, is almost certain at this stage to pass. I should like to add something to what he said about the thoughts that your Lordships' might give to the Committee stage. I wish I could like the Bill better because there is so much about it that is likeable. But it is a shame that in a Bill which would command 99 per cent. of your Lordships' support, a controversial clause, or clauses, should have been allowed to stand; that the famous Clause 16 about badgers which, allied to Clause 8(1)(d) makes such a sinister impact upon those fond of the badger, should be allowed to spoil the Bill. Those not fond of those clauses would hate to be thought an enemy of the dormouse, the military orchid or the drooping saxifrage.
I do not wish to repeat the bantering tone of which your Lordships' House was accused in dealing with such matters earlier. But, at the same time to find
1144
only this bone of contention seems to me sad. I wish also I could have seen, and will see, some evidence to support the contention that bovine tuberculosis is directly and inevitably connected with badger tuberculosis. I wish also I could have seen some evidence about the relative cruelty or humanity of the various methods of dealing with the badgers if the unfortunate necessity of doing away with them be absolutely proved. Before and during the Committee stage I hope this evidence will be provided by the Government or by those who are actively sponsoring the Bill.
I cannot believe one could go on long about a Bill whose chances of success are at this stage so very strong; it would be a sad reflection on this House if the little worries which concern one or two of us 'were not cleared up by the Committee stage. In particular, somebody should say that it is important for the noble Earl, Lord Arran, that these points should be cleared up. He has fought so long in the teeth of such opposition and difficulty and, indeed, such incomprehension, for the badger he loves so well. It must be galling for him to find so soon after the success of his measures for the protection of the badger that suddenly another menace arises from a different quarter, a quarter that seems so harmless and well-intentioned towards wild flowers and creatures. I hope before the Committee stage a good deal more evidence will he provided.
9.10 p.m.
Viscount MASSER EENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Cranbrook for introducing this Bill and also to welcome him back to the House. We are glad to see him in such robust health after his illness. I welcome this Bill. I am worried, as are several other noble Lords, by Clause 8(1)(d) and Clause 16.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, may I interrupt? There have been three successive speakers who seem to have misread Clause 16. It does not amend Clause 8 in any way; it merely amends the appropriate clause of the Badgers Act; it refers to the appropriate clause of the Badgers Act as being like one in this Bill. There is no amendment made by this clause to Clause 8 of this Bill; it

1145
merely refers to it as typical of the clause in the Badgers Act which it proposes to amend.
Lord BIRKETT: My Lords, since I think I was the first to make this point, may I be allowed to say to the noble Earl that I thought Clause 16, taken in conjunction wtih Clause 8(1)(d), in our view represented the danger to the badger.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I too had the same view. May I make one or two observations on wild plants before coming to those clauses of the Bill? The great destruction to wild plants has been due to modern agriculture and forestry, and I am just as much to blame as anybody else who farms or plants trees. Your Lordships have only to recall your childhood or fly in a small 'plane across the Channel over to the Continent in the summer to see the wild flowers there. But the moment you approach England all you see is a dull green. This may not apply to the rare plants referred to in the Schedules to the Bill; but regarding plants as a whole this situation is clue to modern farming and the spraying that is indulged in. I have proved it countless times. The wild plants have gone. But this is not because the general public have uprooted them. If the general public are going to take plants, they usually just pick the flowers. They are usually attracted by primroses, bluebells and foxgloves, so in my view we cannot blame the public generally for the disappearance of plants—and certainly not for the disappearance of rare plants. I am surprised to hear that botanists dig up these rare plants. It seems absolutely disgraceful, and I had no idea that responsible botanists would do such a thing. However, we have heard from my noble friend behind me that this happens.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, if the noble Viscount will allow me to intervene for one moment, I can assure him that the practice referred to was widespread at one time and there was a period when almost every botanical laboratory, museum or university department felt they must have a specimen of every plant. Now this is very much on the decline. There are still a few such offenders, but on the whole most botanists have a clean bill of health.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I am very glad to hear that from the noble Lord. He has referred, however, to a few botanists who still dig up plants. What troubles me is whether this Bill is going to stop people from doing such things. I do not know how they can be stopped, short of having a policeman hiding behind the bushes near to any rare plants. Might I just draw attention to Clause 4, which seems to me rather widely drawn, because it says that if
" … any person other than an authorised person without reasonable excuse uproots any plant, he shall be guilty of an offence."
I agree that the interpretation of "authorised" is wide, but in going along a right of way a member of the public might uproot a dandelion. As I read this clause, that would be an offence. I think that perhaps some Amendment might be needed there.
As regards wild creatures, to some extent, again, their danger comes from modern farming methods. For example, I can remember that some 20 years ago on my lake in East Kent we had hundreds, if not thousands, of toads. It was quite a famous toad walk: in fact it was once recorded on the BBC. I have not seen a toad there for donkeys' years; and this I know comes from methods of chemical farming. I am probably just as much to blame as many other people, because I spray my crops. In terms of actual endangering the species, I cannot imagine members of the general public going round capturing toads; but to a certain extent I suppose spraying kills insects and therefore this will have a bearing on the greater horse-shoe bat and the mouse-eared bat. Spraying must surely have an effect on the survival of these creatures.
I should now like to turn to the controversial question of badgers. My noble friend behind me appears to think that these clauses do net really affect the position very much; but Clause 16, together with Clause 8(1)(d), will legalise the gassing of badgers if they are thought to be spreading disease. There is no doubt that to a great extent these provisions will nullify the Badgers Act of 1973. I would ask: is this Bill a sort of smokescreen to allow the Ministry of Agriculture or the Secretary of State for Scotland to kill any wild animal, on the assumption that it is spreading disease? No one could object

