Lords Sitting of 15 December 1976

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Saint Albans):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

THE LORD BISHOP OF NEWCASTLE
Ronald Oliver, Lord Bishop of New-castle—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Rochester and the Lord Bishop of Oxford.

OFFSHORE EXPLORATION: LICENSING
2.38 p.m.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any applicants for the best blocks on offer in the fifth round of offshore exploration licensing have been advised that they should also apply for less attractive blocks if they hope for sympathetic consideration in the sixth round.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, no such advice has been given. Neither the Secretary of State nor the applicant is at liberty, under the regulations governing the licensing, to make or require any change in the application after the closing date.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that helpful reply, which I am sure will help to kill some rumours that have been going around, may I ask whether he can tell the House when the next round is likely to be? There are stories that it may be a year hence.
Lord STRABOLGI: No, my Lords, I cannot, but it may not be for a year or two.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that it might perhaps be desirable sometimes to ask people to take the rough with the smooth?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I do not know whether my noble friend would describe the published criteria as taking the rough with the smooth, but those are the criteria to which we are working.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, as it is understood that this question of applying for blocks is related to the talks on participation, may I ask the noble Lord whether he can give any indication of when the Government will be in a position to inform Parliament about the situation reached in the negotiations with individual companies that have been proceeding on State participation?
Lord STRABOLGI: That may not be until early next year, my Lords. The noble Lord must realise that there is no question of delay. My right honourable friend is presently examining the information supplied to him by applicants and. as has been publicly announced, companies' attitude to the participation negotiations is one of the important factors which will be taken into account.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, can the noble Lord eleborate on his earlier reply? Is he saying that there has been no informal discussion with prospective applicants before the applications went in as to what might be well received as a combination of blocks for which applicants were to ask?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, not to my knowledge. We published the criteria in the Gazette in both London and Edinburgh on 20th August and the closing date was 5th October. This type of tendering is no different from any other.
Lord PARRY: My Lords, is my noble friend satisfied that responsible use has been made of the licences for offshore exploration in the Celtic Sea granted to companies under the earlier round? Has the drilling record there been considered in the allocation under the new round. and would my noble friend not agree

883
that the overall use made so far of Celtic Sea concessions has been disappointing?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the Department of course keeps in close touch with licensees on their plans for drilling in the Celtic Sea, as indeed elsewhere. I can assure my noble friend that an existing licensee's performance is one of the published list of factors that the Secretary of State takes into account in examining applications. With regard to my noble friend's last point, exploration has so far not revealed the Celtic Sea to have such potential as the North Sea, which is of course an outstanding oil province.

SOUTH AFRICA: EQUIPMENT EXPORT
2.40 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether GEC-Marconi have given an assurance that communications equipent, whose export to the Republic of South Africa has been licensed, will be used entirely for civilian and not for military purposes.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, it is not normal practice to comment on individual export licences, but I can assure noble Lords that the technical capabilities of the equipment, as well as its possible application in South Africa, were most carefully examined before a licence was granted. Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that the export of the equipment covered by this particular licence does not contravene our undertakings in respect of the United Nations embargo on arms sales to South Africa.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am honestly puzzled about this and I am asking for information. Is it not the case that this proposal is for links between the Republic and Namibia and that originally the proposal was that it should be a
884
contract with the South African Armaments Department? Is it not the case that it was transferred to the Post Office but that, when it was transferred, the Marconi Company said in a letter of 21st July that the Post Office would provide any necessary circuits for military users? Is not this a denial of the Government's policy of refusing military aid to the Republic?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: I do not think so, my Lords. The firm in question have assured us that none of the equipment is to be installed in Namibia. Secondly, the equipment merely provides telephone and teleprinter channels between fixed points and is similar to equipment used to communicate with the North Sea oil rigs. It is not radar and cannot locate movement and it will form part of the existing South African post office network. As to the point that the South African Armaments Board acted as purchasing agent in this matter, it is the nominal purchaser in this case, but it frequently acts as agent for other South African Government departments anyway.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may ask my noble friend whether a similar guarantee is to be asked of the Soviet Union when we proceed to export Rolls-Royce engines there? Are they to be used solely for civilian purposes?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the general control exercised over export applies to South Africa, to the Soviet Union, and indeed to every other recipient country.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, has my noble friend reconsidered the situation since the Cuban/Russian invasion of Angola and the present move into Mozambique? In the light of this situation, can we not reconsider our policy as to arms for South Africa?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the present position is, that, like every other member of the United Nations, we conform to our international obligations as required of us as members of that organisation. As to the future development of policy in various parts of the world, I cannot answer at this point.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while I agree with my noble friend in opposing Russian intervention in African countries, we are now considering a British policy. Is it not the case that the Marconi Company has said that these facilities will be used for military purposes and is that not a repudiation of our policy of refusing military aid to the apartheid Government?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I do not think so. I really believe that it would be very difficult indeed to think of any article of engineering or electronics equipment mainly meant for civilian use that could not in any circumstances be used for military purposes. In this case, we are fully satisfied that, in the provision of this equipment to the South African Government, while we are in normal trading relations with South Africa, apart from our obligations to the United Nations, our obligations are being fully met.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it has never been the policy of the British Post Office to go outside eligibility and in this particular instance it would keep within the confines of what has been laid down, regarding the industry concerned as a service industry in this connection?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes indeed, my Lords. As a former Minister dealing with the Post Office, my noble friend will understand fully when I say that it would be very difficult to export, for instance, a telecommunications system and at the same time to make quite certain that it was never used by a member of the military personnel of the country concerned.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we had a balance-of-payments deficit of £500 million last month?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes indeed I am, my Lords, just as I was aware when I first became a Minister in 1864 that there was a deficit of between £800 million and £900 million—I hasten to correct the date that I gave, in advance of its being done by Hansard: the date should have been 1964. A memorable statistic in both senses!

THE "HARRIER CARRIER"
2.48 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: 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 have a requirement for a "Harrier Carrier" as proposed by Vosper Thornycroft and whether they intend to order any such vessels.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, we have no requirement for this vessel.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that reply. First, is the noble Lord satisfied that the present arrangements for taking these aircraft afloat are satisfactory? Secondly, would he not agree that, if the Government were to acquire one or more of these vessels, it would greatly enhance the sales prospects of the Sea Harrier itself, as it would provide a much better vessel for the purpose than is at present available?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as regards the first part of the question, the "Invincible" class of anti-submarine warfare cruiser has a much wider range of facilities than the "Harrier Carrier". The situation is that the "Harrier Carrier" is a private venture by Vosper Thornycroft, who have made a presentation to the Ministry of Defence but who have not so far asked for any assistance either of a financial or of any other nature. If they should do, the request would of course receive consideration.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, are the Government satisfied that the vessel described as of the "Invincible" class will be satisfactory? I do not think that there are any yet in service.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, one travels in hope, but it seems a very splendid weapons system.
Lord GREENWAY: My Lords, arising out of this question, have the Government considered the use of merchant ships such as large container ships and roll-on/roll-off ships for such a purpose in time of emergency?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is another question, but if the noble Lord will put down a Question on this matter I will try to answer it.

NHS AND CYPRIOT NALS
2.50 p.m.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: 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 persons of any category (and, if so, which) injured or wounded in the Graeco-Turkish fighting are eligible for free treatment under the National Health Service.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, as a result of the troubles in Cyprus, to which the noble Earl refers in his Question, a number of people fled to this country, and some Cypriot visitors who were here at the time were unable to go home. People in these categories are regarded for the purposes of medical treatment as if they were ordinarily resident in this country and, as such, would be eligible to use the full range of National Health Service facilities. These arrangements do not apply, however, to people who come to this country specifically for treatment.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. Can the noble Lord say whether the possession or non-possession of a British passport by a person in such a situation has any effect on, or makes any difference to, the situation?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: No, my Lords. The criterion is that the patient is ordinarily resident in this country at the time that treatment is sought, and not that he holds any particular passport.

ECONOMIC MEASURES
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 my noble friend the Leader of the
888
House will repeat a Statement, which is being made in another place, on economic measures.

BRITISH AIRWAYS BOARD BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate Part III and Schedule 8 of the Civil Aviation Act 1971 and certain enactments in Part IV of that Act and the Air Corporations Act 1967 and certain provisions of the Air Corporations (Dissolution) Order 1973 with corrections and minor improvements made under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, before we read this Bill a first time, can the noble and learned Lord say whether or not it is a straightforward consolidation measure?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the answer to that question is in the affirmative—yes.
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

HIGHWAY INQUIRIES
2.52 p.m.
Lord O'HAGAN Lord O'HAGAN rose to call attention to the need to reform highway inquiries; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am surprised but delighted that so many of your Lordships share with me a deep interest in the question of highway inquiries, which I am now inviting the House to examine briefly this afternoon. We have debated this subject twice already this year, and I can reassure the House that I am not inviting your Lordships to go through an action replay of what we have already discussed.
What I hope to do is to give the Government an opportunity to reply to those questions which we have asked before but to which we have not yet been given a satisfactory answer. Earlier in the year

889
my noble friend Lord Molson introduced a debate, and on 2nd July, before the Summer Recess, I introduced a debate on a Statutory Instrument which dealt with this subject. On both those occasions the answer was provided by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and I am delighted that today the Minister herself is to reply to the debate. I hope that we will be able this time to have more information about the Government's attitude towards highway inquiries and the need to reform them.
Your Lordships were told before the Summer Recess that the Government had already set in train an inquiry into highway inquiries, an examination of the way highway inquiries work, which was to be conducted in conjunction with the Council on Tribunals. I wonder whether the noble Baroness will be able to tell us today how far that inquiry has gone. The Government have already recognised that everything is not right with the way that our highway inquiries are conducted, and they have set up this inquiry into the matter themselves. When will it be completed? Will outside bodies be allowed to give evidence? I do not want to bombard the noble Baroness with a whole variety of questions, but I can sum them all up by asking whether she can give us a progress report on this inquiry, tell us when it is likely to come to an end, and whether its results will be published?
The Government themselves, while having set this inquiry in motion, have reorganised part of the Department of the Environment which deals with transport so that the machinery of central Government has undergone an alteration, while the implementation of Government policy as conducted in highways inquiries is itself under inquiry. This is a slightly awkward process, and I wonder whether the noble Baroness can say whether the new Department of Transport will have any effect on the way that highway inquiries are conducted.
I should remind your Lordships that highway inquiries are called for under the Highway Acts when road schemes promoted by the Department of the Environment itself, or by local authorities in certain circumstances, cause anxiety. I wonder whether the introduction of a new Department into this field means that
890
there is now a still more complex situation leading up to the inquiry. How does the Ministry of Transport get involved in the procedures which could lead up to the inquiry?
At the end of September there was an article in The Times which gave one example of how this new Department will affect the procedures in highway inquiries. The Times article said:
"… the appointment of inspectors to conduct inquiries will be a matter for the joint decision of the two secretaries of state, who will together consider their reports and reach, it is presumed, a mutually acceptable verdict."
Is this the extent to which the reorganisation of central Government will affect these highway inquiries? There is a Statutory Instrument going through Parliament at the moment, against which I was going to pray until I was lucky enough to initiate this debate.
Perhaps the noble Baroness can say whether there are any points in that Statutory Instrument which affect the debate that we are having today, and I should be very grateful to know which of the two Secretaries of State will appoint inspectors holding inquiries under the Highways Act 1959. I may be stupid, or it may be simply the fact that I do not have the legal expertise which so many of the other participants in this debate have, but I have not been able to discover the answer to that question. Is this Statutory Instrument simply a holding operation, or have we now a firm long-term under-standing of the way that the Department of Transport will affect highway inquiries?
At the centre of our debate in July, and so often in comment in the Press and indeed during some of the more difficult moments in individual inquiries, the question of what is and what is not Government policy has arisen. It is sometimes claimed by the Department of the Environment—and different things are claimed at different times and at different inquiries; there is no consistent pattern—that traffic forecasts are a part of Government policy and that a whole variety of matters are, or are not, Government policy. It would be helpful if the noble Baroness could confirm the kind of questions which the Government think proper for raising at highway inquiries. In another place on 15th October the Under-Secretary of State for Transport

891
said during an adjournment debate:
"I have no doubt that a public inquiry will need to be held into the Department's proposals when they are formally published. This will be before an independent inspector and will give people who object to them a full opportunity to put forward their views and to suggest alternative routes if they wish. It will give an opportunity to question the Department's detailed case for the road."—[Official Report, Commons, 15/10/76, col.913.]
The Minister was talking about a particular part of the M25 scheme.
My Lords, there is the perennial question as to what members of the public can and cannot raise at these inquiries. I do not want to pursue a logic-chopping line of argument or seem merely to be trying to pose awkward questions. What I would ask the noble Baroness to consider is whether it would not help everyone to know what and what not to raise at these inquiries. Would it not be better if there was a clear, definite statement of what Government transport policy consists, and that, as a result of that, there were guidelines which made it clear which aspects of that pollicy were to be discussed in Parliament and which aspects of that policy were permitted to be raised at inquiries?
My Lords, there is a convenient precedent in Section 3(2) of the Civil Aviation Act 1971. Under that section the Secretary of State has from time to time to give guidance to the Civil Aviation Authority with respect to the performance of its functions, and he has to put these policy guidelines in the form of a document which is laid before both Houses of Parliament. I have here an example of such a document. It is called, Future Aviation Policy; it has six pages of policy guidance, and it is intended that its main provisions:
"should remain substantially unchanged for a considerable number of years".
So in this sphere of Government activity there is already a mechanism for laying the broad guidelines of policy before Parliament, the appropriate forum for discussing broad policy guidelines; and not only is Parliament given the opportunity to discuss those broad outlines, but members of the public can look to them and get guidance from them as to what the policy of the Government is and what it is likely to be for some years, so that continuity is achieved.
There is nothing of the sort that I have been able to discover in the field of transport policy, particularly as it affects highway inquiries. The precise identity of Government policy, when it is raised at highway inquiries, is nothing like as clear as is set out in Future Aviation Policy, whether or not we like it and whether or not we disagree with it as explained in this Command Paper. I understand that the Government are considering publishing an annual White Paper on transport policy. What I should like to ask the noble Baroness is this. In certain cases at highway inquiries some uncertainty has arisen as to what is and what is not Government policy; and, then, there have been different views taken as to what people with a legitimate ground for participating in those inquiries can or cannot raise. Is the Government's new White Paper going to follow the pattern of the Civil Aviation Act? Is it going to settle this question of policy? Is it going to define what Government policy is or is not? If the Government take this opportunity, part of the trouble which arises at highway inquiries could well be avoided, because Government policy will be clear. It will have been discussed in Parliament, in the national forum; it will have been raised in front of representatives of all constituencies; and it will therefore be much more difficult for those who want to discuss national issues at a highway inquiry to persist in their efforts.
My Lords, I gave the noble Baroness notice that I was going to quote from a document recently published by the Conservative Political Centre called, Another Bill of Rights? I will do so briefly, if I may, because it sums up some of the points that I have raised today and on previous occasions. I think it is important to examine the question of highway inquiries, not simply as part of transport policy but as part of the general discussion that is going on about how the citizen can be protected against what local and central Government wish to do, and how he can be given a forum in which to explain his views before Government action is taken. I think the question of the liberty of the subject is an important one in this field.
This document, in its concluding words entitled, "Ancillary recommendations", says this:
"First, we believe that where the issue between citizen and Minister turns upon policy rather than

893
law, as in the case of appeals under the Town and Country Planning, and Highways Acts, there is much to be said for the precedent of the Civil Aviation Act 1971 whereby the responsible Minister is required from time to time to issue policy guidelines in the form of a Statutory Instrument. The present situation in which parties to appeals have to rely upon Ministerial speeches in Parliament, Departmental press releases and the like seems to us wholly unsatisfactory, while the rapid changes in policy announced by such methods unnecessarily (in our view) increases uncertainty".
I wonder whether the noble Baroness thinks that what this report calls "an authoritative statement of policy" would deal with some of these uncertainties and make the whole conduct of highway inquiries more acceptable for all concerned.
Then, my Lords, there is another recommendation. I quote again:
"We also believe that the time has come to reconsider rejection by the Conservative government of the day of the Franks' Committee's recommendation that the Inspectorate (then the Ministry of Housing and Local Government—now of the Department of the Environment) should be transferred to the Lord Chancellor's Department. There are two reasons why we favour such a change. First, it is becoming increasingly clear that Inspectors will have to he granted powers to commit for contempt. So far this need has for the most part been confined to motorway inquiries",
and so on.
"Nevertheless, there is evidence that the tendency to disrupt is extending to other inquiries …
"Secondly, there are occasions (which are happily relatively rare) where a civil servant appearing at a public inquiry on behalf of his department indulges in vexatious prevarication. An inspector responsible to, or appointed by, the same department (as is generally the case) is in a particularly difficult position in exercising control."
In one of the central recommendations of this report—Recommendation No.6—it is suggested that:
"… consideration should be given to transferring the Inspectorate … to the Lord Chancellor's Department".
My Lords, I believe that there is an unfortunate category of persons known as vexatious litigants on whom the most terrible things are wreaked by lawyers. I hope that you will not consider that I have been a vexatious Parliamentarian in again bringing this matter before the House. I think it is something that we need to consider because the present procedures are creaking, if not in danger in some cases of ceasing to carry conviction. I hope the noble Baroness will take the opportunity to give us an up-to-date
894
statement of what are the Government's views, how far their own inquiries went, what recent changes in Government machinery mean for the conduct of highway inquiries and whether the Government have the beginnings of a policy for making these necessary inquiries work better and work in a way that seems fair to all those involved in them. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.11 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I would not accuse the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, of being a vexatious litigant. On the contrary, I should like to congratulate him on raising this matter again within the space of a few months, and on the excellence of his timing in succeeding in initiating this debate only a few days after the appointment of the chairman of the Committee of Inquiry which has just been established by the Government. If I were going to be cynical, I might say that the noble Lord's tabling of this Motion might have accelerated the appointment of the chairman of this Committee; but, of course, I am not cynical and I would not make any such assertion. I am pleased to note that the noble Lord is a convert to the idea of a Bill of Rights. I hope that when my noble friend Lord Wade reintroduces his Bill—as I am told is his intention in the near future —the noble Lord will go into the Lobbies in support of it, particularly as it has recently had the powerful support of Lord Justice Scarman who spoke in support of a Bill of Rights and, in particular, of the method adopted by my noble friend in a lecture given as recently as Friday last.
Obviously, inquiries into motorway and trunk road proposals are not being conducted in such a way as to afford objectors what we should consider adequate opportunities for raising their objections to those proposals. That is the reason why at many of the recent inquiries there have been disturbances which some noble Lords may consider to be regret-table. But when no public debate has ever been allowed on the general policy of working towards a motorway and trunk road system of enormous size, nor has there been any opportunity of questioning the traffic forecasts which are an integral part of the proposals of the Government which are used to justify

895
the road programmes, it is hardly surprising that certain people, when going to these inquiries, go beyond the bounds of the law in making their objections felt.
In recent years, inch by inch, the Department of the Environment and, more recently, the Department of Transport, have made small concessions to the principle of public participation; but they have gone nothing like as far as one would like, nothing like as far as Mr. Wedgwood Benn has gone in the case of energy. He actively encouraged debate both by providing a platform on which interested parties can express opinions and also by taking part himself in debates sponsored by other people: for instance, the debate held this week under the auspices of the Bishop of Kingston which the right honourable gentleman attended in person. I only wish that our transport planners could be persuaded to follow Mr. Benn's example in this respect in holding a proper public debate on a matter of great importance to so many citizens.
Grudgingly, in 1973, the Department of the Environment conceded at the M40 and M42 inquiries that the need for a scheme could be questioned at a line order public inquiry. In 1974, the Select Committee on Expenditure recommended that the right to challenge the need for a transport scheme at a public inquiry should be firmly established. In February 1975, that was accepted by the Government with the proviso that:
"matters of policy are not called into question".
In July 1975, at the M16 inquiry, a Department of the Environment witness admitted under cross-examination by a representative of the Friends of the Earth that the method of estimating the saturation level of car ownership was subject to bias and likely to produce over-estimate. Since then, the Government have insisted that traffic forecasts are included within the definition of design standards and these design standards are, in turn, defined as policy issues for which Ministers are supposed to be directly answerable to Parliament and, therefore, in consequence held to be inappropriate for consideration at public inquiries.
This is the point which the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, was emphasising: that it is not absolutely clear to members of the
896
public just what is legitimate in the case of questions to be raised by objectors at these public inquiries. Whatever the inspector may think—and he is. of course, supposed to be independent; that is the theory—in the rules which have been published this year (1976, Statutory Instrument No.721) he is obliged only to disallow any question which in his opinion is directed to the merits of Government policy. The notes for guidance of inspectors, which the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, mentioned, make it quite clear that the word "policy" is given a very elastic meaning. The forecasts are to he treated as policy, as are the assumptions made by the Government about the availability and price of fuel. At the public inquiry into the Chelmsford bypass, a Departmental witness claimed that he was not competent to answer questions on the traffic forecast although they had been submitted in writing in advance. The inspector commented:
"It is … unsatisfactory if a body of informed opinion challenges something as basic as the Department's methods of predicted traffic flows, and if it considers it necessary to do so at a series of local inquiries in the absence of any provision for these matters to be debated, and, if possible, resolved at national level."
Then, in relation to the Department's inability to cross-examine an agricultural witness—but the general principle would apply the other way round—he said:
"While I fully appreciate the difficulties, I would make the general point that it is a pity if expert evidence of any kind is not subjected to cross-examination by someone who is, at least, advised by experts. At least the expert giving evidence in such a case may feel less need to verify his references or substantiate his assertions."
In the orange paper published earlier this year, these criticisms of COBA (the computer programme for the economic appraisal of highway schemes) and, indeed, the whole system of appraisal, were noted. Without going into all the defects of this programme, COBA, I should like to point out to the noble Baroness that the only benefits it considers are savings of time, vehicle operating costs and accidents, and the only cost that it considers is the cost of building the road. Apart from the disbenefits which may accrue to those who live along the line of the road and in the roads giving access to it, there are many others that one might think of. One was quoted in The Times of August 12th 1976, where the police in Yorkshire claimed that the construction of the M62

897
had widened the scope for criminal activities. The head of the regional crime squad is quoted as saying:
"Suddenly Lancashire criminals are committing serious crimes in Yorkshire, Humberside and Lincolnshire
"The M62 gives criminals quick access and a fast getaway from an area that was previously too far away from them."
That is what is meant by the economic benefits of a motorway.
One other general argument by Mr. Adams of University College, is that he pointed out that a scheme which reduced the risk of cancer per cigarette smoked by 25 per cent., while at the same time promoting a doubling in the number of cigarettes smoked by making them cheaper and more accessible, is not a scheme which can be credited with the benefit of reducing cancer. Therefore, if we are saying that motorways reduce the number of accidents per vehicle kilometre but at the same time promote an increase in traffic so that accidents are restored to the level which they were at before the construction of the motorway, it is wrong to claim that this motorway results in any saving in life or serious injuries.
In the orange paper which I mentioned, the Government announced that an independent assessment would therefore be sought to comment on and, if necessary, make recommendations for changes in the Department's appraisal of road schemes, including traffic forecasts and the weight given to economic and environmental factors. I do not think that the Government would have gone so far as that if they had not been convinced that there was some validity in the criticisms which had been levelled at the methods which they had adopted in the past. Yet, as I mentioned, it was only the other day, 10th December, that the chairman of this inquiry was named and the terms of reference were given. I should like to ask the noble Baroness to say why it has taken so long to set the inquiry in motion. It is not starting yet because it is only the chairman who has been appointed and not his colleagues.
Suppose that this inquiry finds that serious errors have been built into the methodology of conducting these inquiries and into the traffic forecasts themselves, and that therefore hundreds of millions of pounds would be spent if these methodologies were continued on the traffic
898
schemes that might turn out to he unnecessary. When public spending generally is having to be cut severely—and we shall no doubt hear some news about this later this afternoon—it would be utterly scandalous if wasteful and unnecessary expenditure on trunk roads and motor-ways were allowed to he continued. Therefore, I propose to the noble Baroness —and I should like her comments on this —that until Sir George Leitch has made his report, all public inquiries into motor-ways and trunk road schemes should be adjourned, and that they should not be reconvened until the Government have had the benefit of his advice.
When they are resumed, will the Government also give an assurance—and this is a relatively minor point—that the assignment procedures will remain a proper subject for questioning in accordance with the assurance that the noble Baroness gave to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, on 26th July, even after the regional highway traffic models have been completed and are produced as evidence? These assignment procedures, by the way, are the calculations that are followed in distributing a given overall traffic growth between the various roads within a region. It is the suspicion of some people that once computer forecasts have been introduced in this field, they will be treated as sacrosanct in the same way as the forecasts of national traffic growth produced by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory are treated as sacrosanct by the Department of the Environment.
Another point on which I should he grateful for the comments of the noble Baroness is whether the Government will eliminate the bias in the so-called system of consultation which, in my opinion, is as about as democratic as the system of elections in a one-Party State. If one looks at documents such as the one I have in my hand issued in respect of the Stoke/Derby Link, it says on the front of it "Your views are needed", but then if you look on the inside the whole document is a justification for the construction of this link. The whole of the second page is an argument in favour of it. If one then examines the questionnaire, it does not ask the people who are invited to fill it in whether they think that the road is necessary at all; it only asks them to say which of various routes

899
they think are the best. I do not call that consultation.
I ask the noble Baroness to give an assurance that, in revising these procedures, people are asked to say whether or not they think that a road is necessary. Frequently it may happen that even people living in streets that are severely affected by existing traffic would prefer a new road not to be constructed. As evidence of that, I have a letter from the Department of the Environment dated 26th May 1976 referring to the M.25 South orbital route, Micklefield Green to South Mimms. In that case, the writer of the letter, the official in the Department of the Environment who was addressing the Friends of the Earth (Watford Action Group) gave an analysis of the preferences expressed by members of the public. The largest number of replies which they received by far was from people who favoured postponement of the scheme altogether. They were not actually asked whether they wanted postponement. In terms of an American election, this is what is called a "write-in" vote. They were asking for the scheme to be postponed, although what the Department put for them was which of a number of alternatives did they prefer.
I should like to ask whether the Minister will consider a proposal which has been made by the M.23 Motorway Action Group. I had some corresponddence with the noble Baroness on this point regarding the M.23 motorway. I wonder whether a time limit should be placed on the permission which is obtained by the Department of Transport as a result of such public inquiries. There is at the moment no time limit on these powers to build a road. That is not in accordance with the provisions of planning, where once you have obtained permission you must implement the permission within a fixed space of time or you automatically forfeit it.
I remember that when I was representing a constituency in South London we found that a route which had been agreed prior to the war was still sterilised and it was revived for the purpose of an intended South orbital road, and people who lived along the line of that route suddenly found that the value of their properties sank by 20 per cent. or 30 per cent.
900
This can easily happen with people who live along the line of a route. If the Government did not proceed with their plans within the space of, let us say, five years, they would not have a sword of Damocles hanging over their heads for an indefinite length of time. How one would do this in statutory form I should not like to say. It would be a severe disincentive to the Government if they had to begin the statutory procedures all over again, if such a road were not started within five years.
My Lords, I should like to conclude by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, on giving us the opportunity of raising this matter once again. I hope that we shall have some constructive answers from the noble Baroness this afternoon.
3.30 p.m.
Lord CHESHAM: My Lords, that there is considerable concern about these matters both inside your Lordships' House and outside it, is evidenced and admitted. I, too, join in praising the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, for having brought the matter up, which can only do some good. I regret—not very sincerely—that I should have heard what I did, and cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and his implication that he considers that the kind of disruptive practice that is being employed at public inquiries at the moment is at least deserving of sympathy.
If there was any doubt about that implication, he then went on to prove his views by certain of the arguments he subsequently used. I simply cannot go with the noble Lord in that kind of opinion. I think we must look really properly at the situation. How long has this concern and dissatisfaction about these matters gone on?—not very long in fact: and, after all, the procedures do stem from the Highways Act 1969. They were codified—no more—in the Statutory Instrument of this year, and it is only within comparatively recent periods—I have to be very careful about using the word "time" in this context—that there has been this dissatisfaction.
Very well. my Lords: if there is reason in the procedure and the rules of procedure and the way things work, I for one and. I am sure, a good many of your Lordships. have reasonable confidence that the

901
measures at present being taken by the Government and in particular the Review being carried out under the august chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack will sort things out in the way they need to be sorted. Therefore what is the source of the concern? I think it stems from a relatively small but extremely militant body of persons and organisations who have done their best, and a very capable best, to use the procedural rules as a means of extending their own self-appointed—perhaps some people would say self-opinionated—objections to road schemes in general. I do not think anyone can be left in much doubt that the practice we are seeing is a deliberate and sustained effort to delay new highway schemes on a matter of so called principle, rather than any expression of concern for democracy; and if anybody tries to tell me that by disrupting, by halting, by stamping and heating up inquiries you are giving any kind of chance or show of concern for democracy or for people who may well have legitimate objections to express clearly their views and discuss them, then somebody else's idea of democracy is very different from mine.
If there be any doubt left from what I have said, if we consider the disruptive practices and the antics which have been going on, which have been frequently, and indeed usually, carefully orchestrated by people who probably do not live within two or three hundred miles of the area affected by the inquiry—and, curiously, usually in front of all the television camera crews and of many other represent-tatives of the different forms of the Press, because I have always thought it is a strange coincidence that they should be there—these activities can be seen for what they are. We should not get into a panic about the unsatisfactory nature of the procedures.
What we are concerned about will be put right, but we are hack to a problem of a little hit of enforcement of law and order, a bit of public discipline and a bit of good behaviour in these matters, which is what is required. I believe that if any capitulation, which is a slightly different thing from "reasonable review", on any of the procedures were to take place it would not put an end to this kind of opposition.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that it is the sustained argument against any form of planning for roads which is causing what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was complaining about; that is, the road blight on values as well?
Lord CHESHAM: That is true, my Lords, but I think it is a slightly different point from the one I was making, if my noble friend does not mind my saying so. What I was trying to say was that even if there is some form of considerable "giving", we will call it, on the question of procedures, that would not put any kind of end to the opposition because, as I understand it, Mr. Tyme and some of his followers have already publicised their intention to disrupt work on construction sites in any way they can, including endeavours to make contractors bankrupt.
Lord BRAYE: My Lords, would the noble Lord tell me whether he includes the Council for the Protection of Rural England among these people?
Lord CHESHAM: My Lords, if the Council for the Protection of Rural England supports Mr. Tyme and his followers, and supports and takes part in disruptive practices at public inquiries, then I most certainly would include them.
Lord HENLEY: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will allow me to intervene for one moment to say unequivocally that the Council for the Protection of Rural England has condemned these disruptive practices.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord CHESHAM: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for jumping ahead of his turn and answering so clearly for me the question put by my noble friend. Sometimes I feel that people consider, quite wrongly, that the purpose of an inquiry is to make a decision. Of course, it is not. Everybody knows that. All your Lordships know that, I am sure. It has already been pointed out; but people still behave as though it was. I think the point needs to be made very strongly that an inquiry cannot be decision-making. There is no way, short of legislation, that you can make them decision-making. If you are ramming

903
home these tactics, it is not the only way—it has been said that it is not—that the inquiry should be respected, in exactly the same way as any other legal process which we have. The decision conies from a Minister and if he considers, as we do, all the social, industrial and economic necessities for a full and properly planned road system. then "time"—however you like to spell that word—is not on our side.

ECONOMIC MEASURES
3.39 p.m.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement, being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, about the further measures which the Government are taking to promote the nation's economic recovery and to achieve the fastest possible return to a high and sustainable level of employment. May I apologise to noble Lords for the length of this Statement. However, it is an important one and I hope that your Lordships wil`l understand the reason for its length. The Statement is as follows:
"In order to avoid excessive strains next year, when the economy will still be operating well below capacity, the measures will cover the next two years. They will form part of a mediumterm programme for national recovery to ensure that the 1980s offer us the prospect of an economy fully restored to balance, with high levels of output, employment and real wages and an industry which is vigorous, expanding and profitable. Further elements in this programme for national recovery will be contained in my next Budget and in the next phase of the industrial strategy.
Reduction in the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
The latest forecast prepared before the measures showed a PSBR of £10½ billion in 1977/78 and £11½ billion in 1978/79. These forecasts embodied unrealistically favourable assumptions on several important points. Even so the PSBR figures were unacceptably
904
high and the immediate objective of the measures which I am announcing this afternoon is to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement to about £8· 7 billion in 1977/78 and to somewhat less in the following year—on present forecasts I expect a figure of some £8· 6 billion. So the reduction in the PSBR would he nearly £2 billion in 1977/78 and nearly £3 billion in 1978/79. Expressed as a percentage of GDP, the PSBR will fall steadily from 9 per cent. in the current year to about 6 per cent. in 1977/78 and rather over 5 per cent. in 1978/79. These objectives are calculated on the basis of the economic prospect as I now see it.
To achieve these objectives, the Government are proposing adjustments to current plans amounting to£1½ billion in 1977/78 and £2 billion in 1978/79. I am therefore announcing specific measures this afternoon which amount to some £1½ billion in each year. In addition, the Government will make a further fiscal adjustment of about £1½ billion in 1978/79. It is too soon to say what form this further adjustment will take.
It is of course impossible to forecast with any confidence at the present time what will be the condition of the economy in 1978/79. The extent to which further fiscal adjustment might be needed cannot be decided at this stage. If the forecasts at the time show the economy growing from the beginning of 1978 to the end of 1979 at a rate of more than 3½ per cent. a year, the Government intend to make a further fiscal adjustment in the 1978 Budget—of between £½ billion and £1 billion, depending on the buoyancy of demand and the state of the world economy at that time—to ensure that with those higher growth rates domestic conditions do not prevent us from giving the necessary priority to exports and investment.
"Expenditure or Taxation
The fiscal adjustment in both years will come mainly from savings in public expenditure rather than increases in taxation. This is for two reasons. First, although the level of our public expenditure, as a proportion of GDP. is no higher than in some other industrialised countries, it has grown much more rapidly in recent years than our industrial

905
output, and our industrial output itself is relatively low. Second, and perhaps this is not unconnected with our low level of industrial output, people at work are already highly taxed on their incomes, and face a further drop in their living standards in the coming year. I do not believe it would be right to burden them with the lion's share of the fiscal adjustment which is now necessary and inadequate financial incentives to work and to invest could put our economic recovery at risk.
Savings in public expenditure must therefore produce by far the greater part of the adjustment needed. On the other hand, the savings needed are on nothing like the draconian scale suggested by some outside commentators. I think that there has been a growing consensus among responsible economists that savage and indiscriminate cuts of up to £5 billion would do irreparable damage both to the structure of our social services and to the prospects for employment. They would imply a massive and immediate contraction of demand which is the last thing British industry wants to see at present.
"Public Expenditure"
The White Paper which we published in February this year set our medium-term strategy for public expenditure.
In accordance with this strategy, we are holding expenditure in this financial year within the planned level by the rigorous application of cash limits, by new arrangements for regular consultation with the local authorities, and by refusing to accept new commitments which would breach the contingency reserve. In carrying out the 1976 public expenditure Survey we have already made certain adjustments so as to keep within the February White Paper plan for each year, as modified by the measures I announced in July.
In order to achieve the new PSBR targets to which I have referred, we have now decided to reduce public expenditure programmes further by £1 billion in 1977–78 and £1½ billion in 1978–79 at 1976 Survey Prices. The details are being circulated in the Official Report and are available in the Vote Office"—
906
and in our case, my Lords, in the Printed Paper Office—
"but I will now describe the main further changes which are being made to the programmes as they emerged from the Survey.
Once again we have avoided mechanic-cal cuts across the board and have not reduced the main social security benefits, although we arc concerned about the narrowing gap between them and the income of those in work. The cuts will therefore fall elsewhere.
"The Civil Service
So far as the Civil Service is concerned, we intend in addition to the economies already announced, to obtain further economies of some £30 million next year and £10 million in 1978–79.
"Local Authority Current Expenditure
Local authority current expenditure is now more strictly influenced by the central Government through the recent reduction of the main Rate Support Grant for England and Wales from 65½ per cent. to 61 per cent. in 1977–78 and the corresponding reduction for Scotland. We are not re-opening those settlements.
"Capital Expenditure and Construction
But there will be a reduction in housing capital programmes. Without these adjustments there would have been a substantial overspend on housing. The reduction now decided will offset most of the likely excess next year and will contribute a saving of £300 million in the following year.
New construction will be suspended or curtailed in several other central and local government programmes, including roads, other environmental services, school building, Government accommodation, and capital spending by the Water Authorities. This will save about £270 million next year and over £300 million in 1978–79
"Community Land Act
Borrowing approvals will be reduced to achieve a slower build-up of land acquisitions under the Community Land Act, producing savings of £35 million in each year, although the total amount to spend will still rise substantially.