1147 69
if it is absolutely proven that these animals are spreading disease; but I have been doing some research on this, and I understand that the Ministry of Agriculture now think that bovine tuberculosis among cattle is spread by badgers. I must say this is not really conclusive evidence, but perhaps I might just refer again to my own estate in East Kent, because in the park we have lots of badgers. We are probably the most "over-badgered" part of East England. I have one badger sett only about 50 yards from the cowshed and I have not had a reactor among cattle, certainly over the last 20 years.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Viscount would be very kind and let me intervene so that we may clear up this point straight away. Nobody has suggested that there is any bovine tuberculosis being spread by badgers in East Kent, or anywhere near where the noble Viscount lives. The outbreaks are restricted to small, particular areas of the country a long way away from Kent.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I am coming on to that point in a moment, so the noble Lord need not have interrupted. I would quote the Veterinary Record of 14th December, 1974, which states—and I am coming on to the noble Lord's point now—as regards a map, Fig.1:
" The map shows locations of infected badgers and cattle herds."
It is dealing with bovine tuberculosis—
" There is a line of farms right through the area from the Cotswolds escarpment to the Severn Estuary showing cattle herds infected with bovine tuberculsosis where origin is obscure ".
It says, "obscure" That is from the Veterinary Record and it does not say that the origin is definitely badgers.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend?
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: Yes.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, did my noble friend hear the noble Earl, Lord Arran? I think he gave the answer to this point at one moment in his speech. He said that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
1148
Animals, albeit reluctantly, accepted what Dr. Gavin Strang, who is Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture. said in his speech in the Commons on 7th February. I think that if noble Lords would look at what Dr. Gavin Strang said they would see that the noble Earl has dealt with that point himself.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: That may be, my Lords, but of course there are two sides to the question. I would say that the true vector or carrier of bovine tuberculosis has not yet been found. It may well be badgers—they may carry it—but I am also quite sure that other animals carry it. I would quote here British Mammals of 1952 by Harris and Matthews, page 177:
" Recently a form of tuberculosis has been found infecting field voles, bank voles, field mice, common shrews. It is the first naturally occurring tuberculosis disease of wild mammals to have been discovered. This infection can be carried from one animal to another in food or water contaminated by an infected one."
The Earl of ARRAN: And also, my Lords, by human beings.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, the noble Earl is quite right, of course; there is no evidence to the contrary. I have no objection to destroying all the badgers in an area if it is proven 100 per cent. by the Minister that they are infecting the cattle. But I do not consider the Minister of Agriculture has proved this 100 per cent. I can quote other observations by extremely eminent men. I do not want to keep your Lordships, but there is Dr. Littler from the West Country, a TB physician. He is a tuberculosis and chest physician, deputy superintendent of Hawkmoor Chest Hospital and tuberculosis officer for North Devon for many years. He does not agree at all with the findings of the Ministry. He says that in his opinion it is the cattle which give tuberculosis to the badgers, as my noble friend has said.
I have an estate on an island off the West Coast of Scotland and there have never been any badgers there in the history of that island. We have had wolves, foxes and everything else there but there have never been any badgers. But we had tuberculosis in cattle just as badly as any place on the mainland that had badgers. So this case is surely not proven,

1149
and I am surprised that a Government Department or Minister would give such an order if the case is not proven. It would fall down in a court of law; and what would fall down in a court of law should not be passed by a Minister. I know that it frequently is the case, but it should not be. Badgers do not occupy the same terrain as cattle. I know this, because I have many cattle. Badgers live in setts in woods and are very clean animals. They have latrines nearby, and it is very rare for a badger to make his droppings in the centre of fields. On the other hand, cattle get into woods only if there is a broken fence. I have practical experience of these matters and my experience tells me that the Ministry are being rather forceful.
I will not detain your Lordships any longer. Nevertheless, we ought to be careful because next year will be Animal Welfare Year. If we pass into law a Bill which gives to the Ministry of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland the power to destroy badgers on flimsy evidence, I do not think that the Government which passes such an Act will be very popular among animal lovers.
9.27 p.m.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley and indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, will forgive me if I limit my congratulations to them upon getting this Bill so far. I am sure that it will have a successful outcome. If I limit those congratulations and thanks to the noble Lords to one sentence it is because I do not wish to take up more time than I need. Indeed, I shall confine my remarks to the implications of Clause 16 of the Bill. The questions that I wish to put to the House are questions which I shall address to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who is to answer for the Government, because the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, is not responsible for Clause 16. It is not his amendment; it is something which has been attached to the Bill on its way to this House.
First of all, it is important that we should understand exactly what Clause 16 does. Although my noble friend Lord
1150
Arran has said it is rather complicated, as I understand it the effect of Clause 16 is fairly simple. Under Section 9 of the Act of the noble Earl, Lord Arran, which is now the Badgers Act, where the Minister of Agriculture thought it necessary to prevent the spread of disease, he was authorised to issue a licence enabling the licensed person to kill or take badgers within certain specified areas by any method that the Minister might specify. However, it was found after the passing of the Badgers Act that even so the Minister was precluded from authorising the issue of a licence to allow gassing to be used, because that is prohibited under the 1911 Act. The reason why this amendment was introduced into this Bill was in order to get over that difficulty and enable the Minister, when he thinks it is right, to issue a licence permitting anybody who is authorised to do so to exterminate setts of badgers by means of poison. As I understand it, that is the effect of the clause.
It seems to me that there are two aspects of that which are worthy of some consideration and attention. The first is this. As has been said already, giving that power to the Minister and the necessity to do it is based upon an assumption, and the assumption has been repeated over and over again in the other House and here. The assumption is that in those areas where there is a high incidence of bovine tuberculosis the experts who are available to the Ministry and the Minister are of the opinion that the badger is responsible as the carrier. That is the assumption, and over and over again it has been stated in the other place and elsewhere that because in those areas where there is a high incidence of bovine tuberculosis in cattle you find there is a high incidence of tuberculosis also in badgers, it therefore follows from that relationship, that statistical fact, that the badger is infecting the cattle. Of course it is a complete non sequitur; it does not follow. It goes no way to prove that the badger is the carrier to the cattle. As my noble friend has said, it could he the cattle who are the carriers to the badgers. On the other hand, it could be a third thing. It could be that the cause of the tuberculosis in the cattle and in the badger is some third cause which has not yet been identified and that the cattle and

1151
the badgers are both the victims of that cause of which at the present moment we know nothing.
I say to the Government that it is simply not good enough to come to this House or the other House and say, "Our experts tell us that they believe there is a connection; our experts tell us that they believe that the badgers are the carriers and that they infect the cattle ". Respectfully, that will not do. What the Government must do if they want to satisfy the people who are concerned and alarmed about this matter is not to come and tell us what they are advised, what their experts say: they must give us their evidence. I hope that tonight when the Minister answers he will not stand up and say, "I am told by the RSPCA ", or "I am told by the veterinary surgeons that this is the case ". I want to know what the evidence is, and if there is no evidence that it certainly is the case, is not the Minister asking to be given these very wide powers without having proved to the satisfaction of reasonable people that the badger is the carrier of this disease? If they have not got the evidence, if in point of fact this is a vast error and the badger is not the carrier to the cattle, it will not be the first time that Government have made a silly blunder by relying upon expert evidence into which they have not sufficiently inquired.
The second aspect of the matter about which I want to say a word is this. Clause 16 as at present drafted, as my noble friend said, gives the Minister, on the face of it, the power to issue a licence to anybody to destroy badgers anywhere in the United Kingdom and to destroy them by any poisonous substance. But in the other place—and I have no doubt it will happen here tonight—various assurances were given by the Minister or by the Parliamentary Secretary (whoever it was) about the way in which the Minister intended to exercise these very wide powers which are being conferred upon him. 'Three assurances in particular were given. The first was that in spite of the fact that on the face of it this clause allows the Minister to licence anybody to use any kind of poison, the Minister would not consider allowing the use of anything except cyanide gas in the present state of scientific knowledge. unless something
1152
better or more humane turned up in future. That was the first assurance.
The second assurance was that the Minister would not give a licence to just anyone. In the ordinary way, he would only license an official of the Ministry; a field officer of the Ministry, and only in exceptional circumstances, when such a person was not available, would he authorise some other responsible person to carry out the gassing under the supervision of the Ministry of Agriculture. The third assurance he gave was that he would not allow licences to be issued for the extermination of badgers anywhere. He would not allow licences to be issued except in those very restricted areas where he, at any rate, was satisfied that the badger was infecting, and represented a grave health hazard. These were the three assurances given.
I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, if those assurances are intended, if they are meant and if they are genuine, why should they not be written into the Bill? Only the other day there was a case before the courts where the question arose as to whether, when interpreting a Statute, the court is entitled to look behind to find out what was intended. Was the court entitled, in particular, to look at all the debates that had taken place in both Houses of Parliament before the Bill went on to the Statute Book, in order to try to decide what was intended by the wording of the Act? The ruling of the court was—and this has been a long-standing rule of law in this country—that the courts could not look behind an Act of Parliament. They must interpret the words as they are, with the result that if at some stage in future these assurances which we have now been given are not kept, we shall have no redress in the courts of law. If the Minister at some future date gives a licence contrary to these assurances which have been given by the Government, no one will have any redress, and no one will be able to put the matter right.
I ask the noble Lord the following question: Is he prepared to say on behalf of the Government tonight, "Yes, we will write these assurances, we will write these limits, we will write these restrictions into the Bill at the next stage of the Bill "? If he is not prepared to do that, some of us will be proposing