907
"Food Subsidies
The planned programme for phasing out the Government's food subsidies will be accelerated and will be completed in 1977–78, saving £160 million in that year and about £60 million in the following year. This will add less than ¼ per cent. to the RPI over 1977–78.
"Education
Besides reductions in school building, to which I have already referred and which will not affect basic needs, the programme for current expenditure on education will be reduced by economies in the administration of school meals, by deferring the operation of Section 9 of the Education Act 1976 dealing with school milk, and by other minor savings, making a total of £20 million in 1977–78 and £30 million in 1978–79.
"Nationalised Industries
Under the new treatment of the nationalised industries on which we have consulted the Expenditure Committee, we shall in future be including in public expenditure only Government finance for these industries, rather than their investment programmes as such. We intend to agree with the nationalised industries action which will reduce the level of Government financing by £110 million and £130 million in the next two years. As well as economies in spending there will be increases in revenue, notably a gas price increase which the Government are asking the British Gas Corporation to effect from April 1977.
"Regional Employment Premium
As I told the House in July, the Government want to move progresssively towards a more selective approach to assistance for industry. It is doubtful whether the regional employment premium now fulfils the original purpose of attracting employment to the regions. We therefore believe that it should now give way to more selective measures and it will be withdrawn by Statutory Order early in the New Year, saving £150 million next year and £170 million in the year after. I shall be describing in a moment other measures in the industrial field designed to assist employment and investment.
908
"The Defence Budget
In an exercise of this magnitude, spending in support of our external policies must inevitably play its part. Despite the big cuts which we have already made in defence expenditure, we cannot achieve the necessary reducetions in public expenditure and the public sector borrowing requirement without a contribution from the defence budget. We are looking to defence for further savings of £100 million in 1977–78 and £200 million in 1978–79.
"Overseas Aid
There will be reductions in the provision for overseas aid which, until now, has been almost entirely protected from expenditure savings. The Government have taken this decision with great reluctance. The savings will be £50 million in Survey prices in each year.
"Export Credit
The refinancing by the Government of fixed rate credit for exports and ship-building imposes a major charge on public expenditure and the PSBR which threatens to exceed previous forecasts. Partly to deal with this, I have asked the clearing banks to finance from their own resources an additional £100 million of fixed rate sterling business in each of the next two years and I am glad to say that they have agreed to do so. We believe that by funding medium and long term export credit in foreign currency instead of in sterling we can reduce the burden which export credit imposes on public expenditure, the PSBR and the balance of payments. We arc therefore taking steps to encourage the use of foreign currency financing and to control the rate at which new offers of fixed rate sterling finance will be approved by the Export Credits Guarantee Department. All these measures will reduce expenditure on refinancing and together produce a net saving of £100 million in 1977/78 and £200 million in 1978/79, below that shown in Cmnd.6393.
We are aware of the concern of industry about the future of the cost escalation scheme which, as matters stand, is due to end in March 1977. We now propose that it should be continued for a further year. The necessary

909
draft order will be laid before the House in due course.
Revised expenditure programmes for 1977/78 and 1978/79, taking account of these measures and of other adjustments made during the public expenditure Survey, will be set out in a public expenditure White Paper in due course. These decisions will reduce planned expenditure by a little over £1½ billion and £1½ billion in the next two financial years. Both figures are at 1976 Survey prices; in current prices they will be much larger.
"Measures to Help Employment and Investment
On the other hand, we have decided to add to expenditure in two areas which we believe should have the highest priority—incentives to promote industrial investment and expansion, and measures to reduce unemployment.
There will be an increase in the resources of the National Enterprise Board and the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies. A new selective investment scheme will be introduced to follow up the very successful Accelerated Projects Scheme. It will give help to manufacturing companies for major projects designed to improve capacity and performance. I will allocate £100 million to this scheme in the first instance. The money will be spent over a period of years; the rate at which it is spent will depend on how many good projects come forward for support. Further money will also be made available for additional sectoral schemes in support of the industrial strategy, and for other measures to help industry. Taken together, I have allocated £80 million in each of the next two years for these measures to help industry.
There will be an increase of £120 million in 1977/78 in spending on measures to reduce unemployment. New applications for the temporary employment subsidy are to close at the end of this month and for the job creation programme shortly after. We have decided to extend these two schemes to the end of April, and then to review their future along with the other new schemes which the Government have recently introduced. This additional
910
expenditure will more than offset the impact on unemployment next year of the other measures which I have announced and will mean that the net effect of the whole package will be to reduce unemployment during 1977.
"Indirect Taxation
To finance this additional expenditure on investment and employment, I must look for some contribution from the specific Revenue duties, which are fixed in money terms and are therefore continually eroded by inflation.
I have decided to use my Regulator powers to increase by 10 per cent. all the revenue duties charged on tobacco and alcoholic drinks. The increases will come into force for the Customs duties on imported tobacco at midnight tonight, and for the duties on tobacco products and drinks on 1st January. They will have no effect on prices during the Christmas and New Year holidays.
If fully passed on, these duty increases, taking into account the consequential increase in value added tax, will add rather over ½ per cent. to the Retail Price Index. They will raise the tax charge on a pint of beer of average strength by a little under 1p, and on a standard bottle of spirits by about 31p. They will increase the charge on a standard bottle of table wine by about 5p, and on a bottle of fortified wine such as sherry by about 7p. The tax on a packet of 20 filter cigarettes of average size will be increased by about 4p. The additional revenue raised will be £50 million in the remainder of this financial year and £280 million in 1977/78.
I believe the British people will accept that these increases in the cost of less essential goods are fully justified at this time, particularly when the proceeds are intended to create more jobs and more investment.
"Sale of B.P. Shares
There is one further step which we propose to take to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement in 1977/78. Two years ago the Government rescued the Burmah Oil Company from severe financial difficulties, and as part of a package of support the Bank of England bought Burmah's holding of shares in the British Petroleum Company.

911
We now propose that the Bank should sell enough of Burmah's former share-holding in British Petrolum to leave the total of the Government's and the Bank's holdings at 51 per cent. as against the 48 per cent. held by the Government before the acquisition of the ex-Burmah BP shares. As the House will be aware, these shares are currently the subject of a legal claim by Burmah against the Bank of England. We are advised in the firmest terms that this claim is without merit but so long as it is being pursued it may prove an impediment to a successful sale. If this impediment is not removed, the Government will sell an appropriate number of their own BP shares and in due course will make good their holding by securing the transfer to the Treasury of an equivalent amount of the BP stock acquired from the Burmah Oil Company and now held by the Bank of England.
"Incomes Policy
A central objective of Government policy is to continue the attack on inflation. To maintain a continued fall in inflation through to 1978 we shall need agreement between the TUC and the Government, and of the CBI and others involved, on how to pursue the attack on inflation while permitting greater flexibility in pay negotiation in the period after July 1977. I hope it will be possible for us to reach agreement on this in time for me to take account of the outcome in settling the levels of income tax in the next Budget.
lf, at the time I settle my Budget for 1977/78, I judge that without increasing the public sector borrowing requirement above £8½ 7 billion there is scope for tax reliefs and if, as I expect, a satisfactory agreement has been reached with the TUC and the CBI on the next pay round, then I propose to use the available margin to reduce the present burden of income tax which I believe to be too heavy.
In this context there are also important questions, which I shall want to consider with the TUC and other interested bodies, concerning the interrelationships between changes in earnings, social security benefits, pensions and rates of direct and indirect taxation.
912
"Taxation of Overseas Earnings
There is one aspect of taxation which I intend to start considering at once. I believe it is important to find ways of improving the tax treatment of employees who live in this country but who work abroad on increasing our exports. The people I want to encourage are those at the sharp end of exporting—the business of selling British goods overseas—as well as those who contribute to our overseas earnings by working for a period overseas, for example, in construction projects. I have therefore asked the Inland Revenue to issue a Consultative Paper which will outline proposals to give to anyone who works for a period abroad the reliefs which are at present allowed only to those with separate jobs abroad. The proposals would also modify the rulesgoverning the allowance of expenses incurred abroad. I have authorised the Revenue to seek the views of interested bodies, with a view to legislation in next year's Finance Bill.
"Domestic Monetary Effects
I have already described the targets which we have set for the PSBR of £8½ 7 billion for 1977–78 and £8½ 6 billion for 1978–79, in order to create monetary conditions which will encourage investment and growth and will help to control inflation. We are expressing the essential monetary targets in terms of domestic credit expansion rather than money supply, since we agree with the IMF that this will be more appropriate than a target for M3, during a period when we shall be giving top priority to putting our balance of payments right.
Domestic credit expansion will be kept to £9 billion in the year up to 20th April 1977 and £7½ 7 billion in the year ending 19th April 1978, and I expect a further reduction in the following year to £6 billion. The growth of M3 which will accompany domestic credit expansion at these rates will depend on a number of factors, especially progress on the balance of payments. For 1976–77, again on a banking month basis the growth of sterling M3 is likely to be between 9 per cent. and 13 per cent. It is too early to give an estimate for 1977–78. But our target will now be in terms of domestic credit expansion and not M3.

913
Because the public sector will be making a smaller demand on savings in the next two years, these DCE targets should provide sufficient room for industry's essential needs. The targets will be reviewed after six months to ensure that this is so. I hope, too, that the IMF agreement and the measures I have announced will enable us to see interest rates fall from their present exceptional levels while keeping control of the monetary aggregates. This reduction in interest rates may be slow at first, but should move faster as the balance of payments and the rate of inflation both improve. We shall, however, need the existing range of credit controls for the present, perhaps with technical adjustments to special deposits arising from success with gilt sales.
To sum up, the Government's measures amount to a total fiscal adjustment of £1½ billion in 1977/78 and £2 billion in 1978/79. In addition, the public sector borrowing requirement will benefit from the reduced cost of debt interest resulting not only from the lower borrowing requirement, but also from the lower level of interest rates which I am confident that these measures will help us to achieve.
Dr. Witteveen, the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, has told me that he supports both the economic strategy which I have described and the measures the Government are taking, and is prepared to recommend acceptance of my request for the standby arrangement to the Executive Directors of the Fund. I have arranged for copies of my letter to him applying for the standby to be made available in the Vote Office "—and in our case, my Lords, in the Printed Paper Office—" this afternoon.
Before the Fund Board meets there will be a meeting of the Group of Ten countries, who stand ready, under the general arrangements to borrow, to provide the Fund with the useable currencies it needs for large drawings if its own available currencies are inadequate. I am confident that, in a matter of days after the end of the year, the operation w ill be complete and the reserves replenished.
914
The stand-by arrangements this time cover a two-year period, so that we can make the necessary adjustment without imposing unacceptable strains on the Social Contract and the industrial strategy. In total we shall he able to draw up to nearly 4 billion dollars, of which 1½ 15 billion dollars immediately and over 1billion dollars more before the end of 1977. This, I am confident, will transform the external financing position in 1977.
"Sterling Balances
As the House knows, the Government have been concerned to remove the pressures exerted on the sterling exchange rate by the overhang of the sterling balances. Considerable work has already been done on this problem in the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, where Central Bank governors have had constructive discussions over the last weekend. At the same time, the matter is also under discussion with the Treasury and the Federal Reserve in Washington. These talks have revealed a general desire on the part of those concerned to achieve a satisfactory arrangement for the sterling balances, and I believe it will be possible to reach an agreement before long.
I am also glad to be able to tell the House that during the period ahead and in anticipation of further drawings under the agreement with the IMF which will take place later in the year, I intend to strengthen the reserves with 500 million dollars which has been offered by the United States Treasury and the Federal Reserve in the form of swaps. In addition, the Bundesbank have offered the Bank of England a standby facility of 350 million dollars by way of further support.
The endorsement of our policies by the International Monetary Fund and the members of the General Arrangements to Borrow will relieve the pressures on sterling which have damaged our economic prospects in the last 12 months while the prospective arrangement for the sterling balances will help to reduce the risk of such pressures in future years. This should do much to restore the confidence on which all aspects of our economic performance critically depend.

915
"Economic Prospects
The Government are releasing today and placing in the Vote Office "—and again in the Printed Paper Office—" the first economic forecast published under the provisions of the Industry Act 1975, and this will give the House a picture of the economic prospects following the measures I have announced.
Over the next 12 months I expect a growth in total output of about 2 per cent., though this may be higher if our export performance improves further. The 2 per cent. increase in growth would include an increase of 5½ per cent. in manufacturing production, and 19½ per cent. in manufacturing investment. I do not see a prospect of a fall in unemployment; indeed, I fear there is likely to be some further rise, but a smaller rise than would have been likely without the adjustments I have described. If unemployment does rise, this will be the consequence, not of today's measures which in sum will increase employment next year, but of the lower growth now expected all over the world and of other factors I have previously described to the House. The current account deficit, which has totalled £1½ 7 billion in the first 11 months of this year is likely to fall next year and there is good hope of reaching a substantial surplus in 1978/79—perhaps as high as £.2–£3 billion. Given continuing moderation in the increase in wage costs, the rate of price inflation should start falling again next summer. The measures I have announced will add less than 1 per cent. to the Retail Price Index by the end of 1977.
Next year will be a difficult year of transition. I believe that the policies I have announced, reinforced by the next Budget and further progress on the Industrial Strategy, will ensure that it is a transition to a much more firmly based prosperity. Part of this prosperity will be due to the development of North Sea oil production, but our economic strength will depend critically on the use we make of the benefit this brings. We must use it not only to resume the growth in our living standards but also—and in the long run this is more important—to rebuild the capital base of our manufacturing industry.
916
I believe the late 'seventies and early 'eighties should be a period when a steady increase of output, employment and living standards is combined with the repayment of our external debt. We shall at last be standing on our own feet, with an economy more healthy and efficient than we have seen at any time since the war.
It is in that belief that the Government have decided these measures, and that I commend them to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Following are the details of Public Expenditure Savings referred to:

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE SAVINGS

£million at 1976 Survey prices

Programme

Expenditure

1977–78

1978–79

1

Defence Budget

100

200

2

Overseas aid

50

50

3

Food subsidies

160

57

4

Regional employment premium

150

170

Refinancing of fixed rate credits

100

200

Capital spending at CFEs* for industrial training

10

10

5

Nationalised industries†

110

130

6

"Road construction

75

50

7

Housing

—20

300

8

Regional water authorities' etc. construction

75

130

Local environmental services: construction and other capital

50

50

Community ownership of development land

35

35

9

Courts —purchase of sites

2

—

10

Education —construction

22

11

Other education expenditure, inc. school meals

20

30

11

Health and personal social services—construction

10

20

Other NHS expenditure

5

5

15

Northern Ireland

5

10

Various

Property Services Agency

27

45

Various

Expenditure on the Civil Service

30

10

TOTAL

1,016

1,513

*Colleges of Further Education.

†Savings in requirements for Government finance.