1153
the appropriate Amendments, because there is no difficulty in drafting an Amendment. There is no difficulty whatever in providing, for example, that before the Minister issues a licence of that kind at all he must be satisfied that bovine tuberculosis in badgers constitutes a serious hazard to the health of cattle in that area. What objection could there possibly be to requiring the Minister to make that declaration before he makes an Order? So I invite the noble Lord to say tonight, first whether he is prepared to tell us not what his experts say, but what evidence there is that badgers are the carriers of bovine tuberculosis. Secondly, is he prepared to give us an assurance that at a later stage in this House the Government themselves will take steps to turn their assurances into clauses of the Bill?
9.40 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, for not being in your Lordships' House when he spoke on this Bill. I was listening to Mr. Enoch Powell and Mrs. Shirley Williams in the hope that I might hear something which would resolve the doubts in my mind about going into the European Community.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will forgive me for interrupting him, might I suggest that he would nave been more profitably occupied here?
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, the hour is late, and I want to come straight to the point. The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, said it was a pity that a controversial clause should appear in an otherwise acceptable Bill. That is always so. However, the pity here is the greater because Clause 16 really does not belong to this Bill at all. It is inserted in this Bill, because it was believed necessary to amend the Badgers Act of 1973. This clause was not in the Bill when this Bill had its Second Reading in another place, though the mover of the Second Reading, Mr. Peter Hardy, a Member of another place, acknowledged that there was a problem here with which the Bill might properly deal. He said that he believed that the provisions of Clause 16, as it now is, were justified, and he went so far as to say with certainty that
1154
badgers infected with bovine tuberculosis were carrying it and probably infecting cattle.
When the Minister spoke on the Second Reading of this Bill in another place, he relied very heavily indeed on Mr. Peter Hardy's acceptance of the need for this clause. There was no particular evidence given, at least at that point, and probably further research might be necessary to discover how much evidence was given during the Committee stage of the Bill in another place. However, I declare an interest myself in having badger setts very close indeed to my home. My badgers are not on the close visiting terms of those of the noble Earl, Lord Arran. Mine only come to the kitchen door; they do not go in and open the fridge. But the kitchen door is close enough to observe badgers, especially at night under a light, which they appear not to resent and it is a very interesting study indeed.
Much has been said about the need for evidence. There is probably some evidence available. There is some suspicion falling heavily on badgers in certain parts of the country as carriers of this disease; and of course it does not really matter, if I may say so, who started it. If both badgers and cattle are infected something should be done, in the interests of cattle on the one hand and badgers on the other, to try to eliminate it. It may be that both have to suffer in the end, in order to eliminate the prospect of extension of a disease of this kind.
I noticed that on the Third Reading of the Bill in another place on 18th April a Minister said that post-mortem examinations had been conducted in the Ministry's laboratories on nearly 1,000 badgers. It looks as if the slaughter has already begun; 1,000 badgers is a lot of badgers as a testing ground for the main exercise. It was from this very large sample that was taken that the incidence of the disease of 18 or 20 per cent. was discovered, and was regarded as very strong prima facie evidence that they were carrying the disease to cattle. That may be, but I think we want to examine very carefully indeed when we come to the Committee stage how it comes about that in 1973 this was not inserted in the Badgers Act, and it now comes into another Bill not related to badgers specifically at all, presumably on

1155
some evidence both of strength and urgency. I think we want to know more about both.
Mr. Peter Hardy, I need scarcely say, is a Member of another place noted for his strong desire for conservation; indeed, he sponsored the Badgers Act in the House of Commons which was sponsored by the noble Earl, Lord Arran, in this House. He has sponsored the Bill that is now before this House; he has been appointed by the Secretary of State for the Home Office to be a lay and additional member of the Home Office Advisory Committee on Experiments on Living Animals, so that his credentials in a matter of this kind are very impressive indeed. Anything that he accepts as the basis for his own judgment and actions I should certainly not dismiss out of hand.
I now come to my point of substance. Various noble Lords, and the noble Lord, Lord Foot, just now, asked for assurances about the mode of destruction which might be used, those who might be granted licences to undertake the task, and so forth. I am anxious about the conditions under which the Minister may grant the licence at all. I have a strong feeling of doubt as to whether licences granted by Departments are always justified. Licences to slaughter can be granted on an extensive scale. We have the Rabies Act on the Statute Book, in which huge powers of destruction could lie in the hands of the Minister if a case of rabies were to cross into this country. We have licences granted under other protective legislation related, for example, to foot and mouth disease. More particularly, having regard to a debate that took place last week in your Lordships' House, I have the strongest reservations about the licences granted by the Home Secretary to those who can carry out experiments on living animals.
Therefore, I always want to know what the authority is to be, and what the evidence is to be behind the granting of a licence. That is the point at which the whole mischief may begin. When we come to the Committee stage, we may find ways of reassuring ourselves that the licence would not be granted unless there was overwhelming evidence that it was justified. I do not think your Lordships would he justified—it is not intended so
1156
far—in deleting Clause 16 from the Bill. Even if we did eventually delete it from the Bill, the problem is still there. It would have to be dealt with somewhere, somehow, even if it was by an amending Bill to the Badgers Act 1973, which would be the proper method. Then we could dwell with approval and mutual congratulations on our defence of wild creatures and wild plants, which is the rest of this Bill. It is always a pity when the good that a Bill does is lost sight of because of the criticism of one section of a Bill, and this is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett. That is my point.
We have to discover means whereby the hand of the Minister in granting licences should be held and, if necessary. restrained by competent judgment and evidence from those who are in the best position to advise him. We know that Ministers do not necessarily know anything about animals, or anything else; they have to grant licences which it is recommended by experts and officials they should give. One cannot always be satisfied that the advice given, the evidence available, is sufficiently strong to justify the act to be taken by the Minister. On matters of this kind. Ministers will be just as cautious in safeguarding what they believe to be the real interest in the matter, even though it results in the profligate destruction of wildlife. One sees this, for example, in connection with the culling of seals.
One sometimes wonders how strong is the evidence and how valid the interests which declare that they are being injured unless some destruction on a considerable scale is undertaken. It is the granting of the licences which must be the subject of our critical examination when we come to the Committee stage. As to who would carry out this distasteful job, there is no doubt the Minister will assure us that it will be some officer in the Ministry who is fully qualified and expert in this matter; otherwise, it would go to someone else who had experience and could be trusted to carry out the job in a humane way. I do not think we need fear that the Minister would grant licences indiscriminately to anyone to use any method of destroying badgers.
My final word is that we must protect the badger from being hunted and