4.13 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, this may be a mini-Budget but it is a maxi Statement to which we have just listened. Certainly we congratulate the noble Lord the Leader of the House on his stamina, if on nothing else. I have not had time to read properly the Statement which the Government were kind enough to give me before it was made by the noble Lord the Leader of the House because of its

917
length. I think it would be very unwise to have many instant reactions to what the noble Lord has said. These are very complicated, very serious and very comprehensive measures which the Government have announced and I, for one, would like to study them in greater detail and at greater length than has been possible so far.
So much has already been said about what the right honourable gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government were going to do that I hope that the effect of what the Chancellor has done is not going to be blunted, and particularly blunted abroad. I, for one, am encouraged that in the Statement we are told that the International Monetary Fund support the policy which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government are pursuing. I think every-body on all sides of the House will very much hope that what the Government have done is enough, and that this time the Chancellor of the Exchequer has got it right, because on the last four occasions he has got it wrong, and this is about the last time there is that he can get it right.
I think we can also say from these Benches that at any rate we welcome one part of what the Government are doing, because at long last they are following the advice we have been giving them over these last two years; that is, that it is essential to cut Government expenditure. Nobody particularly wants to cut Government expenditure; I think the result of what has been done in some cases is going to be very unpleasant, but the fact remains that Government expenditure must be cut. We have been telling noble Lords opposite and the Government this for two years. For two years they have done nearly nothing but spend more money.
The other thing we have been telling them I am not so sure about. I should like to read the Statement more carefully, but I am not so sure that in the Statement the other side of the coin is sufficiently taken care of, which is the expansion of our industry and base, and the giving of incentives to people to work harder so that that is possible. I notice in the Statement that there was a passage about incentives for industrial investment. We are told that that is to be done through the National Enterprise Board, but I do not find that particularly convincing. We are
918
also told that there is going to be more money spent on helping unemployment. I would welcome that if I did not feel, perhaps, that what is suggested is more in the nature of a palliative than a long-term solution to unemployment. Both for incentives in industry and for the cure of unemployment we must concentrate on making it possible for private industry—and it is the private sector which creates the wealth—to invest. What they need is to be able to borrow money to do it at considerably less interest rate than at present is possible, to be allowed to make profits from which they can finance that investment, and to have confidence in the future.
My Lords, I am glad to think that the Government at long last have decided I that the subsidies they introduced quite wrongly in 1974, as a result of the 1974 Election, are to be terminated.
Then, one last thing I must say—and this is not a matter of detail. I hope the noble Lord is listening. I condemn wholeheartedly and absolutely a further cut in defence expenditure. If it were £100 million this year and £200 million next year on a basis of no previous cuts, perhaps that would be wearable. But the fact is that over and over again, since they have been in office, the Government have cut defence expenditure. This is the fifth occasion and, in my judgment, it is totally and wholly disastrous that they should do so again. May I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House two specific questions about this. Have our NATO allies been consulted, as it is our duty to do, before these cuts have been decided upon? Can the noble Lord the Leader of the House tell me whether, in the judgment of the Government, these cuts are being made because the defence situation allows it, Russian defence expenditure is decreasing, and the difference between the Russian defence capability and ours is improving?
Lord PEART: My Lords, if I may just reply to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I welcome his very constructive support and I am glad that he welcomed the attitude of the International Monetary Fund. I agree with him that Government expenditure is a difficult problem. Cuts in expenditure will hurt. It is true that noble Lords opposite have argued for cuts in Government expenditure, but I

919
have never found them very specific, even when I have pressed them on the subject. But T do not want to make a Party point on this.
I come to the question of incentives. Of course private industry must be encouraged, and I have always said so in this House. I believe in a mixed economy, but I do not think one should be too critical of the National Enterprise Board. It can be a useful instrument. Certainly the Development Agencies in Scotland and Wales are important for those regions. One should not be too critical of these. They can be powerful weapons. After all, we are all anxious to see manufacturing industry develop and produce wealth. We accept this, so we are at one there.
I know that, naturally, the noble Lord has a great interest in defence. He was a distinguished Defence Minister so I can understand his concern. But nothing can be sacrosanct in this case. If we had a lot of defence in a weak economy we would be a weak nation. It is only by having a strong economy that we can create a strong defence. I agree with the noble Lord that we must have adequate defence. He made comparisons with the Soviet Union. Of course, we cannot compare ourselves as an individual nation with the Soviet Union; one must compare NATO. The noble Lord is quite right to ask about consultations. I have a feeling —I do not know, but it may well be so—that NATO may be a little critical. But we will have consultations. After all, we play a leading part, and I assume that consultations are being held either formally or informally. In any case, we recognise that there is a NATO problem and that there is concern. I accept that, but in this critical situation I believe we have to make a cut.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, we on these Benches would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Peart, for repeating the Statement. As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, we have not had sufficient time to study adequately a Statement of such length. There are matters which we welcome in the Statement, not least because the Government have decided to do certain things which we on these Benches have been pressing them to do for a considerable time. There are items which we welcome: there are omissions
920
which we regret; there are other items which we would question. We welcome the cuts, and the fact that the Government have not been persuaded—not that we thought they would—by some siren voices to adopt cuts of draconian proportions. This, we believe, at the present time would have been very dangerous indeed; it would have plunged us and indeed some of our trading partners into increased deflation. The cuts, in our view, are in total probably about the right size, but obviously one says this tentatively.
We welcome in some respects the way in which the cuts have been allocated. We, too, have urged for a long time that subsidies in food and housing should be reduced; we believe that they are wasteful in their incidence, and are not the best way in which to get value for money. We welcome the suggestion of increases in gas prices. We welcome, too, the fact that there have not been great cuts in the Social Services, though there might have been room for some in some respects. Perhaps indexed pensions might have been looked at and a ceiling put there, which would save considerable expenditure. It cannot have been the intention of the Parliament which passed that Bill that the payments made under that heading should be as substantial as they are at the present time.
We welcome the decision that there should be more discriminating use of assistance to industry, and, of course, we welcome the idea that there must be a move into wealth-producing industry. But here we would add a word of warning. Help to industry is not going to be of any use unless we direct our help to those areas which will add the greatest value. We have for far too long helped industries which have only a short-term future ahead of them. If we are really going to face the unpleasantnesses in the present situation, the most unpleasant that we have to face is the need for drastic restruc-I turing of industry. We have to see that we get a better return on the resources of men and money put into industry. Far too much money has been spent in the past in bolstering up industries for a short period of time, with the result that further measures have to he taken later. We hope that this discrimination will be very great and that the Government will have the courage to tell their social partners that some areas of industry cannot be bolstered up any more.

921
We also welcome the increases in the alcohol and tobacco tax. For my part, I do not feel that they are sufficient. I think there is something shameful in putting so small an additional charge on tobacco and drink when we are cutting defence to the extent that we are, having repeatedly cut defence. What sort of country is not prepared to defend itself in order that it can go on indulging in the bottle and the pipe? Still more do I think it shameful, or equally in another way do I think it shameful, that we should be economising by cutting our miserable overseas aid. I agree that there is something curious in offering overseas aid out of our overdraft; that gifts to other people out of one's overdraft are somewhat phoney gifts. But so small has our effort been in that direction that surely we could have saved our overseas aid, even if we did have to economise on our Christmas hamper.
It is, I think, a pity that there is no reference in the Statement to the possibility of much greater development of indexed bonds, which could produce money to meet Government expenditure out of the considerable savings which are made at present. If industry expands, as we hope it will, there w ill be even more opportunity for indexed bonds, the return on which would not cost the Government a very great deal, year in year out; they would be a great encouragement to people to continue to save.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her courtesy in allowing me to make my earlier reply. Broadly, I have the impression that the Liberal Party supports most of the cuts. One can argue about the size of various cuts, but in principle I think there is an aware-ness that the strategy which runs through this Statement is realistic. Here and there there are criticisms. The noble Baroness mentioned overseas aid. I am sure that if we had not cut overseas aid, we should have had a clamour elsewhere to cut it in present circumstances. After all, we shall still be giving quite a lot of aid to overseas countries. I know, of course, that every cut is distasteful.
I take note of what the noble Baroness said about indexed pensions. This has been raised in many circles, and it is something which inevitably the Government will have to look at very carefully.
922
I have noted the point. With regard to Defence and the taxes on alcohol et cetera, I note what the noble Baroness has said. No doubt we will have a debate later, after discussions through the usual channels, and we will be able to elaborate our different points of view further. For the moment, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her welcome in principle to the Statement.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, after these lengthy contributions, may I ask my noble friend a simple question of principle? Does my noble friend think that it is sensible to base a policy on an indicator, the borrowing requirement, which inextricably combines consumption, investment, the sale of assets and transfer payments into totally irrelevant mess?
Lord PEART: My Lords, it is a short question. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Chancellor must have had very good economic advice. No doubt the noble Lord, who is a distinguished economist, takes a different view, but the Chancellor felt otherwise.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord, said in reply to my noble friend, that no area could remain immune, including overseas aid, about which she was particulary asking. I agree with her that the cuts there are mean and despicable. But I did not hear the noble Lord say anything about the trunk road and motorway programme in his Statement.
Several Noble Lords: He did.
Lord AVEBURY: In that case, I apologise. Could the noble Lord say how much they are being cut?
Lord PEART: My Lords, the figures are £75 million in 1977/78 and £50 million in 1978/79.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, as I understand it, the standby credit has to be repaid in a maximum of two years from now. How far are the Government relying on revenue coming from North Sea oil on order to meet their obligations?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I did mention that they would help over the next two years and later. But it would be impossible for me to be specific.
Lord BOYLE of HANDSWORTH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House this question. Did I gather from the Statement that it is part of Government strategy that the incomes policy must be continued in some form during the next two years? If so. is the noble Lord the Leader of the House aware that in the view of many of us this is an absolutely integral part of the Government's strategy; however difficult it may be, it simply must not be lost sight of?
Lord PEART: Yes, my Lords, I thought I made that clear, and that is the policy.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that while we are glad to hear of the assistance to manufacturing industry there is at this moment a far too small manufacturing base to sustain this nation, and that even now we are threatened with having redundancies in some key sectors of manufacturing? Especially heavy electrical engineering, and areas of that kind, are threatened now with very substantial redundancies.
Could I follow up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyle. I do not know whether my noble friend can say what steps are being taken in conjunction with both trade unions and employers in the sector of incomes policy. He will know that the announcement he has made will put a great strain indeed on that incomes policy. Would he agree that we now have to get a much more modernised type of policy which takes care of differentials, and which ensures a flow of labour into the most vital sectors of manufacturing? Unless we can get that kind of a policy for our incomes, particularly where we are now inhibited in the amount we can give, we may have to think of totals within which negotiations can take place in given industries, and that they must not exceed those totals. Within that, they can do their own negotiating so far as differentials are concerned. I hope that the Government are thinking in those terms.
Lord PEART: My Lords, my noble friend mentioned the problems of manufacturing in the engineering industry, which he knows so well. I accept that there are problems and I think that what we are seeking to do, to concentrate and put an emphasis on manufacturing
924
industry, is the right strategy. On incomes policy, I would accept that there may be strains because of the nature of these measures; but this is a matter which we shall be discussing with the TUC. We have already had informal talks with the TUC and others, and the CBI, and there will be strains, but it has got to work.
I do not want to restrict discussion but I hope that noble Lords will feel that it would be at some stage opportune for us to debate this. I do not say immediately. When noble Lords have read carefully the papers which are in the Printed Paper Office, this will help. I see nobody wishing to speak in the discussion, so may I conclude.

HIGHWAY INQUIRIES
4.33 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord HENLEY: My Lords, may I bring your Lordships back to the difficult but perhaps rather more dull subject of the need to reform our system of public inquiries about roads. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, that I follow him and agree with him absolutely that the sort of disruptive tactics which we have seen at some of the road inquiries are self-defeating and in my view, the wrong way to set about it. But may I say in defence of my noble friend Lord Avebury that I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, heard him aright. He did not agree with those disruptive tactics. What I understood him to say was that he had sympathy with them. I think all of us can understand that.
There is a degree of frustration about the whole system of inquiries. We are having this debate for the second time because a great many people feel that there is a need to be able to debate these things and that the present system of inquiries prevents them from doing so. May I repeat to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, that the Council for the Protection of Rural England, of which I am the chairman, unequivocally and publicly condemned these disruptive tactics. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, felt that these disruptive tactics were relatively recent and that they were very often done by militant groups of people not living very

925
close to the particular road. I hope he will think again about that because that does a grave disservice to many extremely distinguished people who have taken part in these inquiries.
Lord CHESHAM: My Lords, I really cannot have the noble Lord put words in my mouth like that. I spoke of people deliberately indulging in organised disruptive tactics and I maintain my point that they are not local. I did not condemn in any shape or form, as the noble Lord has had me say, people who have legitimate objections, because I do not, I cannot, and I will not.
Lord HENLEY: My Lords, I think that the very measure of why the noble Lord feels that they are deliberately done by people living far away is because these people arc unable to challenge the policy behind them. Under the inquiries procedure as we now have it, it is perfectly possible to challenge a particular route, but it is not possible to challenge the philosophy behind it. It is the feeling that that philosophy ought to be able to be challenged which has caused people to move into fields, shall we say, further from where they live. But, in any case, surely the whole business about protesting about anything is not necessarily that you only protest on your own doorstep. If you believe in what you are protesting about, you protest anywhere, and rightly so.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, would my noble friend allow me to intervene? Is he aware that the British Road Federation also send people round to these inquiries, and that I had a letter this morning from a lady who was physically threatened by two representatives of the British Road Federation at an inquiry in the Midlands miles from where either of them lived?
Lord HENLEY: My Lords, that may well be so, and I hope that it will not reach the stage at which we are all throwing stones at each other in this way. But I think that it is not entirely true to say that it is altogether recent. In any case, whether or not it is recent with regard to roads, it has become apparent for a long time that the problem exists in other fields. There is obviously something lacking; there is an inadequacy somewhere
926
in our means of trying to scrutinise those basic assumptions and value judgments which must lie behind any policy. As I say, it is not only in roads. I spoke in a debate in May last when we were discussing the new Water Council and f drew attention there to the fact that, both in water and in electricity, and indeed in regional planning policy itself, it was extremely difficult to get at the facts that underlay the long-term strategy that Government Departments produce.
The difficulty of getting at the policy behind what the Electricity Generating Board does, or any other body of that kind, is exemplified extremely well in a matter of roads. Both the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, and my noble friend spoke about this question of forecasts. Indeed, forecasts of traffic, and so on, are an aspect of these basic assumptions and indeed value judgments on which the Government's long-term strategy is based. At recent inquiries, those forecasts which, as I say, form the basis of policy, have not been open to cross-examination. It is becoming increasingly apparent from all sides that those assumptions must be challenged.
The argument at the moment is that the local inquiry is not the right place to challenge matters of policy, and that policy should in fact be challenged in Parliament. So far as it goes there is nothing wrong with that, but it does not go far enough. First, the supposition is that the Minister in Parliament answers for the Government in those matters of policy. It was apparent in a debate in your Lordships' House in July that the Minister answering for the Government, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, openly, honestly and rightly admitted that she did not profess to understand the basis of the facts. I was glad she said that because it showed the difficulty of under-standing the basis for the traffic fore-casting methods and extraordinary cost benefit methods used by the DOE to evaluate our road schemes.
Secondly, it is not only the Minister who finds it difficult to answer for the basic assumptions of Government policy; it is Parliament, too. Parliament is not very well designed to extract this kind of in-formation from Government Departments. We do not have the sort of specialist committees that the American

927
Parliament has. In the past, before 1880, we had certain kinds of committee which I believe were able to call for evidence, and we had two attempts at that on suggestions put forward by the late Richard Crossman, but I do not think they were a great success; at any rate they have not been repeated. We have in Parliament bodies like the All-Party Roads Study Group, but, after all, that is an unofficial body and, like the All-Party Conservationist Group, which meets from time to time to hear about various aspects of conservation, so the All-Party Roads Group meets. I do not know how full the work of the Roads Group is, but when the CPRE asked whether they could see them, the CPRE were told that there was no time available for another 12 months. Either they are working very hard on their examination of the underlying assumptions of road policy or they did not want to see the CPRE; I know not which.
At any rate, the machinery in Parliament for trying to elucidate the facts underlying the policy of a Department is extremely difficult to get at, and in my view it is not surprising that we get protests. I am, of course, surprised that the protests should be violent because violent protests achieve less than nothing. However, like my noble friend, I sympathise and understand that they feel themselves entirely frustrated, and indeed the protesting objectors feel, I believe rightly, that the law concerning public inquiries is unjust, particularly when the inspector is not only appointed by the Department but is also briefed by it. Noble Lords who spoke earlier pointed out that this is an unsuitable arrangement. Many suggestions have been put to the Government that it should be changed in some way so as to make certain that inspectors are appointed not quite as judge, jury and advocate in their master's case.
The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, asked specific questions, which I will not repeat, about the state of play on the Council on Tribunals. I had not even heard of Sir George Leach's appointment on 10th December. My researches on this up to this morning showed that the last thing to be said on the subject was said in July, I think by the noble Baroness sitting on the Front Bench. That itself was some seven months after the Government suggested that the Council on Tribunals
928
should start work on the matter. I could find nothing later than that, but I gather that something has occurred, although obviously there cannot be much state of play. However, I hope it means that the Government intend seriously to do something about the problem. I do not think that a mere reshuffle in the Department of Transport at the DOE will have much effect.
There is one other possible, I will not say solution but avenue which might make it easier to explore what I am trying to get at, and that is the system which is used for the examination in public of structure plans. I mentioned this in an earlier debate, but I cannot remember what the noble Baroness said in reply. I think that probably she did not greatly fancy my suggestion, and indeed I find it difficult to think of any practical propositions. However, I repeat, and most strongly, that there is something really wrong with the legal process by which the public is enabled to challenge Government decisions, decisions which are matters of policy, remembering that policy is, after all, the basic assumptions, the value judgments—the social accounting or whatever one likes to call it—underlying the detailed policy which at the moment we are allowed to challenge. Until we can overcome that difficulty we will have a feeling of grave disquiet on the part of the public in general —both on roads (as to what the electricity generating board wants to do) and on regional planning (again, something which is done with no possibility of challenging the findings)—and while this state of affairs goes on we will have a great many very unhappy people.
4.47 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I rather think that despite the major further cut in capital expenditure on roads which has just been announced, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will be disappointed in that pending the result of the Government's review we shall probably continue to have some more public inquiries into highways. Perhaps I should mention at this point that my noble friend Lord Molson has informed me that he does not intend to speak in the debate. I hope I can be as constructive as possible pending the review that the Government have now set in hand. I strongly suspect that the problem that has arisen about these inquiries is largely of

929
our own making in Parliament. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said about a good deal of this and I welcome the fact that my noble friend Lord O'Hagan has yet again raised this subject, I think for the third time, so that we may discuss it because Parliament is basically the right place to do so.
What has happened—I have seen this because I have been going to public inquiries for quite a long time and participating in many of them, including inquiries on roads—is that people are becoming much more articulate and better educated and, at the same time, they feel that they are having less and less say in what is done on the national front. Another manifestation of that, I suspect, has resulted in the Scotland and Wales Bill which is now going through another place. This is, I think, exactly the same phenomenon coming out in a slightly different way. One thing that seems to me to be fundamental is that if one is discontented with it, the way not to approach the problem is to go in for disruptive tactics in order to wreck the machinery we have. I absolutely agree with those who have condemned that sort of thing. It seems to me to be the opposite of all that democracy stands for; it strikes at the root of Government by consent and, incidentally, into the bargain it wastes a formidable amount of both public and private money to no avail whatever. So let us see whether we cannot do rather better and thrash the matter out in a more sensible way.
It is, I suppose, inevitable that I should look at the law. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, has criticised it as being inadequate and it seems to me worthwhile reminding ourselves how the situation has arisen. My noble friend Lord Chesham, I believe mentioned that this all turns on the Highway Act 1959. Let nobody think that, in this respect, the Highway Act 1959 was passed in 1959. It was a consolidation Act with some amendments and the procedure that we are talking about goes back a great deal further than that.
The procedure for the inquiries—and let us take the extreme case of the one that is usually the most sensitive, the centre line for a new motorway—really goes back to the days of the beginning of compulsory purchase, when the provision made by
930
Parliament for people to object was confined to those whose property was directly affected, and also to the local authorities which might wish to have a say. Nobody else is a statutory objector. This of course is one of the things that people who complain about the machinery point to and say is wrong. They can say that it is wrong for as long as they like. It is no use protesting at inquiries. It is the law, and the law must be adhered to in this respect until we in Parliament change it. So there is the first thing that we can think about if we wish to. I would, however, just add a word of warning: if we depart from those whose property is affected and the local authorities concerned, I find it very difficult to see another logical boundary line at which to draw the edge of the right statutorily to object. ft may therefore be that that is not the answer because there are other ways of getting over the difficulty.
At any rate, on that legal background there is also this to say to those who arc dissatisfied with the procedures as they appear at public inquiries: please let those who think that the inquiry is illegally set up or is in other ways detective take their complaint to the courts and not try to discuss it at the inquiry. The wretched inspector is in no position to decide upon the matter at all. He will not understand it; he will have no proper legal advice and, even if he had, he would not be the proper tribunal to take a decision. So if certain people think that an inquiry is wrong in some way—that it has been set up inadequately or that the procedural provisions have not been properly complied with—they should go to the High Court rather than complain to the inspector. That seems to me a very sensible first step. The people concerned will get some advice and the court will be able to rule upon the matter.
Now, let us suppose that we are at one of these inquiries. What takes place? The Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Transport, now the Department of Transport, have developed very greatly as regards the amount of information that they are prepared to disclose. There will be a statement by the engineer which will be his proof of evidence. There will be a shortish and fairly general policy statement indicating, for instance, that the Department proposes to adopt high standards of design for its

931
road and also to have regard to the environment and a few matters like that. Then—and this was so even before the days when this was required under the present rules of tribunals of inquiry—there will be deposited and available a great mass of documents. There will be a book setting out the background and a great number of statistics and details; there will be drawings and there will be details about the way in which the figures have been reached. The COBA mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and those sort of calculations will all be available. There will be the basic traffic predictions. These are all things that are available to people beforehand.
Nowadays, as I understand it, the Department accepts the necessity to show that there will be a need for a motorway at all. It also shows that a number of different possible corridors have been examined and that within the one it has chosen there are a number of different routes, one of which it has chosen. It explains why it has done so. So, let us face it, the Department has come a long way from the days in the early 1960s when I used to go to these inquiries. A great deal of information is now available to the public.
The parties convene before the inspector. Here, I believe that it is just possible that we have, surprisingly enough, taken a retrograde step in making the statutory rules. In the old days, the inspector had no legal rules to govern him. In fact, as one noble Lord has said, the rules that have been made really only codify the previous practice and machinery. Nevertheless, they have one separate effect which I shall come to in a moment. The inspector—who is not, incidentally, a member of the Department of Transport —is selected, at least in the cases that I am talking about, from a totally independent panel. He may be the town clerk of some far distant local authority. He may be a senior civil servant who has served all his time in a totally different department. He is a man one would trust, a man of good common sense and considerable patience and sympathy. If he finds that people wish to argue about certain matters that do not seem to him to be within the scope of what he is inquiring about, he will not necessarily stop them, though he will certainly do so if they try to
932
argue about it before he has opened the inquiry. He will not necessarily stop them if they do it within the ordinary rules of good manners and discipline which these things require.
I believe that there have been occasions when massive periods of time have been spent in discussing matters of wide public interest and importance which probably have very little to do with the decision that is to be taken and which are matters upon which the inspector will never be able to make any recommendation because he will not have half the information upon which to do so.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, the inspector is directed under Rule 6.2 to disallow any question which, in his opinion, is directed to the merits of Government policy. The guidelines, to which reference has been made by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, set out a list of matters which are deemed to be Government policy and say that the Department's representative must be protected from cross-examination on the merits of these policy issues. So he is kept on a very tight rein.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Yes, my Lords. If the noble Lord will have a moment's patience, I shall come to this in a moment. I know that this is so and I was going to suggest that there is a good reason for it. I shall not go into the details of the whole list. That would be intolerable, but there is a good deal of reason for some of it. Certainly, the inspector will protect the engineer who is giving evidence on behalf of the Department of Transport from cross-examination on the merits of the Government policy which falls within certain categories. But that does not mean to say that he will not allow people to air their views on most of these matters, provided they behave them selves.
There is, however, one point which comes out of the rules: it is that now that the inspector has been given statutory discretion as to who he will hear and who he will not hear, he alone can take that decision. He can no longer be directed by the Department of Transport, whereas I believe that he would possibly have been able to be so directed before. He alone can take that decision. In regard to taking that decision, I rather hoped that this

933
afternoon we might, if only on an interim basis until the review comes to some conclusion, be able to give him some sensible support from Parliament about the sort of things we think he can usefully listen to and allow to be discussed. There are some things which, as noble Lords have said, really and truly cannot be satisfactorily discussed at a public inquiry; the inspector might think that they ought to be left to Parliament to deal with by means that we certainly ought to devise. This really comes down to something akin to what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was talking about.
One can think of matters where the decision is quite simple. To take a ridiculous and extreme case, it cannot be satisfactorily discussed at a public inquiry whether all goods and passengers should henceforth be sent by train, by Concorde or by canal, as opposed to road. There are those who would no doubt wish to put forward that point of view, but I, for one, should certainly support any inspector who refused to allow the engineer from the Department of Transport to be cross-examined on that and who was extremely cross if very much time was spent in making submissions on it. But there are much more difficult grey areas where the borderline is more difficult to detect.
On this, I am against the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, as to cost benefit analysis schemes and as to the forecasts of traffic growth and fuel prices made by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. I will tell your Lordships why. I have on two occasions embarked upon a forensic discussion of a massive cost benefit computer model scheme, and although we have battled our way through to some form of conclusion, with a great deal of extremely experienced help, certainly in my case, from people who understand what on earth it is supposed to mean and to achieve, in my experience there is no end to the disputes to which this kind of thing will give rise. Not only does one dispute the methodology which led up to the computer model being made, but one disputes all the inputs, and one also says that one thinks that probably the machine made a mistake in the process; and on one occasion, my Lords, I have known it to do so. So one never really gets to the end of it at all, more particularly since if one gets to the end of one of these processes, by the time one comes to the next
934
one science has moved forward and there is a whole new step and collection of equipment with which to do battle. That is the COBA thing.
The other disadvantage of it is this. You can measure by means of those kind of things only items of input which can be quantified. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was criticising some matters, like the extra ability of criminals to get across the Pennines, and there are many other inputs into a true cost benefit analysis which cannot be quantified at all. There again, I have known five or six different methods of dealing with non-quantifiable inputs discussed and cross-examined on at a public inquiry, and all I can say is that it is thoroughly unsatisfactory. It gets nobody anywhere, and it does not make it any easier for any inspector to report.
Let us take fuel prices as another example of what might be unsuitable. I do not believe that the majority of people who attend a public inquiry, whether it is at Winchester, in Archway, or somewhere in Yorkshire, will have as much knowledge about what they think the OPEC countries are going to do as the Government have when they try to compile these forecasts. Nobody may be right. But it is certainly not a matter that it is very easy to thresh out at a public inquiry; at least, it is not very useful to thresh it out at a public inquiry.
Therefore, although I cannot say that I can identify all of them, I should be happy to think that there really are some subject matters which go to the question of public national policy which really ought not to be ventilated and examined or cross-examined upon at a public inquiry. If the Government think anything like the same as I do, it might help inspectors during this interim period to know that there are some people in Parliament who would support them in their invidious, difficult and independent position if they ruled against attempts so to do. In the debate this afternoon we have not succeeded in identifying any of these with a great degree of unanimity, but I suspect that even if we say that we agree that there are some, it will be a help—
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount

935
again, but in what form could these assumptions be discussed, if not at the local public inquiry? Does the noble Viscount think that the question should be disallowed even if it was directed at the sensitivity of the road traffic scheme to variations in the assumptions?
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, as to the sensitivity, I think that for half a day at the Greater London Development Plan Inquiry I cross-examined two highly qualified technicians on exactly this point, and none of the three of us got anywhere at all, and I think that those who were listening were even more mystified, because, I have little doubt, I was of course asking all the wrong questions. No, that is just the kind of thing that is wholly unsuitable for forensic discussion.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was on very much better lines when he said that it is for Parliament to devise a much more satisfactory system for us to try to discuss these matters here at Westminster. I entirely agree that it is not at all satisfactory at the moment. Flow can anybody expect the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, to get up from the Front Bench opposite and explain with any degree of clarity, let alone with any degree of brevity, what are the underlying assumptions in some of the Transport and Road Research Laboratory's forecasts? No Parliamentarian can do it on the Floor of this House. If there is a genuine demand by the public that these matters should be discussed, we must devise some method of doing it here. That is what I would suggest to noble Lords that we should concentrate upon. Let us agree that there is a need to discuss these matters; I think that there is a need to discuss them. Let us see if we can do something about them here, and let us see if, meanwhile, we can deflect the enormously more diffuse and expensive process of public inquiries away from that kind of area.
I believe that we can do it much more economically, much more satisfactorily, and indeed with a very much greater effect if we do it centrally in Westminster, or indeed in Wales, or in Edinburgh, if that is the case. That is what I should like to go out from this debate; that we in this House, and in Parliament as a
936
whole, should undertake our own responsibilities in this matter. When we have done so, or perhaps even on the basis of promising to do so, let us support inspectors who try to keep these matters within bounds at public inquiries—
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, I rise for a few seconds to ask whether my noble friend would make a submission to the Committee which deals with procedure and similar matters, which is now sitting under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to look into the very point which he has just raised.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I should be happy to do so. It had not occurred to me that I had anything much to contribute, but if anybody thinks that I could then I should be happy to try.
5.6 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, I too agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, in raising this question this afternoon, is certainly not a vexatious parliamentarian, but has helped to ventilate a matter on which there has been an extremely useful debate. One thing which is absolutely clear is that there is a considerable amount of concern among many people over the question of highway inquiries. I certainly take the view that if people are dissatisfied, if they are worried, if they feel that they are not getting a fair hearing —even in the cases where perhaps they have got a fair hearing but the communication channels have not been good enough—then it is a Government's democratic duty to discover why and to do something about it.
I should like to raise the question, as I see it, as to why there is a current upsurge of feeling at the time about highway inquiries, and I think that noble Lords taking part in the debate have all commented upon this from their point of view. There is a greater awareness of and care for the environment and for the quality of life, and this is quite right and proper, but one finds that it often comes out from the administrative point of view in rather uncomfortable ways.

937
But that is no reason for people not to press their points and to wish to participate. We are also in an area in which we have a great emphasis upon participation. I sometimes think that there is more emphasis on the word than there is in fact on the deed, and we ought at some time to define what we mean here. The open and rather vague right to participation without any clearly defined lines, or without the feeling that the input with which one is concerned will have some definite result, is a fairly useless exercise.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, was quite right when he pointed to the increased standards of education and to the fact that people consider that matters which many years ago they would have thought were for consideration by others and not by them, are now to do with them. All this I believe is quite right. I think that people are looking for a transport policy that makes social and economic sense, that takes into account the geography of the country, the conflicting claims on resources, and the social and environmental needs of individuals and communities. All these things may have a tremendous impact on even the fairly limited area with which we are concerned today. I think it is true that road programmes are rather like Topsy, they just "growed and growed"—
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Or shrunk and shrunk!
Baroness BIRK: I think that we are mainly concerned here with the "growed and growed". I would point out to the noble Viscount, Lord Colvillle of Culross, that my name is Birk, not Stedman, but apart from that I agree with him that Parliament—
Lord HENLEY: My Lords, the noble Viscount was referring to what I have said about the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: It was a historic incident.
Baroness BIRK: I thought that the noble Viscount was referring to my reply, and I did not wish to place upon my noble friend the responsibility for something that she was not saying.
It is perfectly true—and this has been stressed by many of the speakers in the
938
debate; particularly, again, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville—that Parliament has taken too little interest in the road programme. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, and, in his introduction, the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, based much of their case upon that. Therefore, it does not seem to me to be unnatural that people, in trying to find a forum in which their views on these national issues can be heard, sometimes have to rely on whatever vehicle is available, even though it might not be the right one. I think it is here that the heart of the matter very often lies: that something which was set up for a very good and proper purpose is really being misused because people either feel that they have no alternative or quite genuinely believe that this is where a great many of the issues that they have to raise ought to be heard when in fact it is not the right place at all. But I do not think we should get things out of perspective. The only slightly warm (I will not say heated) exchanges that there have been during this debate have been on the question of disturbances. Disturbances have been restricted—let us be quite realistic—to only a few of the major inquiries. Quite naturally—and I am not criticising the Press or the media for this, because what makes news is news—these disturbances perhaps get inflated and out of proportion.
The third thing is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, quite rightly pointed out, they do not help anyone, and in fact are completely counter-productive, I think, in the effect that they have. There is a great deal of shouting about rights, but the shouters are in fact denying the rights of ordinary objectors to be heard. Nevertheless, I think what we are all in agreement about (and this is why I think we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan) is that the inquiry system does need looking into. This is absolutely true.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, before the noble Baroness leaves that point—and it is one which everyone has made in this debate—may I ask her whether she would not agree that it is very unlikely that the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, would have raised this matter on three separate occasions if it had not been for the fact that very strong feelings have been shown by objectors at these public inquiries?