1157
slaughtered unlawfully and indiscriminately by farmers, who fear that they are exposed to a degree of risk of the spread of the disease and may take the law into their own hands unless a higher authority has power which can be used if the evidence is strong enough to justify it. That is why we must give some power to the Minister to be able to undertake this job; otherwise, other people will take it into their own hands and that will frustrate all the protection given under the Act of 1973. I hope that when we come to the Committee stage the Government will seriously consider some means of supporting the Minister and protecting him from being ill-advised or exposed to unjustified criticism if licences are granted.
9.52 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to be able to speak once again about the conservation of wild plants and wild creatures, especially as I can confirm that the Government still strongly support this Bill. Although the present Bill was introduced in another place, the credit for its conception must go to the two noble Lords on whose Bills it is based, and it is most fitting that they should be here today to explain it to us. With my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones I am particularly pleased to see the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, in such good form as he was unfortunately unable to be with us when we debated this Bill in November.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships unduly, especially as I have a little to say about Clause 16, but it may be helpful if I mention very briefly some of the more important changes of substance which have been made since our debates last November. First, there have been some changes designed to protect the freedom of the individual. The phrase "without reasonable excuse" has been introduced to provide a defence in cases of accident or of mistaken identity. This should prove more satisfactory than the word "wilfully", which was used earlier. The power to search in Clause 10 may now be exercised only when a constable has good reason to suppose that the suspect may have evidence on his or her person. As noble Lords will know, it is usual in Bills of this kind for the commencement date to be three months or so after Royal Assent, to allow the necessary licensing procedures and so on
1158
to be set up. In this case I know that the sponsors are anxious for an immediate commencement date as the Bill is now likely to come into operation in the middle of the flowering season and it would be a great pity to give unscrupulous collectors what would be, in effect, three months' grace. I am happy to he able to say that the Nature Conservancy Council have agreed to expedite their arrangements so that there will be no objection to the immediate operative date at present provided in the Bill.
I need to mention only one very minor reservation that we have about this Bill. We may in Committee wish to re-examine one or two of the species in the Schedules, as evidence of their distribution and status is still being collected. May I also say to the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, that we would welcome the use of the word "conservation"rather than" protection "in the Title. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, asked me about the idea that landowners should be required to give 28 days' notice before destroying protective plants on sites of special scientific interest. The Nature Conservancy Council have devised a voluntary scheme which I think might equally well meet the substance of what the noble Earl is seeking, but we can discuss these matters in more detail at the Committee stage. The noble Lord might like to know that we are stilt awaiting the NCC's views on Mr. Ross's rare plant on the Isle of Wight, and we will let the noble Lord know when we learn the Nature Conservancy Council's views.
I come to Clause 16, which was introduced by the Government and which is a matter of particular concern to some of your Lordships. During the past few weeks it has been clearly shown that there is gross misunderstanding as to precisely what this clause is designed to achieve. I must emphatically stress that the Government are not seeking draconian powers to carry out a mass extermination programme to rid the country of badgers, and anyone who suggests any such thing is certainly not doing badgers any good at all. I have two particular interests to declare before I discuss this clause in detail. First, I am a farmer and I have a 100-head herd of single suckler beef cows on my farm. My second interest might appear to some of your Lordships

1159
to conflict with my first, although I certainly do not think it does. I am extremely fond of badgers, so much so that I have released a pair of young badgers, reared in a local wildlife park, into a wood on my farm, where they have made a large sett and appear to have settled down quite happily.
While I do not pretend to share the degree of affection for it, or to have the knowledge of the sponsor of this Bill in another place, Mr. Peter Hardy. I, too, am a badger lover. I, like Mr. Hardy, support this gassing clause. And I would venture to say that it is total nonsense to say that this Bill, or this clause, is an "anti-badger measure" or a "Bill for the destruction of badgers ". Nor is there any question of anyone wanting to exterminate badgers or even to decimate them, or badger them into extinction, all of which has been thoroughly irresponsibly suggested.
The Earl of ARRAN: My Lords, may I ask——
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will allow me to give way later rather than now. We have had several lengthy speeches, the hour is quite late and I have a considerable amount to say.
The Ministry of Agriculture's Veterinary Service is now certain that bovine tuberculosis is endemic in badgers in certain limited areas in the South-West and that this animal is playing a significant part in the spread of the disease in cattle in those areas. Several leading experts in veterinary science and badger behaviour also accept that there is strong circumstantial evidence linking the disease in cattle to that in badgers. Other species of wildlife, including foxes, rats, voles and other small rodents, moles and weasels have also been examined at the Central Veterinary Laboratory. Results to date have indicated that no other species of wild mammal apart from the badger plays any part in the spread of the disease in cattle. These investigations are nevertheless continuing. It has been suggested that bats might carry the disease, but this seems unlikely to me; I see no way in which bats infect cattle, but this possibility will be borne in mind during the course of investiga
1160
tions. There is no evidence that birds are affected with bovine tuberculosis or that they play any part in the spread of the disease. I should like to correct one mistaken impression which some noble Lords seem to have about various sorts of tuberculosis; as I understand it, the micro bacterium bovis affects cattle, people and badgers—it is the same micro bacterium and there is no question of there being any such thing as badger tuberculosis, which several noble Lords have suggested.
A large number of badger carcases have now been examined for bovine tuberculosis. Some of those examined were badgers which had died from natural causes and about half of these were found to have lesions of tuberculosis; in other words, to be actually suffering from the disease themselves. In all, about 18 per cent. of all badgers examined post-mortem have been found to be actually suffering from the disease, many with extensive lesions of tuberculosis, which during life would, in the opinion of MAFF's veterinary experts, have made them capable of passing the disease to cattle and other badgers through their sputum, faeces and urine. Most of the lesions occur in the lungs and associated lymph glands and the bacteria are coughed out in the sputum or swallowed and passed in the faeces.
When lesions are present in the kidneys, the urine has been found to contain large numbers of the bacteria which cause tuberculosis. Post-mortem examinations on many of the affected badgers have shown, that, had they lived, they would in all probability have suffered a lingering death due to the extensive and progressive nature of this unpleasant disease. Some animals in an advanced stage of tuberculosis may change their normal behavioural pattern and go in search of easily available food. Some have been found in or near farm buildings during daylight. Badgers with advanced tuberculosis would most certainly infect other occupants of a sett and deposit this very resistant organism underground, making the area dangerous for healthy badgers even after an interval of several months. The pasture over which infected badgers travel could also be contaminated with their discharges to such an extent as to be a potential source of danger to any cattle with access to that area.