939
Is it not a fact that if the inquiries into the M62 or the M3 had been allowed to proceed without any disturbances at all these debates would not have occurred?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I am not saying that the way in which this manifested itself is not one of the ways in which people show their concern. In addition, there are quite a number of people who in fact write to the Department, get in touch with their MP or take a number of other routes to point to the same problem, and we receive it all in the Department. So there are a number of ways of doing this. I am not quite sure what the noble Lord is getting at. I have said that we are in agreement that something needs to be done. I did not think he was saying that he was in favour of these disturbances when he was challenged by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, but that he understood what motivated the people. I understand what motivates them, but I am saying, first of all, that it does not help, and if the noble Lord will let me continue a moment I will explain that why I think some of these things occur is because in fact, very often, the people creating the disturbance are doing it on quite a different matter, and one with which that particular highway inquiry is not concerned. I think this is the problem.
What has pleased me very much today is that it is quite obviously not a Party question that we are discussing. Even if we reached agreement on what is wrong, even though we cannot find all the solutions, we would at least have something to put forward to my right honourable friends which I think will be of great assistance at this particular time. It is because we are aware of this that the review is being carried out with the Council on Tribunals. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, I cannot at this moment, unfortunately, say when the review will be completed, but we hope it will be early next year. The report will be published, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be making a Statement in the House about it. So far as evidence to it is concerned, written evidence is being taken all the time—written submissions from individuals and from organisations outside the Government—but there is no oral evidence being given.
940
What we are now getting to, I think—and really this is the crunch of the matter —is that there are in fact two sorts of objectors. This, I think, is the point the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has been speaking on, but I fear it gets a bit mixed up. There are the people that these particular inquiries are designed to serve —that is, those who are genuinely affected by the road—and then there are the others (and here the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, is absolutely right) who do not have any axe to grind about the particular road because it does not affect them personally but who are demonstrating. They may be demonstrating against the general system of roads; they may be demonstrating because they are against any more roads at all—and then we get into the whole area of the railway and road argument—or they may be demonstrating against the Government's whole road policy or, as they consider, the lack of it. The problem is that the inquiries that we are discussing this afternoon are not designed to help people who may have very strong feelings about roads but for whom the local highway inquiry system is not designed. What they have to say may be important, but this sort of inquiry is not the forum.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, asked whether, from this debate, we could give any guidance or help to the inspectors. I shall come on to the inspectors in a moment, but one of the things which would help if we could get it across is that people should realise exactly what highway inquiries are about. I come back to the other point, that major issues of transport policy are for the Government to determine and for Parliament to probe; and I think it is very important—and this is also something that my right honourable friend is concerned with at the present time—that ways should be found, when the various committees of inquiry have reported, in which the time and energies of Parliament can somehow be harnessed so that these matters, which are of immense and vital importance, get very much more attention than they do now and so that, at the end of the day, the whole impact of discussion does not just land at the door of the local highway inquiry when, quite frankly, it is almost too late in the day to do anything except make very minor changes.
The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, asked about the new setup now, with a separate

941
Secretary of State. I think one of the things it does is this. As the Minister in the Department who at the time, when it was with the Department of the Environment, answered for transport and who answers for transport now, speaking personally it does not make very much difference to me; but a Secretary of State for Transport, with a scat in the Cabinet, on the basis that justice should not only be done but also be seen to be done, does show beyond doubt the importance of transport among the social, economic and environmental issues of the day. But I think what is extremely important here is that the former close links between transport, land use, planning and other environmental considerations will be preserved. This is essential.
I think that it improves the situation, perhaps, over the previous one that decisions on trunk road and motorway inquiries will be taken jointly by the two Secretaries of State, the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for the Environment. I do not want to go into the whole question of the transport policy review, which is a subject in itself and which we have debated in this House, hut, nevertheless, the policy review which is being conducted on the basis of the consultation document published last April is, I think, very closely tied up, not only with what we are discussing today but with the things which people bring into what we are discussing today although they are really in the other areas of transport. The views sought come from a very wide variety of interests and the Secretary of State for Transport is to publish a White Paper in about six months.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, put the direct question of whether, in the Consultative Document, the question of whether the road is needed should be one of the criteria. This is something I will pass on. in some form this needs to be carefully considered because it is at that point that the whole problem starts. Before leaving that, I must mention that in addition to the annual White Paper there will be as the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, pointed out, the policy review. That, in itself, will provide a wide-ranging opportunity of Parliamentary debate on the broad policy issues. He asked why we could not carry out something like the civil aviation statement of policy guide.
942
This is a public authority and it would seem that it is more appropriate in the case of transport and roads to publish a White Paper. This would serve the same purpose. I agree that one wants a White Paper and statements made in the Houses of Parliament rather than going by—and he is right—the Ministerial speech or Press release.
One of the things we must look at closely—and this has been raised in this House many times—is the various fore-casts on which so much of the case for road building depends. Since these are very technical—and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was right to stress this—how can people be sure that they make sense? If the method of assessing traffic forecasts is wrong then the assessment of the case for roads must be wrong. The noble Lord who said this I agree with entirely. Therefore, the Secretary of State for Transport has just announced that he is setting up an independent advisory committee on trunk roads and motorways to go specifically into the methods of appraising road schemes. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was a little unfair to say that it has taken a long time. The Secretary of State for Transport has been in Office for only a few months and he has already set this up. People will be able to give evidence here and the report will be published. A very important element of this will be the examination of our methods of traffic forecasting.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, or the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, asked that the inquiry programme should be halted for the time being. I think that this would be a great mistake because there are hundreds of inquiries that take place smoothly. This would not only upset the road programmes but would damage the economy and cause a great deal of anxiety to individuals who might be affected by the proposed routes. In fact, the Statement that we have heard this afternoon does not mean that preparatory work on the inquiries should be halted even temporarily, although capital expenditure is being cut down. It is even more important with smaller resources that we should make sure that we get our priorities right. So much for the national issues.
What are people entitled to expect from the inquiry itself? I implied that it was

943
too late to make other than minor changes at local inquiries. I was probably diminishing their role rather too much. It is true that sometimes a route is changed significantly and there is a fresh inquiry. Nevertheless, I still think, to be quite clear, that this is quite different from the whole philosophy of whether there should be more roads or a main motorway in that particular area. What people are entitled to expect from the inquiry are facts and forecasts that demonstrate the need for the roads; a fair hearing for their views before an independent inspector; and an assurance that their views are faithfully reported to the Secretaries of State.
There has been a lot of criticism, both here this afternoon and written, that the joint Secretaries of State are judge and jury for their own cause. The inspectors are appointed by the Secretaries of State and it has been argued—and the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, argued it this afternoon—that the inspectorate should be transferred to the Lord Chancellor's Department to demonstrate their independence. It has also sometimes been said that all inspectors should be lawyers so that they can deal with the legal points and match the skills of counsel representing objectors.
All these points we are looking at seriously; but I must point out that, wherever the inspectorate finds itself, I do not think it is going to make any difference, because people must have confidence in the system. Even if the inspectors (who are on the Lord Chancellor's panel but are appointed by the Secretaries of State) came completely under the aegis of the Lord Chancellor, there would still be people critical of them, particularly those who found their objections were not sustained.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, would the noble Baroness not agree—if she is leaving that point about whether they should be lawyers—that, as a great deal of the advice they give to the Secretary of State is about things like the effect on the environment or engineering matters, almost the one thing they should not be is lawyers; but that they should be surveyors, engineers and people like that?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I was coming to the point about what they should be. If I may take up the point made by the noble Viscount, we start first with the point that the highways inquiries are an administrative process and not judicial. We start from there. The inspector's task is to report and recommend to the Secretaries of State who will take the final decision. This is appropriate because in the case of highway inquiries, the Secretaries of State are not arbitrating between two other parties, as sometimes is the case in planning inquiries, or acting in any judicial role, they are deciding on action which the Government will execute and for which they will be accountable politically. In this sphere I would take the view that the inspectors should come from a variety of professions. Some may be lawyers; but what matters is their calibre, their competence and their professional integrity.
This I think we must get over. They are not employed by the Departments. I think there is a great deal of misunderstanding about this. People genuinely think that they do come from the relevant Department, close the papers on their desks, so to speak, and go off straightaway as representatives of the Department of the Environment or of Transport. This is not so. They are independent people who are already on an independent panel but chosen by the Secretaries of State.
Obviously, there is a need to improve and enlarge the already considerable range of information given to objectors both about underlying policy and the scheme itself. This is another matter being discussed with the Council on Tribunals in the current review. I should like to see—and I do not know the answer myself—that people are both encouraged and interested enough and are held to understand enough about these things to come in on many of these problems at a much earlier stage of the public consultation period. I have been looking through the information given out and the charts and so on. They are extremely well done and well designed. The trouble is—and it is a human failing if you like; or not so much a failing as a normality—that when a matter seems so far away, unless you are particularly interested you do not think about it until it gets nearer and then is almost in the process of being finished. There is probably a case for seeing what

945
we can do about public relations, communication and information to people. If we are going to extend the rights to be heard—and I am throwing this in the air because it is something that will be discussed—we have to decide where we will draw the line. Noble Lords pointed out—and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, put it extremely well, and I will not spend time on it—that almost anybody can be heard. What people are concerned about is being statutory objectors. There is a certain amount of confusion in this matter.
This is a subject which we could debate at even greater length. Any matter which calls into question the democratic rights of the individual has always evoked—and rightly so—a positive and lively response from this House. I am extremely grateful for the interest which noble Lords have shown, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, for initiating this debate. I can assure them that I will bring to the attention of my right honourable friends, the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for the Environment all the points made so that they can be taken into account in the current reviews. Although I am aware that I am not able to give any definitive answers, I think that the usefulness of this debate is very great today because it gives an opportunity for the views that have been expressed and the expertise and information that has been given us to be taken into account. In other words, we are not discussing this at a time when it is too late and decisions have been made; we are discussing it at a time when the whole of transport policy is very much in the process of consideration.
5.32 p.m.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, we have had a brief but brisk debate. I should like to thank all those who have taken part in it, particularly my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross for his masterly contribution, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for her survey of the present situation which brought us up to date. I shall be brief. There are three ways in which one should approach this problem: discussion of national transport policy is the first one. I was relieved to hear the noble Baroness say that Parliament has taken too little interest in the road programme. I agree with her very much, and I hope that my noble friend Lord
946
Colville will heed the invitation extended to him by my noble friend, Lord Hawke.
My noble friend Lord Hawke and I sit on the Practice and Procedure Committee which has been recently set up. It is the machinery of Parliament for dealing with complex technical documents which is inadequate and is behind some of the worry about highway inquiries. I will not dilate on one of my favourite topics; but I believe that permanent subject committees shadowing Departments—preferably joint committees between two Houses—which can look at these detailed and technical documents that are published and invite those who are worried about them to give evidence, is the way that Parliament can modernise itself to keep pace with the increased complexity of government. It is a way that would be of service to the public in their anxieties about the implications of the road programme if there was a transport committee of your Lordships' House, another place or a joint one to which representations could he made and in which Ministers could explain technical documents with support from civil servants.
There is the matter of regional planning. That fits in somewhere. I am not sure how the economic planning councils, which do not work very well, would cope with transport, but there is a regional element, as my noble friend Lord Colville said. Devolution comes into this. I did not ask the noble Baroness about that today; she had quite enough to deal with. There is a regional as well as strictly local element.
Parliament cannot cope with the regional element. Something has to be devised to deal with that as well. I hope that the noble Baroness will lend her support to the setting up of a specialist committee in this House to examine this question. I was grateful to her for her comments about the role of highway inquiries. She issued an invitation to those who have practical schemes to help these inquiries work better. I do not support those who want to subvert those inquiries. I do not support those who want to change them into something which they could not possibly hope to do. It was most encouraging to hear the noble Baroness say that the Government are considering a variety of procedures to make the inquiries themselves more efficient and more fair in the eyes of the public.

947
I have only one other remark: I am very glad that I have not been an inspector presiding over an inquiry at which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and my noble friend Lord Chesham were attending.
My Lords, thank you very much for your attention. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

DOGS: WORKING PARTY REPORT
5.36 p.m.
Lord DE CLIFFORD Lord DE CLIFFORD rose to call attention to the Department of the Environment Report of the Working Party on Dogs; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, we will now turn to another matter which affects many millions of the subjects of the Queen, the ownership of dogs. The Working Party on Dogs was set up because it became apparent that there were far too many Acts of Parliament—I think 27 in all—affecting dogs directly and at the same time there appeared to be a great increase in the population of dogs in this country. Also, the complaints about stray dogs and their behaviour came flooding in and were becoming a constant topic for the media. The Working Party on Dogs have produced an extremely readable and argumentative report. But I want to try to get down to some basic principles and ask the noble Baroness, who no doubt will reply to this debate in her most charming manner, a number of questions.
The first is that dog ownership, wherever it may be, has been plagued by Private Member's legislation. One of the things we should like to establish is whether we can now forget private legislation which comes through in all shapes and sizes (of which the most appalling example is the Breeding of Dogs Act), and whether we can now see at least that we may have all the Acts of Parliament and other things presented to us through a proper Government Bill. If we can establish that, we shall be a long way towards getting something which we can sensibly say will look after the future keeping and control of dogs.
When we talk about dogs, first of all we have to decide what we are discussing. There are many categories of dogs: the privately owned dog, which is probably the biggest category; dogs owned by people who breed them for the improvement of breeds and for showing purposes. We have dogs bred by what has come to be known as "puppy farms" but which I prefer to know as traders in dogs—who are an absolute menace—and we have dogs which are kept for sporting purposes, such as fox hunting, greyhound racing, shooting, and such like.
This report appears to aim mainly at the private owners of dogs, but in my view it fails to make clear what the authors are in fact trying to do. Let us start off with the fact that there appear to be, from the latest censuses that have been taken, about 4½ million owned dogs in this country and that there may be, in addition, a number of stray dogs. If we are to assume that there are 4½ million dogs and that in order to control the stray problem we must have dog wardens, then it is right to assume, as the Working Party have done, that the licence fee should be increased to pay for the wardens. Personally, I do not agree that the licence fee should pay for the whole of the dog warden scheme and I shall come to my reasons for that in a moment.
Where this Working Party on Dogs falls down in the first place is on the licensing aspect. At the present moment, there is not a dog of any kind in this country which is licensed: there is only the person who is licensed to keep a dog. One of the things which is not at all clear in this connection is what the Working Party really want. Do they want the dog owner to be licensed? Do they want the keeper of the dog to be licensed? Or do they want the dog to be licensed? This report has to be made clear in that basic respect.
At this precise moment, from what the Working Party has said, the acquisition of a dog is comparatively simple. It is perfectly possible, if you reduce it to an absurdity, for me, for example, to go out and buy a licence to keep a dog. With that licence, I could buy a dog in the morning and sell it in the evening. I could do that for 365 days in the year and, with one licence, I would then have owned 365 dogs. Nowhere in this report

949
can I see anything that has cleared up that point. One part of the report says that the owner can apply for a licence 28 days before it becomes due, but as far as I can see it has not been made clear whether the owner is looked on as a keeper or whether he can transfer his licence to whomsoever he goes to.
At the moment we have a situation where, if somebody wishes to go on holiday and to leave his dog in a boarding kennel, that boarding kennel should take out a licence in order to take the dog. In other words, if the boarding kennel is licensed to have 200 dogs it should have 200 licences; but I have a feeling that at this moment that situation certainly does not obtain. Are we then to assume, if we can accept what the Working Party says, that from now on the licensee is not to be the keeper but the owner? That is the whole crux of this system of licensing. If we then say that it is to be the owner who is licensed, we must look carefully at the dog warden scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and his Committee have produced a most excellent report, which recommends a dog warden service, and I am extremely pleased to see that the Working Party accepted the principle of such a service. However, I personally am not in favour of the method by which they suggest it should be operated. If a dog warden scheme is to be set up, I feel it must be done nationally and not by district councils as an option. If we had an optional scheme, the effect would be that people in district councils which had no dog warden scheme operating would be collecting money for licences to pay for the dog warden scheme; so that in fact these people would be paying for nothing. If it were then said, "All right, if a dog warden scheme is not operating you may keep your dog for a lesser licence fee", the immediate rush across the border of such councils to get a licence would be quite unbelievable.
Then we come to the question of the cost of the dog warden scheme. The Working Party say that the licence—and I shall not enter into an argument now as to whether it should be £5 or more—must pay for the dog warden scheme: they have basically established that principle. I find that very difficult to accept. The dog warden is to take over all the
950
duties of the police under the 1906 Act, and no doubt the police authorities would be extremely relieved if that were to happen. I am quite convinced that the police authorities do not like dealing with stray dogs or indeed having anything to do with dogs, because they are far too busy now on such other matters as dealing with motorists and various breaches of the law. They have money allocated to them in fact through what I believe is known as the "police precept" to deal with this stray problem, and I feel it would be most unjust to transfer their duties to a dog warden service. At least the money they now receive for those duties should not be set as a credit against it. Further-more, while the warden service is to deal very largely with the stray problem—and it urgently needs to be dealt with—it is also performing a public service. So I feel, in principle, that a certain amount of this burden should be borne by the normal ratepayer, although at the moment I would not be prepared to argue about the exact amount.
The question of strays is a rather touchy one. I do not think it is appreciated by many dog owners that, once their dog is outside the environment of the house or garden, it is instantly a stray. It is very difficult—and I have had a number of people complain about this—for people to realise that that is the situation. I have had cases brought to my attention where a perfectly well-trained and thoroughly pleasant dog has got out of a garden, has gone up the road, has got in with a collection of other dogs and has then been shot by a farmer for worrying sheep. In such cases, the owner cannot believe it. But it must be brought to everybody's attention that a dog which is not under control, and is not in the area of a house or garden, must be considered a stray, however much people do not like to think that it is. If you look at the position in that way, the number of strays is almost unlimited.
Furthermore, people must be taught that they cannot behave as they do, and I hope that it will be the dog wardens who do this, when they are instituted. In big towns and cities—and I know of an area around Birmingham where this happens frequently—people who go out to work put the dog out in the morning and he is sitting outside, waiting to be fed, when they come home in the evening. Such a

951
dog is a stray, and that is one of the reasons why we have this appalling problem.
There is also the question of where these dogs come from. In the last 20 years, there has been a most tremendous upsurge in dog ownership, which has probably come about through increased standards of living. The winner at Cruft's is announced and, before you can turn around, thousands of people want to buy puppies of that type of dog, without knowing anything about what will happen afterwards. I believe that is what is known as impulse buying, keeping up with the Joneses or something like that. But before you know where you are, people have bought a puppy which was wanted when it was first acquired but is not wanted when it has grown up, and it is then put out on the streets or dumped on a motorway and has to be rescued.
The breeding of dogs is a very touchy subject. A reputable breeder tries to improve the breed, but then there is the breeder who tries to improve his pocket. When the Breeding of Dogs Act came in, one of the most astonishing things which occurred was the dispersal of bitches around the countryside by traders in dogs, in order to get below the number for which it was laid down they would require breeding licences. They put them out on breeding terms, they leased them and they did all kinds of other things. As a result, the intention behind the Act was destroyed. In fact it was destroyed before then, because only the honest person could be penalised, as unless you said that you were a breeder nobody could do anything about it. There were no rights of entry and there was nothing in that Act which made it effective. If the recommendations of the Working Party or some Government measure can make the Breeding of Dogs Act work effectively, then I hope that, irrespective of where a dog is bred, a trader will have to be licensed and subject to inspection. In the case of breeders, it seems that reputable people always get the wrong end of the stick, because they are honest and say what they are doing.
One feels that a number of people are being penalised by the Working Party. As your Lordships are probably aware, I am not a particularly enthusiastic follower of the hunts, but they exist and
952
I consider that foxhounds are very much penalised. They are probably among the most well-controlled packs of dogs in the country, and I do not know why they should require a licence on a per head basis to pay for the dog warden service, when that service will probably ask for advice from them. Similarly, I cannot see why the greyhound racing people, who have their dogs under extreme control, should be penalised. I was wondering whether breeders and owners of dogs of that kind might be considered for some form of block licence.
The Working Party on Dogs made a great mistake when they brushed aside every form of allowance in regard to licensing, except for guide dogs for the blind. I believe that they are penalising a great many people who should not be penalised. I was amazed the other day, when I attended a BSAVA meeting, to hear somebody who has a great connection with pensioners say that he did not wish pensioners to be considered. He thought that they were spending too much money on looking after their dogs. But I cannot agree with this. I feel that pensioners are among the people who should be considered.
I have spoken for too long. There are a number of noble Lords who, no doubt, will want to take part in the debate. However, may I ask the noble Baroness to give us an assurance or forecast, first about whether we have seen the last of the Private Member's Bills dealing with a subject of this magnitude, and, secondly, whether the Government intend to introduce a Bill to implement this report. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6 p.m.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, first I should like to declare that I know of no Liberal policy on the dog world, despite Mr. Clement Freud and his activities in that direction. I am not an indiscriminate dog lover. I like dogs in about the same proportion as, or rather less than, I like people. Some dogs are all right; others are a bore; and a great many are a nuisance.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would agree with Frederick the Great who, I think, said:
"The more I see of men the more I like dogs"?

953
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE, My Lords, while I hesitate to disagree with Frederick the Great, I am not sure about that. The more I see of dogs the more I like men, in many cases. Certainly we have far too many dogs in this country. The best estimate I can find, through a recent extensive reading of the literature, is that there are about 6 million dogs in this country. I understand that we issue about 3 million dog licences. We must do something to reduce the number of dogs in this country. I like some dogs. I have a dog. I find it expensive to keep and, quite often, disobedient, but I try to keep it under control, or at least to let it run about in an area which belongs to me and not to somebody else. Furthermore, these 6 million dogs are increasing at the rate of 250,000 a year. The increase in the dog population is fully as serious as the increase in the human population of the world, and we must do something about it.
A large number of the people who keep dogs have no real idea about how to keep them or what to do with them. In fact, they should not keep dogs at all. Vets will tell you that in the holiday season they frequently receive orders to put down dogs so that the owners can go on holiday, and that after Christmas, when the children are fed up with the dogs that they have been given for Christmas, they have another period of activity killing the dogs which hae been given as presents.
There is a great feeling about, I understand, that the dog is the friend of man. I do not know about that, but man is certainly the friend of the dog because no other species would tolerate the harm that too many dogs do. I understand, from another statistic that I found during my extensive reading on the subject, that every day 66 tons of dog excrement is rained down on the property of the citizens of London. The situation is totally out of hand, in that I understand there is a disease—again I quote from my extensive reading on the subject—called toxascaris which was referred to on a Thames Television programme. A Dr. Dent, whom one assumes is an expert on the subject, said that in one way or another 10 per cent. of children suffer from the effects of this parasite which is found on dogs and which is distributed through children playing with dogs.
954
There is also the problem of sheep worrying. The report is very explicit and says that 8,000 sheep are killed or badly maimed every year by stray dogs attacking sheep. This is a very high figure, but it would be very much higher if it were not for the fact that in the vicinity of towns farmers have stopped keeping sheep altogether. This affects very badly the production of muttn in this country; many hundreds of thousands of acres around our towns must be sterilised because farmers cannot keep sheep there.
The practical reasons for keeping dogs are well known. In ancient times they had watchdogs, working dogs, dogs for defence and dogs for hunting. It is difficult to know why so many people keep dogs now, and we encourage them to do so. I think that the recommendation of the Working Party that there should be a £5 dog licence is setting too low a figure. Seven and sixpence in 1878 would be worth about a fiver now, but people are very much richer. I am quite serious when I say that the dog licence should be at least £10. In that way one would deter many people from keeping dogs, and keeping them very badly, which are then a nuisance to the whole community.
We really are daft. We have just heard a Statement from the Chancellor detailing the economies we have to make, yet in this country we are spending £400 million on dog food. It is a major industry. I can quote the authority for my statement; I have it here if the noble Baroness wants it. We are using up 600,000 tons of food as pet food. We are raping the seas around our coasts—we shall be talking about fishing limits tomorrow—in order to make pet food which should be made instead into food for human consumption.
Also we have the rabies problem approaching our shores. This is a very serious problem. I back the recommendation of the Working Party that the responsibility for dealing with the problem should be put firmly on local authorities, which should be staffed by self-financing people. If we get rabies in this country it will need to be very tightly controlled. This fact was drawn to my attention by my noble friend Lord Avebury who has been in communication with authorities in this country on the same point.

955
For all these reasons, I think that we must back the report, and I hope that we shall have early legislation to implement it. I hope also that serious thought will be given to making the dog licence fee £10 instead of £5. I believe that there ought to be more exceptions. I know perfectly well what happened in the Working Party: that they started on the exceptions but eventually said, "No, for heaven's sake! Do not let us go into it. It is much simpler to except guide dogs for the blind and nothing else". I do not think that this is right. Among the people who look after their dogs properly are the pensioners. I know of many pensioners whose greatest solace is their dog and they look after it properly. If they wish to spend money on food for their dogs, that is their concern and we should not interfere with it. For this and other reasons, I believe that more exceptions should be made, even though it means more work and a certain complexity.
I conclude by saying that the report appears to me to be good, that action is necessary and that that action should be swift in order to reduce the number of dogs and increase the number of responsible owners.
6.9 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, at present I am not a dog owner, nor have I been one for many years, but two and a half years ago I was invited to become the chairman of a committee of voluntary organisations with an interest in dog welfare who wished to consider the many aspects of dogs in society. That is how I became the chairman of a Committee which was largely instrumental in persuading the Government to appoint the Working Party and had considerable influence upon the recommendations of that Working Party. It was a Joint Advisory Committee on Pets in Society and in its membership were all the principal organisations concerned with dogs and dog welfare, including the Kennel Club, the National Canine Defence League and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I saw the work of that Committee through and myself gave evidence to the Working Party. The Report to which the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, referred and also the noble Lord, Lord
956
Mackie of Benshie, was published on 5th August. In only one material respect do the recommendations of the Working Party differ from the proposals made by the Joint Advisory Committee of which I was chairman.
I should like to pay a tribute to the unusual circumstance in which voluntary bodies came together in a spirit of co-operation and good will to give, collectively and unanimously, evidence to a Government committee. How I wish that that favourable degree of co-operation had been present among the voluntary bodies dealing with human beings when I was the Minister in charge of the social services. Could one bring them together then? Could one get Christian charity among charitable bodies dealing with various aspects of human welfare? I confess that I failed, too, but in the Committee we were successful.
Naturally when discussing any matter relating to dogs almost the first question that is raised is this: what about the licence fee? People go to the money straight away. But there are other aspects of this problem as well as that of the licence fee itself. The first thing we must understand is that although probably when one says "I am the chairman of a committee on dogs" a kind of indulgent smile comes over people's faces as though it were a relatively unimportant subject, the fact is that "dogs is news" and "dogs is politics". One only has to read the national press this morning to see the large display that is given to the possible fate of beagle dogs in a breeding establishment in Wales which is closing down and where many hundreds of dogs are threatened with destruction. Immediately emotions are involved, voluntary bodies get active and people are anxious to spare animals from this fate.
In our own Joint Advisory Committee one thing of which we were very conscious was the element of companionship of dogs to many human beings, especially the old who live lonely lives and who find enormous comfort and interest in having a dog in the home. Indeed, many of the old people talk to their dogs probably more than they talk to other people because they are in daily companionship with their dogs. I do not like the term, "pet" in society: the dog is more than a pet and, in many cases, it is an indispensable part of the home. Children like

957
dogs and in my view no family of children is complete without an animal at some time, where a relationship can be established between young people and the animal world. So we are dealing with a very large and serious subject and there is not the slightest doubt that the licence fee in this connection will be of great political importance.
When I was in the Government in 1965–66 we considered raising the dog licence fee along with many other licence fees which we were reviewing at that time. But we were immediately confronted with the possibility that if the licence fee were raised sharply it might result in the abandonment of large numbers of dogs or, where not abandoned, the deliberate decision by a lot of people that they could not afford to keep the dogs any longer and they would call upon the voluntary bodies to destroy them. I was not at all surprised that at that time the RSPCA said, "Be careful not to impose upon us and other voluntary bodies the burden of destruction which it would be emotionally and financially difficult for us to accept". We must bear that in mind in connection with a proposition that £5 is not enough and it ought to be £10.
If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, made a strangely illiberal speech. Should I be doing him an injustice if I said that it was a typical farmer's speech on the subject of dogs? His love of animals and his respect for them may spread over a wider perspective of the animal kingdom, but he is perhaps not the slave of his dog to the extent that many individuals are who have not the same broad interests of agriculture and animal husbandry that farmers enjoy.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, I should like to reassure him that, as a neighbour of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, I can say that he is devoted to a black Labrador of very uncertain age.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I am comforted to hear that because I thought in his remarks he was almost disowning his affection for his dog.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, it is very kind of the noble Lord to
958
give way. He has raised a very serious point about the farmer's attitude to animals. One of the things that made me make my rather brutal speech, which I thought ought to be made because, with respect, most people are rather mealy-mouthed about the dog and its relationship with humans, was that in the farming world we know how to treat animals well and we realise that if we do not treat them well or do not keep them in someone will destroy them or they will have to be destroyed. It is that element of responsibility which is so missing in the dog-owning world in general, and that is why I suggest that the licence fee—with many exceptions—should be high enough to make people really want to look after their dogs.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that intervention. I entirely endorse his desire for more responsible dog ownership. That is what we want to get, and undoubtedly to raise the licence fee to a reasonable level would help to ensure it. But I am absolutely against using the dog licence fee as a means of raising revenue. It is right that dog owners should make a proper contribution to whatever services may be introduced for the welfare of dogs as well as for the interests of the public at large.
This brings me to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, who said that he could not understand why the Working Party had recommended that the licence fee should bear the whole cost of the proposed dog warden service. I believe there is no doubt that a dog warden service would be a desirable thing to introduce, and transfer to it powers that are now in the hands of the police. I need not go over the ground of the scope and responsibilities of a dog warden service. Where that has been tried it has been proved largely successful. It helps to promote responsible dog ownership, and I think it would be of great assistance in enforcing the licensing provisions. At present, there is widespread evasion of the dog licence fee. It is too small for some people to bother with, and there are no satisfactory means of enforcement.
Under the proposals of the Working Party, which were the proposals of my Committee, the dog itself should carry evidence of the payment of the licence fee.

959
The licence fee should be big enough to make a substantial contribution to the dog warden service which we would hope would be made obligatory, not optional, on local authorities. It should be a national service operated by local authorities, and paid for very largely by the dog licence fee.
I do not think it is suitable that the dog licence fee should bear the cost of the whole of the dog warden service, because under the proposals of the Working Party, a good deal of the expense incurred now by, for example, the police, is on the Police Vote, and under the Working Party proposals would be transferred to the expenses of the dog warden service. I do not think that that transfer is justified. Moreover, in some respects the dog warden service would be a service to the community. After all, the community is interested in all that goes on within it. Motor cars, bicycles, pedestrians, all sorts of other users of the environment contribute something to the general wellbeing and welfare and cleanliness of the community. There is a community element in this, too.
My Lords, I would say that probably a licence fee of no more than half that proposed by the Working Party would be adequate to pay for a dog warden service if some parts of the cost now borne by the police were borne by the local authority. But I do not think the amount of licence fee should be regarded as the breaking point of the proposals of the Working Party. I warn your Lordships' House not to propose a dog licence fee which would thrust a terrible burden of destruction upon local authorities and voluntary bodies by those who felt unable to continue to keep a dog.
May I offer this little caution in passing., Many workers in voluntary bodies like the RSPCA go into the work because of their love of animals. They do not like to destroy animals. At times, a great strain is put on the inspectorate and other officials of voluntary bodies who are thought by many sections of the public to be some kind of licensed executioner of dogs. They are not that. They are people who want to promote the welfare of dogs. not to destroy them. We should do nothing which would pile up the toll of destruction of dogs for months after the
960
introduction of what might be regarded as an unacceptable or punitive level of fee.
My Lords, I do not wish to detain your Lordships for more than a moment longer, but may I urge the Government to look at the proposals of the Working Party in relation to the disciplines which I believe are necessary if the country is to be properly prepared for the possible entry of rabies. There is a great danger that, if rabies comes to this country, panic may break out among many animal owners and others. As a matter of fact, the dog is only moderately susceptible to rabies. Experience in other countries has shown that foxes are much more susceptible than dogs where rabies is endemic. Nevertheless, all forms of animal life will be in danger, I believe, if an outbreak of rabies occurs in this country. Look at the insane way in which all the guns in an area were let loose over common ground—I think it was in Surrey—when there was a suspected outbreak of rabies some years ago. Almost everybody with a gun was allowed to go out and to shoot every living thing. That is not the way to meet an outbreak of rabies. We must be more disciplined; we must be more sensible.
There must be a reduction in the number of stray dogs. There must be a consciousness on the part of owners that their dog must not be allowed to stray; they must keep it under control. The dogs must be properly identified. They should have a licence identity attached to them. All these things are part of the new consciousness, and of the promotion of responsibility for proper dog ownership.
My Lords, I come now to the question of dog food, and of dogs consuming resources. The motor car consumes resources. The motor car is swallowing thousands and thousands of tons of oil every year, purely for pleasure. We are all indulging ourselves in a period of higher living standards. Talk about dogs consuming food! Human beings are consuming far too much food at present. Let us get the whole thing in perspective. After all, you have only to go into any town or city at present and you will see children consuming luxury goods on a considerable scale. Are we to tell people how they should spend their disposable income? Some are getting a great deal more pleasure from their motor car than

961
they derive from a bicycle or a television set. Many old people find the company of their dog almost indispensable in their intolerably lonely life. There are 9 million pensioners in Britain at the moment, and I imagine a large proportion of them are dog owners.
What exceptions should we allow? My Committee suggested to the Working Party that farmers should no longer receive exemption on their sheep dogs. We were not in favour of any exceptions at all, except in the case of the blind. I do not think it is desirable to make a great many exceptions with a fee of this kind. It introduces administrative difficulties and problems of discrimination, of knowing where to stop. If the licence fee is a reasonable amount, an amount which is within the pocket of a large proportion of the population, and is bearing a reasonable part of the cost of the dog warden service, then we have got it right.
On this difficult day, when we have heard of the reductions in public expenditure and local authorities coming under the squeeze, I would say to the Government that it is very desirable to prepare the country, not only on this front but elsewhere, to deal with the possibility of the entry of rabies. We hope we shall not see rabies in this country, but there would be a greater discipline on the dog population, which would help to keep down the number of strays, would help to reduce the amount of sheep worrying and would help to reduce the number of road accidents caused by dogs running about out of control. There is enormous social advantage, as well as safeguards for the health of the country, in implementing the recommendations of the Working Party. I personally am very glad to have had some contribution to make to a thoroughly sensible report based on the recommendations of a collection of animal organisations, which brought common sense as well as sentiment and real interest in animals to bear on this difficult task.
6.30 p.m.
Lord COTTESLOE: My Lords, we must be grateful to my noble friend Lord de Clifford for having put down this Motion. The Report of the Working Party on Dogs, which owes so much to the Report last year of Lord Houghton's Advisory Committee, is of great interest
962
and importance, and I shall look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness opposite may tell us of the Government's intentions, if any, as regards its recommendations. Meanwhile, it is good to have the opportunity of discussing the Report.
I take a rather kindlier view of dogs in general than does Lord Mackie of Benshie. I have a particular interest in this matter, though not a financial one. I am chairman of that very remarkable institution, the Dogs Home, Battersea, a home for lost dogs set up by Mrs. Tealby in Holloway in 1860 and removed to Battersea more than a century ago; her neighbours, not unnaturally, complained of the noise, and at Battersea there was a site where the neighbours were the railway and railway sidings, and there the Dogs Home still is. We have at Battersea dogs of all shapes and sizes, in every condition from healthy to terribly diseased, 18,000 dogs a year—the number is surprisingly constant from year to year—and about 500 at any one time.
We had last year dogs of 74 different breeds, apart from that breed not recognised by the Kennel Club but commonly known as "Heinz", because it incorporates some or all of 57 varieties. It is the mongrel that outnumbers all the rest put together. Most of them we collect from 182 police stations in the Greater London area, and we carry out, under contract, the statutory duty of the police to look after stray dogs for a week to enable their owners to claim them. About 45,000 members of the public visit the Home each year in search of their own lost dog or a dog to buy, or just to see the work that the Home is doing. We keep the dogs in the best and most modern kennels in the country. We even had recently a delegation from Japan to see how we do it. More than 3,000 dogs are claimed every year by their owners, for more than 6,000 we find new homes, and the rest, almost all of which are irrecoverably diseased, have to be destroyed. In principle, we never, and in practice we very seldom, have to put down a healthy dog. We have a devoted staff of keepers and van drivers and others to the number of about 40, and they are very proud of the work that the Home does. So at Battersea we know something about stray dogs, and indeed we gave evidence to the Departmental Working Party.