1161
Here I may say that I was very surprised at the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, about badgers and cattle not mixing. I think he will know, if he knows anything about badgers, that they prefer feeding on pastures to anywhere else. As he will know, their main diet is earthworms and the main source of earthworms is permanent pasture land, where, of course, cattle are likely to be grazing. Badgers are of course clean animals and normally deposit their faeces in well defined shallow pits. However, in some areas from which tuberculosis badgers have been taken, badger faeces have been found dropped haphazardly in pasture. This goes to support the view that badgers which have this disease are suffering very badly and that it seriously disrupts their normal patterns of behaviour.
Even if cattle did originally give the disease to the badgers, routine and, if necessary, intensive tuberculin-testing programmes now being carried out in cattle herds, with slaughter of all cattle reacting to the test, and any cattle which are considered to have been exposed to infection, ensure that the spread of the disease by cattle is now effectively controlled. My noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby made this point. Cattle which are either infected or are in danger of being infected are being slaughtered.
At present there is no reason to believe that the problem is other than a local one and confined to a few small parts of the South-West of England, although many other areas of the country have dense badger populations—for example, the New Forest, Hertfordshire, Yorkshire and many other counties. However, there is only evidence of tuberculosis in badgers in fairly restricted areas within North and West Cornwall, South Gloucestershire, North Avon, North Wiltshire and South Dorset. The need to take what might be called "fire-brigade "action to control other isolated outbreaks will also arise.
This answers one of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, raised about the three assurances he wanted written into the clause. He said we should have some assurance that the Minister would issue licences only in order to prevent
1162
the spread of disease. It will not be necessary to have this written in. The Badgers Act, as amended, will allow licensed gassing only for the purpose of preventing the spread of disease. But, of course, action would only be taken when all the usual investigations had been made and no other source of infection discovered, and when there was evidence that a local badger population was infected.
Ministry of Agriculture officials emphasise that this is entirely a local problem in all discussions they have with farmers, conservationists and other interested bodies, and I hope all noble Lords will do the same. This is why I say that the exaggerated claims made about Clause 16 do badgers a great deal of harm. There is a danger, as my noble friend Lord Houghton has said, of scaring farmers all over the country into illegally killing badgers when it is quite unnecessary. I hope that some noble Lords will take this point to heart.
The method of control which has been suggested—cyanide gassing—would in any case remain illegal without a licence from my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture. Noble Lords will remember that the Scott-Henderson Report on Cruelty to Wild Animals said that,
" As gassing is undoubtedly the most effective and humane method of killing badgers, steps should be taken to make this practice legal. "
This is what we are seeking to do, but only under licence, and only where gassing is essential. As I say, this decision has not been taken lightly, and while do not want to stress economic factors, I think it is worth mentioning that in 1974 the compensation paid by the Ministry for TB reactors and dangerous contacts in the South West Region of England alone was over £200,000, and for the whole of the remainder of Britain it was only £90,000.
Finally of course, the potential risks to human beings of this disease must not be overlooked. The main reason for the massive campaign to eradicate the disease during the 1950s was to enable us to remove an important source of tuberculosis in people. The powers conferred by this clause will be used only sparingly and only when absolutely necessary. Only power pumped cyanide gas will be used,

1163
unless something is developed which can be shown to be more effective and equally humane. I wish to come here to another point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Foot. I myself find it difficult to see how we could write into Clause 16 the power of the Minister to use any new method of control which turned up in future and which proved to be more effective and more humane than power pumping of cyanide gas which we intend to use at the moment. That is why no specific method of killing badgers has been included in the clause—
The Earl of ARRAN: My Lords, in the House of Commons on 18th April the Minister of State mentioned the possible future use of carbon monoxide. Is it the intention of the Minister to use that poison, or not?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I thought that I had said quite clearly and quite categorically that cyanide gas would be used—and I am repeating what I have just said—unless something is developed which can be shown to be more effective and equally humane. I do not know whether carbon monoxide could be equally effective and equally humane. The noble Earl says he does, but I do not, and I am not pretending that I do. I have given an assurance on the conditions in which some alternative method of control will be used, and I hope that the noble Earl will accept what I have said.
Furthermore, whenever possible, only Ministry of Agriculture staff will be licensed. This is a point touched on by some noble Lords. In those cases when this is not possible, only persons known to the Ministry to be capable of using gassing equipment both efficiently and humanely will be licensed. It is thought that it will not be necessary to licence non-Ministry staff very often, but the kind of people that might do gassing under Ministry contract are those engaged commercially in the business of pest control with experience of gassing rabbits. But in any such case there would still be very close control by Ministry field officers with experience of pest control.
I think I am right in saying that this was the third point on which the noble
1164
Lord, Lord Foot, wanted some assurance. The problem is that at present it is not possible to say how many staff will be needed, in what particular areas they will be needed, or for what length of time. We need some flexibility if this clause is to be carried out effectively. That is why we are asking that the Minister should also have power to license people other than Ministry staff. I think I have now gone rather further than anybody from the Government has done in the past in detailing quite clearly what sort of people we envisage being licensed, if it is necessary.
Since the Ministry has no experience of gassing badgers (although a great deal of experience of gassing other burrowing mammals, such as rabbits and rats) research on badger gassing will be necessary. In part of Gloucestershire/Avon, where badgers infected with tuberculosis have been found, it is proposed to carry out an experimental clearance of badgers within a circumscribed area and to keep the area clear for a year or more. We do not know how long it would take to clear a particular area, nor how long infection would remain in a badger sett after clearance. This is something that we shall have to learn as we go along. The object of the experiment would be to demonstrate that, if both diseased cattle and diseased badgers were excluded for a sufficient time, the area would become free from infection with bovine tuberculosis. By the nature of the problem, only by trying it can we be sure it will work. I think this answers the point made by the noble Viscount about proof in a court of law. By the very nature of the problem we are facing, it is impossible to prove it until we have been able to try exterminating badgers over a small local area to see if this does eradicate the disease.
I believe, and I hope your Lordships will, that we do have enough evidence to justify asking for the powers we need to do this experiment. We know that bovine tuberculosis is doing at least as much, if not more, damage to badgers in these areas than it is to cattle. We also know that merely killing infected cattle will not eradicate the disease. If we want to stop a great many more badgers suffering a long and lingering death from this

1165
disease, I believe we must do everything we possibly can to eradicate the infected badgers, and hence, hopefully, the disease itself.
I apologise for taking up so much of your Lordships' time at this late hour, but as I said earlier a great many noble Lords raised problems associated with Clause 16. To return to less troubled waters, the numbers and, distribution of our fauna and flora are changing all the time, as is our knowledge of their whereabouts. Often the story is one of decline and gloom. I was personally delighted a week ago to find cowslips growing on my farm in two places where I have never seen them before. Rather more important, from a national point of view, in the past few weeks a greater horseshoe bat has been seen for the first time in Sussex. And the monkey orchid has been found far from previously known locations. On this optimistic note I should like to close by commending this Bill to your Lordships' and expressing the hope that it will soon become law.
10.11 p.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, I should first like to express my gratitude to noble Lords who supported the whole of this Bill except Clause 16, although I must except from those thanks the noble Earl, Lord Arran, who told me that the Bill is a mess. I hope that perhaps he will be able to produce some Amendments which will tidy up the mess which, I must confess, I have not yet noticed. Very little was said about the Bill itself, other than about the one controversial clause which I anticipated would produce a certain amount of smoke and fire; but I looked upon it as one of these private wars, and I stood on the outside to hit the bits that stuck out. A very large number of bits have stuck out, but it is too late to enjoy myself by hitting them. I will look forward to being able to do that at the Committee stage.
I would urge noble Lords who are exercised about that clause just to think about two points. It is something I have had to think about in relation to this Bill. In this Bill there is a clause identical to what is in the Badgers Act about the Minister having the power to license the killing of protected wild creatures to prevent the spread of disease. I have been wondering very much, while this
1166
discussion has been going on, whether or not we ought seriously to consider putting a similar clause in this Bill; because, as I see this controversial clause, the real point is that it is allowing the use of a more humane method of killing animals, whether they are suffering from tuberculosis or anything else, which in itself is right and just and proper. Your Lordships have been diverted tonight on discussions as to whether or not there is sufficient evidence to justify its use to prevent the spread of tuberculosis. That is an entirely different thing outside the laws which we are trying to make, which are that if animals must be killed they should be killed humanely.
I would ask those of your Lordships who are worried about this aspect so far as badgers are concerned, to be thinking about this Bill as well; because a rat or bat or mouse or any other mammal feels—I almost said "suffers ", but perhaps that is the wrong word—as great distress by the method of its killing as does a badger or the most attractive animal we know. We ought to look on the whole lot of them in the same category. Bats, we know, can and do carry rabies in some foreign countries. It is conceivably possible that it could happen here and we might have to exterminate a whole colony of the great horseshoe bat, members of which have been found to be carrying rabies. I am not well up in the Rabies Act. I would infinitely prefer to see them killed by poison gas than by sending in small boys with tennis racquets or the like. I hope that noble Lords who are going to discuss this matter in the Committee stage will think about those points and advise me when the time comes whether they think we should have a similar clause allowing the use of a more humane method of killing, if necessary, in this Bill.
The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, referred to the destruction of habitat and the resultant rarity of special things. He specified frogs and toads. In a Bill of this nature you cannot deal with the destruction of habitat; all you can deal with is the people who make animals even rarer after they once have been made rare by the destruction of their habitat. The defence of the habitat must be a Government responsibility in other ways. I think that was the only point which was raised, and if there was anything else I

1167
apologise for missing it. I am grateful for the support given to every part of the Bill except Clause 16. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said, the Bill is not affected by Clause 16 either one way or the other, except possibly in the rather tenuous way to which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, referred, that unless farmers in areas where badgers are known not to have TB at the moment are frightened because the incidence of TB is not reduced in
1168
places where it is prevalent, they may be led to take not illegal action—they are legally entitled to kill the badgers on their farms—but wholly unnecessary action. However, so far as I have heard, it is only in a small area where this problem arises. I am grateful for the support your Lordships have given to this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CONSERVATION OF FISH STOCKS
10.17 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking to promote international agreements on the conservation of fish stocks, and thereby to assist the fishing industry. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask the Unstarred Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I am glad to have the opportunity of putting some points to the Government at a critical time for the fishing industry. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for the trouble which I know he has taken to try to give the House as up to date a picture as he can. I am also glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, whom I believe is going to speak because, as the House knows, over many years he has pressed the interests of fishermen, particularly Scottish fishermen, and will be as concerned as I am with the present difficulties that face our herring fishermen.
The fishing industry has operated in the past in separate sections with different interests. But now those sections are finding much more in common. Our fishermen carry out superbly a vital job for the country, often in difficult and, at times, dangerous conditions. They provide valuable protein for the nation's diet; and the more fish our men can get and land here the better for our balance of payments. Our industry needs special attention and support in this year when a great many changes are taking place in the fishing industries of the world. I have chosen this moment to ask the Government for a Statement for three reasons. First, Parliament is about to go into a Recess during which the referendum on the EEC is to take place. It should be clearly understood by all concerned that most of the grave problems which various sections of the fishing industry have been experiencing are not connected with the EEC, contrary to the mischievous allegations of the SNP and some other anti-Marketeers. Secondly, the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission meets this very week when important decisions on quotas are to be taken. Thirdly, the Law of the Sea Conference at Geneva ended
1170
only a few days ago with a 200 mile economic zone generally favoured but not yet agreed.
Following the period 1970 to 1973, which for the inshore fleet was one of happily increasing prosperity, the prospects for fishermen have been dangerously darkened by certain events. The world price of oil, which they need for fuel, has soared. Landings of very cheap fish were made by non-E.E.C. countries, especially Norway and Iceland, and this seriously upset home prices. This was alleged to be "dumping" and it was caused by the collapse of the United States market. Most worrying of all, the stocks of herring have been disappearing because of over-fishing—again, mainly by non-E.E.C. countries such as Poland and the Soviet Union. The annual pattern of fishing has greatly altered and the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, will recall from his experience how the Scottish herring men used to start off East Anglia about October or November and then fish the East Coast Northwards. According to the time of year, they could tell more or less where the shoals would be. I am told that that pattern has disappeared. The herring shoals in that part of our seas have disappeared.
Let us consider further how the past few years have affected different sections of the industry. The distant and middle-water trawlers, which mainly fish for white fish, principally off the shores of other countries such as Iceland, the Faroes and Northern Norway, are gradually being phased out. They are fishing by agreement in the waters round Iceland and the Faroes. Northern Norway has trawl-free zones which have to be kept clear. The important point is that we have been able to make the change gradually so as to give the industry time to adjust. The industry was not forced immediately out of those traditional fishing grounds and the long-distance trawler owners have, as a result, adapted to this. They are now going in for new methods and even new vessels in order to fish in home waters rather than on the more distant grounds.
I would remind your Lordships that, as regards those trawlers for the distant and medium waters, the structure of the industry is different from the inshore trawler fleet. The boats are larger and

1171
the voyages longer, and the inshore fleet operates in quite a different way where often the crews own shares in the boats and their pay depends mostly on results. They do not have a weekly wage or a monthly salary. The inshore boats are usually away from port for not more than five days and they produce the fresh, high-quality fish. More than half of that inshore fleet is Scottish. Here I make special reference to the herring fishermen, who are part of the inshore fleet. At various times of the year many of them fish for white fish as well. The herring needs different methods and different gear from white fish, but these fishermen have been going through a period of crisis in recent months because of the disappearance of the shoals. This must be due to over-fishing. To meet this problem there have been quotas arranged between the countries concerned by international commissions.
The attitudes of conservation have changed in these years. In the past it was more or less confined to coastal zones and the fishing limits—first three miles, and then they moved out to 12 miles. This has had to be supplemented by other arrangements, such as quotas and bans on fishing in certain areas at certain times of the year for specified kinds of fish. This is something which is in Britain's interests. Unless there are full conservation measures, we can unfortunately see stocks of fish disappearing. We also want to make sure that these conservation methods are properly observed. One reason for this is the advent of industrial fishing. Some countries, such as Japan and the Soviet Union, have methods by which almost everything living in some grounds is scooped up and turned into fishmeal by factory ships. This is sometimes referred to as the "hoovering" method of fishing. That clearly must be carefully controlled, otherwise it can destroy valuable stocks of fish.
Against this background virtually all the countries in the world have been moving towards a new system of a 200-mile economic zone. This became clear two years ago, but progress towards agreement has been slow in relation to the urgent need to conserve herring stocks. Some immediate temporary agreement may be needed for them with the
1172
countries concerned. The North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission at their meeting this week should try, I believe—and the Government, I hope, will help them—to limit severely the total herring catch, while securing a reasonable quota for British fishermen in the seas around our shores. More probably needs to be done in the immediate future than the quotas. Have the Government considered a short-term agreement for banning for a period all herring fishing from further areas?
As regards fish other than herring, our distant water fleets are being forced out of their traditional grounds off the shores of other countries such as Iceland and Northern Norway. This predictable trend will be hastened by the 200-mile zone when it is agreed. But the trawler owners have been preparing for the prospect of having to direct most of their fishing to nearer waters where they are joining our inshore fleet. This is why British fishermen are more than ever concerned about future arrangements affecting home waters. The present satisfactory arrangements for United Kingdom fishing limits are due to continue under our agreement with the EEC until the end of 1982. These are the arrangements for continuing the 12-mile limit which affect our inshore fishermen. When a 200-mile zone is agreed on a world or regional basis, however, the EEC common fisheries policy will no longer be properly relevant to this new situation. The 10-year agreement with Britain will need to be replaced, as was recognised when that agreement was made.
I should like to ask the Government when they now foresee the new concept of an economic zone being put into practice. The Government should be preparing for discussions with other coastal States near us, including the EEC, on the way in which the new system can be applied in order both to conserve stocks and to provide full opportunities for British fishermen. In the past, the interest of the inshore fleet has been concerned with the 12-mile limit and its preservation. That is still so. But our distant water fishermen who have been fishing off other countries' shores have been concerned that fishing limits should not be too far pushed out by them. That is gradually happening in any event, and now both the inshore and the distant

1173
water fishermen have a more common interest in making sure that there is a sensible régime in the waters around our own shores to secure conservation of fish stocks upon which Britain depends more than any other European country.
With the drastic changes that have been taking place there have been serious effects on an industry which serves our country outstandingly and whose products will be needed more than ever in future. But it is thoroughly irresponsible to mislead fishing communities by pretending that all the recent difficulties are due to the EEC. Most of them, as I have said, are due to world factors and to activities of non-EEC countries. It may seem to those who are taking part in the present campaign before the referendum to be attractive to frighten fishing communities about these problems being connected with the EEC, which is wrong. This may well be attractive to them in order to try to win support against continued membership of the EEC. But it is irresponsible, and it is vitally important now that during the next two weeks the truth should get through and that fishermen should not be misled but guided correctly in these matters. I hope that the points which I have raised will enable the Government tonight to give some further information and views at this critical stage after the Geneva Conference which has just ended, and with the Atlantic Fisheries Commission meeting this week.
10.30 p.m.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, at this late hour I do not propose to detain the House for more than a few minutes. However, as one who, without cessation, has fought for the fishing industry for the last 50 years, I felt that I had to rise to my feet to support the Unstarred Question which has been put by my noble friend.
The fishing industry is now going through a great crisis. We had one crisis two or three years ago when the Common Market proposed that all Common Market fishing boats should be allowed to fish with beam trawls up to our beaches. Without attempting to boast in any way, I led the campaign against that proposal, and we had complete and total victory. The 12-mile limit remains and will never be abandoned. During the last two or three years, the inshore
1174
fishermen have done quite well, but now they are facing great difficulties. The position of the herring fishermen has become absolutely desperate, and it is the reason why I am on my feet at 10.30 this evening.
I am old enough to remember the days when the shoals were off the Buchan coast in the summer and off Yarmouth and Lowestoft in the autumn. There were the two great fishings—the summer and the autumn fishings—and so many herrings were landed that the difficulty was to stop them being dumped back into the sea. My job then was to find markets for the herrings that were caught in such plentiful supplies. I went to Russia, Poland and Germany for that purpose—not altogether without success. Now the shoals have disappeared from the Buchan coast. They are no longer to be found in May, June and July. They have disappeared also from Yarmouth and Lowestoft, so there is no great autumn fishing. So far as we can make out, they have gone to an area some hundreds of miles North of the Minch, from which some of them escape the industrial fishing marauders, to the Minch itself where they are caught by our own fishermen. However, the Minch fishing has dropped dramatically during the last few months. Therefore, there is a danger that the herring may become perhaps a more valuable but a scarce fish. This will be a disaster not only for this country but for the whole world.
As my noble friend who has just spoken rightly pointed out, the solution to this problem does not lie with the EEC who are not competitors with us for the herring fishing industry. It lies in an international agreement which must include Poland, Russia and Norway to keep this last part of the North Sea, where the herring shoals are known to collect, from industrial fishing for certain periods of the year—and possibly quotas. I do not know whether time limits or quotas are the right answer, or whether a mixture of the two is right. However, I suspect that a mixture of the two is the right answer. Otherwise, I know of cases where the herring fishing fleet boats are being tied up at this moment and the men who have manned them for all these years with such success are going into the oil business. The inshore fishing industry round the coasts of Northern

1175
Scotland is dying on its feet. I think that the Government should take this up most urgently at international level, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give me some reassurance on that point.
10.35 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has raised the important question of the problems facing our fishing industry, and has asked what action the Government are taking. I have noted very carefully what he has said, and also the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, to which I shall refer in a moment. In my reply, I should like to deal first with the matter of fisheries conservation; after that I will say something about the industry's position within the Community; and, finally, I will touch upon the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea.
First, I must associate myself with the tribute that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has paid to our fishermen. My father had the honour of being the Member for one of the constituencies of Hull for many years between the Wars and I was very conscious from an early age, when I was quite a young boy, of the very important work that our fishermen have done and continue to do. As has been said, the main problem facing our fishing industry today is that of over-fishine. I am well aware of other anxieties faced by our fisheries—such as the international trend towards wider fishing limits, and the immense increases in operating costs. But for the industry to survive at all there must first be adequate fish stocks, and there I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, has said. Unfortunately, there is a strong risk that without adequate international agreement on conservation, many stocks will be so depleted that economic fishing will become impossible.
The United Kingdom is an active member of both the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission and the North-West Atlantic Fisheries Commission. These important regional fisheries conservation bodies, whose members include all nations with a substantial interest in the fish stocks on either side of the North Atlantic, have developed over the past years a series of conservation regulations governing, for example, the mesh of nets,
1176
the minimum sizes of fish which may be taken, and closed seasons and closed areas. The United Kingdom, I am glad to say, and as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, will have realised when he was in Office, has played a major role in all discussions on the state of the many fish stocks in the Convention areas, and more recently the United Kingdom delegation has pressed successfully, I am glad to say, for new total catch limits and national quota arrangements for the main fish stocks of commercial importance in the North-East Atlantic. As a result mainly of the initiative of the United Kingdom, we now have quota limitations on herring in the North Sea and to the West of Scotland; on sole and plaice around the coast of England and Wales; and on cod, haddock and whiting in the North Sea. These new quota arrangements represent a major step forward in ensuring that these heavily taxed stocks are managed for the long-term benefit of all fishermen. But it would be pointless to deny that much remains to be done. The Government attach the greatest importance and urgency to fisheries conservation, and we shall continue to press for improvements in these international quota arrangements and shall be putting forward proposals at the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the N.E.A.F.C. which begins in London on Wednesday. High on the agenda will of course be the serious question of unrestricted industrial fishing, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell.
I have already mentioned the question of fishery limits, and I should now like to touch on this issue in a little more detail. It is only natural that in view of the pressure on fish stocks, our fishermen should be more than ever concerned about proper limits around the United Kingdom, and I will therefore explain to the House what the present position is. The United Kingdom, in accordance with present international law, has a limit of 12 miles. This was introduced in 1964, and was subject to certain arrangements negotiated in 1964 allowing some fishermen of other countries to work between 6 and 12 miles. Under the Common Fisheries Policy the vessels of all Community countries are free in principle to fish within the waters under the jurisdiction of any Member State. In practice, however, there are exceptions to this rule, and the Treaty of Accession in

1177
essence maintained the position as it was before our entry, that until 1982 the waters out to 6 miles would continue to be reserved to United Kingdom fishermen, and that between 6 and 12 miles there would be certain limitations on other EEC vessels. The arrangements for the 6 to 12 miles area are somewhat complicated: in some areas—off the East of Scotland, for example—no other EEC vessels are permitted. In other areas—such as the South-West—French and Belgian vessels may take certain species. I need not go into every detail. The point is that the existing situation within the Community is by no means unsatisfactory, and shows the flexibility which is possible within the Common Fisheries Policy. The arrangements after 1982 would have to be reviewed before then: there is no reason to assume they would be unfavourable. I hope that as members of the Community we shall be able to make the best negotiations possible with our colleagues.
The concern of our industry over limits arises now because of the likelihood that the UN Law of the Sea Conference will in due course agree that coastal States may, if they choose, declare an economic zone including jurisdiction over fisheries out to 200 miles. That situation has not yet arisen, and indeed the Conference will not end before 1976. It would certainly be a considerable time before a general international Convention could be ratified by a majority of the States concerned. However, if and when a 200-mile limit became general, there would clearly be an entirely new situation internationally. Fishing opportunities in distant waters would be reduced. Noble Lords are aware of the importance in particular of the fishing grounds around Norway and Iceland to our supplies of white fish such as cod and haddock. They would not necessarily be eliminated, because such countries also fish around our coasts, so that we may envisage negotiations in due course leading to mutually acceptable arrangements. But, still, the intensity of fishing around the United Kingdom would probably be increased as the fishing fleets of the Community concentrated more of their efforts nearer home. That would still be true even though some non-member countries might end or reduce their fishing near the United Kingdom.
1178
My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has already emphasised the concern of the United Kingdom as the most important fishing nation in the Community. He has made it clear to his colleagues in the Council of Ministers that such a radical change in circumstances would require a reappraisal of the existing provisions of the Common Fisheries Policy. I am glad to say that they have agreed with him that the Community should now study this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, asked whether it would be possible to get a short-term agreement on herring, but I think he will agree that it is probably best for effective conservation to be considered on a long-term basis. This is one of the matters which will be discussed at the conference.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but in trying to make a short speech I did not explain that point, and it may help the noble Lord now. Because Norway was able to arrange an agreement with us, and others concerned, for a trawl-free zone close to her coasts, that is perhaps a precedent for us being able to make agreements with new countries who are fishing for herring around our coasts, about areas where herring could not be fished for. That is the kind of immediate agreement which the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, and I hoped might be reached without having to wait for the 200 mile zone and without retaliation from other countries against us, inasmuch as nobody has retaliated against Norway.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, we shall certainly take note of what the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, have said; I will pass it on to my right honourable friend. This has been done before, as the noble Lord said, and there is no reason why it should not be done here. Finally, I am aware of the feeling in the industry—which is understandable in view of the uncertainties and difficulties facing it—that the United Kingdom should act now and extend its fishery limits. My Lords, the Government do not believe that such a course would help our industry—and that is our objective. Many States fishing around the United Kingdom would not accept such an extension in advance of any change in international law. Furthermore, by acting

1179
without their consent, we would jeopardise the many hard-won voluntary conservation measures which apply around our coast. Moreover, there would be little point in seeking to impose unilateral controls over fishing of the highly migratory stocks around our coasts if there is unregulated fishing elsewhere. The problem of conservation is international and its solution, we believe, must also be international. I believe that the course we are pursuing is the right one.

  PROFESSIONAL AIRCREW LICENCES
  PROFESSIONAL AIRCREW LICENCES
  ABORTION STATISTICS
  ABORTION STATISTICS
  TAIWAN
  TAIWAN