963
In general, I welcome the Working Party's Report very warmly, though I have reservations on one or two specific matters to which I will come in a moment. I hope that the Government will, after a period of widespread discussion, take steps to implement some of its recommendations. I hope particularly they will increase the charge for a dog licence to a figure that makes anyone who acquires a dog feel that he has something that is worth looking after, not to be lightly thrown on the streets, as so many unfortunate dogs are today, and to a figure also that makes the enforcement of the licensing system worth while, which it is certainly not at present. I should like to see the cost of a first licence put up to £5—Lord Houghton's Committee suggested £3, but I do not think that in these days £5 would be too high—and that a licence should be valid, as Lord Houghton's Committee proposed, for three years. It would be a good thing if it were found practicable—and I see no reason why it should not be—that a first licence should carry a voucher for free injections against distemper by an approved veterinary surgeon.
The present law as to licensing, and as to a dog having, when it is in a public place, a collar with its owner's name and address attached to it, is widely disregarded; and if the excellent proposal for coloured tags is adopted, that system with the increased cost of a licence, would be a very great help in administering the law and in producing also—very important—a very considerable fall in the number of strays. That is all to the good. But I have reservations on two points in particular. One is on the recommendation that the period for which a dog is kept, to enable its owner to claim it, should be reduced from seven days to five. There is an important practical reason for the period of seven days, one week, and that is that for many people, if they have lost their dog, the weekend is in practice really the only time that they can go searching for it. I think it would be a great mistake to reduce this period to anything less than a week for that reason.
The other matter on which I have reservations is a major matter of policy: the proposal for a transfer of responsibility for stray dogs, from the police to the local
964
authorities. It is, of course, perfectly true that the police have many other and many more important duties, and would perhaps not be sorry to give up this one. I do not know whether it may be different in the rural areas, but certainly in London the existing system operates smoothly and efficiently. Everyone knows that the police look after stray dogs and knows where to take, or inquire after, a lost dog. In practice, our contract at Battersea with the Metropolitan Police relieves the police of having to keep dogs at the police stations for more than a few hours; they do not have to set up extensive kennels or anything of that kind. They are most co-operative; we have two nominees of the Metropolitan Police sitting as members of our committee, and most helpful they are. So I should deplore any change in this arrangement, with a multiplicity of local authority dog wardens all over the place, and dog owners feeling that they are under surveillance as potential criminals.
That kind of attitude might quite easily develop. The concept of the dog warden as the dog owner's guide, adviser and friend is very attractive; but in practice he might more probably become and be seen by the public as just another petty official appointed, like the traffic warden, to catch people out. One can see the picture: "Did your dog make this mess on the pavement?" "No". "Well, it is quite fresh, and if it was not your dog what done it what dog was it?" "I have no idea. It was not mine". "Well, I do not see any other dog. It is quite fresh. I shall have to book you". That is the sort of thing one can imagine.
Nor do I believe that in general the local authorities—of which I have had some experience, having been for a decade a member of the London County Council, and also for some years of my local borough council—would be so efficient as the police, and I am perfectly certain that they would not be so economical. Some, no doubt, would be excellent but many would not be. So I hope profoundly that, in London anyway, the responsibility will remain with the police. I am reinforced in that view by my friends in the police force, who tell me that even if the formal responsibility is transferred in practice the police will still have to do nearly all the work. I am sure that is true. I see my time is almost up. There

965
are other more detailed points that I have no time to develop, but, with the important reservations I have stated, I warmly welcome this Report and its recommendations.
6.40 p.m.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, for raising this question. I might never have read the report had it not been for this debate. I am impressed by the report. It has obviously been well thought out, and I did not realise how much it owed to the voluntary societies and the work of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I welcomed particularly the dog warden concept. This is absolutely essential. I am afraid I must differ from the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, about the local authorities. The problem is really getting beyond the control of the police. I am quite convinced, with the local authorities, that the work of the dog wardens must come under the supervision of the veterinary profession. You must have the veterinary surgeon supervising the work of the dog wardens and also their training. Without veterinary control, many of the apprehensions of the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, would be realised.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, who said that all local authorities must come under the warden scheme. It would be fatal if they did not. In fact one almost wondered how anyone could think that it could be other than a national scheme. The wardens collect the strays; dogs are killed in accidents and dogs die of old age. Some thought might have been given in this report to the disposal of the carcases. Virtually no attention is paid to what is really an important point. At the present moment, when the veterinary surgeon puts down a dog, maybe as a result of an accident or old age, he is invariably expected to dispose of the carcase. In most cases the owner does not want to have anything more to do with it. Although there is no legal obligation on him to do so, he assumes an ethical responsibility to ensure that his clients' animals are disposed of in as satisfactory a way as possible.
The Control of Pollution Act was enacted in 1974 and the Department of the Environment at that time advised the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons that
966
it was proposed to deal with small animal carcases by means of regulations to be made under Section 30(4). It is clear that the implementation of that Act has been delayed. Some local authorities have realised their responsibilities in this respect and have made arrangements, but many others have not done so, despite representations that have been made by the veterinary profession, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and the Peoples Dispensary for Sick Animals. I believe that any legislation that is contemplated should place this responsibility also upon the local authorities. It would not be an expensive one, but it is a responsibility which should exist.
Then there is the question of dog licences. I have a vivid recollection of a debate which took place in your Lordships' House some 10 years or so ago and the late Lord Iddesleigh, sitting on the Cross-Benches, made an impassioned and well reasoned speech for the raising of the dog licence to £5. If he had had his way, the problem of the stray dog would be much less at the present time. I would mention that in Lord Iddeslcigh's memory, because he was a great dog lover. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, has suggested a fee of £10 for the dog licence. It might eventually be necessary to raise it to that figure, but in the meantime I would accept what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, says; that is, that one should do it by degrees. I think a first step to £5 would be quite reasonable, and I should certainly fall in behind those who advocate a £5 licence.
I do not agree that only the blind dog should be exempted. I wish to make a special plea for the sheep dog and the cattle dog, and for a reason which the Working Party, composed, I suspect, largely of urbanites, would hardly appreciate, but which I think the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, would appreciate. It takes a lot of skill to breed a sheep dog. The sheep dog is bred almost invariably by small people. It is not bred on a large scale, it is bred by small people, usually just the shepherds and the cattle men. These men are breeding for intelligence in an animal. It is one of the most fascinating of all the breeding experiments going on in the world, and any of your Lordships who have been reading the recent correspondence in The Times will see how relevant is that correspondence.

967
No one can spot the intelligence of a puppy any more than one can spot the intelligence potentiality of one's own baby or anyone else's baby. In order to select the intelligent animals—those you are going to use yourself, those you are going to breed from in future—you must keep them up to at least a year old, to a period when you have been able to decide whether or not they will react to training. Therefore, to tax a shepherd or a cattleman who is raising puppies, some of which would not turn out to he useful dogs—probably he would want to keep only one in four or one in six for future purposes—would be very unjust.
While I disagree with Lord Houghton about that, I have something to say which will give him greater cause for discontent. In my view, dogs for laboratory purposes should also be exempt. The cost of laboratory animals is very considerable and the results of vivisection experiments, of which Lord Houghton so stoutly disapproves, are of tremendous value to the human race. In my view, nothing should be done to add to the costs of medical research institutions and universities in this respect, and therefore I appeal for laboratory dogs to be exempted from the licence fee.
I welcome the suggestion that dealers should purchase puppies only from persons licensed under the Dogs Act and I agree with Lord de Clifford that the whole business of dogs needs to be consolidated into one new piece of legislation, and I hope this will he done before long. Education of the population about dogs must be continuing and pressure is essential on potential dog-owners as well as on uncaring owners because they must be made to understand what their duties are, and the veterinary profession can make a great contribution in this respect. As I say, I welcome the report and hope it will not be long before the noble Baroness is able to introduce a Bill in this House to put it into effect.
6.53 p.m.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate but as an inveterate dog-lover with a lifelong experience of dogs—hounds and the like, of various breeds and in various countries—I feel I have a contribution to make.
968
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, for having initiated the debate, but the temptation to me to speak came from the remarks of my noble friend Lord Balerno who, like myself, was born in the neighbourhood of "Greyfriars' Bobby", whose story is so well known. I do not know how many of your Lord-ships saw the television programmes "One man and his dog", which showed what Lord Balerno was describing, the skills produced by sheepdog operators. These dogs make an important contribution to our economy, and I would only add that there are various other working dogs which are similarly situated.
Lord Balerno referred to the use of dogs and animals in pharmaceutical and medical experiments. Having been concerned with the pharmaceutical industry for a number of years in an undertaking which had its own research laboratories and kennels, I have a few comments to make on the subject. Many of the experiments to which reference is made in the Press are in fact not research experiments but relate to the checking of batches of drugs produced. These experiments are not painful and when the reports refer to them being carried out without anaesthetics, the animals do not need to be anaesthetised. Generally, all that is required is a prick in the ear for a drop of blood or a diet that is prescribed.
When I was concerned with this under-taking we absolutely insisted that any animal in our laboratories should not have been a pet, which, as a devoted dog-lover, brings me to my next point. It is that animals' minds are based on memory. It is horrible to me to think that any dog of mine which has been a friend of myself and my family for years should be submitted to any sort of pain or discomfort. However, I do not feel the same in terms of the need to which Lord Balerno referred; the absolute necessity of using an animal to test and check various medicaments. I put it that way because I hope something can be done about the penalties for stealing dogs, a merciless thing to do. I wonder whether anything can be done to ensure that pets are not stolen, by ensuring a severe penalty for stealing pets.
There are working dogs other than those to which reference has been made, particularly gun dogs; but I do not think we

969
need worry about them unduly because they are usually bred in a quite different way from sheep dogs. They are not necessarily trained by the small skilled operator to whom my noble friend referred, but often by the trainer or breeder, and therefore I do not think any exemption need extend beyond the few that have been mentioned. On the other hand, what about guard dogs which are properly trained in their conduct?
Lord Houghton pointed out the need to get the right level of licence fee, the fact that if it is too high we may find large numbers of dogs being destroyed and many pensioners and old folk not being able to keep their dogs. If the fee is too high there could be other complications, too. We must remember that for pensioners, the old and especially women, dogs are not only companions but, if they are of the size of, say, a terrier or larger, can provide valuable protection and a real sense of security.
On the question of rabies I must choose my words carefully. It has been suggested that panic might ensue if it broke out. I choose my words carefully because, like other noble Lords, I have lived in countries where rabies is endemic. Though it is a terrible and awful disease and the risks to agriculture and the like must be appreciated, the subject must be faced with a steely glance rather than with the belief that a measure of panic would ensue. I say that because nowadays the protection and prevention methods are very reliable, and I have been glad to read that a further advance in this respect has been made.
Lord Balerno made a very important point about the disposal of carcases. Except for my last dog, which died in my arms at a good age, I have always buried my pets with my own hands. On the last occasion, however, I had an absolute warranty from my veterinary officer that the dog's remains would be cremated, which was a great comfort to me. I am looking forward to hearing the other contributions on this matter and to hearing what the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, will say. I again thank the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, for introducing this matter and I am grateful for the interesting points made by the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe. I support him very strongly in what he said about having a seven rather than a live-day limit
7.1 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, first, may I congratulate my noble friend Lord de Clifford on raising the subject of dogs in your Lordships' House this after-noon. There is no doubt that in this country, dogs, and, indeed, all pets are an eternal and endless source of conversation and argument. I say that as one who is an inveterate dog lover. I think I had my first dog at the age of seven—it was a very large dachshund—and I have kept dogs ever since. Indeed, there is one paragraph in this report with which I am in wholehearted disagreement. It is that which relates to the age at which a person can apply for a licence for a dog. I believe that it is paragraph 11.5. If one is, for instance, allowed to go out with a shot gun to shoot pigeons at the age of 14, should one not also have a dog to pick them up?
I digress. I hope that my own personal attitude is not one of sickly sentimentality so far as dogs are concerned, although I think that I perhaps hold them in a little higher regard than does the noble Lord, Lord Mackie. As has already been said, the Working. Party brought its mind and considerable talents to the problem of dogs. If I say that the problem is basically an urban problem, that the attitude of the Working Party was basically urban and that the remedies it proposed were basically urban, that is not to be taken as being meant offensively or, even, tendentiously. It is a fact that most of the dogs—like most of the people—in these overcrowded islands of ours are confined in the cities or, at any rate, in the conurbations, and it is natural that the problems that arise should be dealt with on that basis.
I was very much in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, when he emphasised the great source of consolation that people find when they own dogs. I say that with due deference to cat lovers, goldfish fanciers and budgerigar keepers. There is nothing like a dog. As has already been said, many people can live with a dog very much better than with humans. It may be their fault. It may be that they cannot co-operate and communicate with humans so well. It may be that their personal circumstances prevent them from having a family or being with other people.

971
Many people, including the old, the shy and the lonely, derive great satisfaction from the ownership of a dog and, dare one say it?, there is always the security point. Many old ladies who own dogs—and they need not be very big dogs—derive a sense of security from a creature that can act as a watchdog however insignificant it is in size.
Dogs are, after all, a very useful adjunct to man's activities. I detected a rather world-weary note in the whole approach of the Working Party. One felt that its members in a way regarded dogs as some sort of mobile defecating mechanism that would probably get into the wrong place at the wrong time. That is not something that I condone, but it is not something either that will help us to overcome the problem. Problems there certainly are. We talk of man's in-humanity to man, but to my mind that is nothing to man's inhumanity to defence-less creatures. A friend of mine who the other day came down from Scotland via the motorway and pulled into a service station to fill up with petrol, saw a nice little dog sitting on the forecourt. At every car that came into that filling station it bounded forward and looked up and then went back again and sat just by the pumps. My friend was in-formed by the person who was serving the petrol that that dog had been there for five days. It had been shot out of a car by its owners and ever since it had remained in its lonely and isolated position, hoping that its owners would come back. It was fed and sustained by people who were very moved when they saw its predicament.
In my own experience, I have near my home a site where holiday caravans go in the summer. At weekends, I quite frequently go down and exchange a few words with the warden. On one Saturday last summer no fewer than three dogs were abandoned by their owners who, presumably, had been having some sort of holiday at the camp site and, when the time came for them to move on, just booted their dogs out for those who found them to make what they could of.
So there are too many dogs. That is one of the great problems that we have to face. Secondly, we have to face the fact
972
and confess it: dogs have habits that are inconvenient, annoying, disgusting and sometimes, no doubt, downright unhealthy. I am sorry to observe that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, is again not with us. What is to be done? There will have to be introduced into our law provisions that will help to control the number of dogs and which will, to some extent, curb their activities. By that, I mean the freedom of dogs to roam where they will and also the freedom of people. That freedom will have to be curtailed in the general interests of all. However, whatever provisions are made must be sensible and acceptable. They must be acceptable to the general populace, and they will not be acceptable if they merely signal the introduction of what I might call a new bureaucratic dimension which will simply cause public irritation and wholesale evasion of any law that is introduced
Some of your Lordships who have young children may have seen them watching cartoons on the television. A not infrequent figure is the American dog warden, a foolish creature who wanders about with an oversized butterfly net, taking dogs into custody and bearing them away in a van. We all know where everybody's sympathies lie. They do not lie with the dog warden. If we are to have dog wardens, we must see to it that the dog warden is a figure of respect, if not affection, and not a figure of fun.
I have two criticisms of the approach of the Working Party in this matter. I think that when it was considering these problems there was, first, a failure to distinguish between what I call useful dogs and dogs which, however agreeable they are, have no more use than as a pet—and I realise the force of what Lord Houghton said when I use that word. Secondly, I think that some criticism lies in the fact that the Working Party failed to distinguish between urban and country dogs. I shall come back to that. To take the question of numbers of dogs first, various estimates have been placed upon the numbers of dogs now among us. They range from 4 million upwards. I suggest that it is equally impossible to know how many of those millions of dogs are the result of what I might call "planned parenthood", and how many are accidents.
I believe very strongly that if the number of dogs decreases many of the other

973
difficulties will also fall away, or at least will become manageable. One then asks oneself: How is one to control and, hopefully, to diminish the number of dogs which are about? I see no other way than a two-fold approach, the first part of which is fiscal. I regret it, but I fear that the only way of making people take more care in this matter is to raise the licence fee to such a level that people will not obtain dogs merely for the summer or, even worse, for Christmas or for holidays, but will acquire them only if they really want to look after them and to derive what pleasure they can from their company.
Secondly, as I have said, I think there will have to be some control over breeding. You cannot force everybody who has a bitch to register, nor can you, bearing in mind that they come on heat twice a year, force everybody to keep the dog under such control that the possibility will not exist that they have unwanted litters. But if the dog licence fee were made sufficiently high people would then take more care. I should not want to put forward a figure. I think that the figure of £5 is probably right, although I should not be averse to having the fee higher than that in circumstances to which I shall come.
In considering the possibility of having higher fees let us compare this with, say, a television licence. People may be averse to and unwilling to pay £18 for a television licence, but generally speaking it is regarded as reasonable value for money, and I would suggest that people who really want to have dogs should not be averse to paying perhaps half of that amount to own a dog. But I suggest that if the Government are considering legislation in this field in the future, considerable thought should be given—and a good deal more thought than the Working Party gave—to the remission of fees in certain cases. I would remit the licence fee for the old, because as I have tried to say they derive particular pleasure from the company of dogs. I would certainly remit the fee for the blind.
I would also remit the licence fee for certain types of useful dogs, and my noble friend Lord Balerno has already explored this point. I do not see why somebody like a shepherd, who cannot pursue his occupation without a dog, should be expected to pay a licence fee which, so far as the Working Party is concerned, is
974
purely for the maintenance of the dog warden service, bearing in mind that a sheep dog is unlikely ever to meet a dog warden, nor is its owner ever likely to avail himself of the dog warden service. If the object of the exercise is to fund the dog warden service, it is manifestly unfair that an urban sheep dog and its owner should be asked to do so—
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: I am very grateful to the noble Earl for allowing me to intervene. The cost of the dog licence in the case of the shepherd and the farmer would of course be tax deductible, like the tax in relation to a motor car.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: The noble Lord should tell that to the farmer who deducts the PAYE from the shepherd.
I turn now to the position of game-keepers in this matter. Not all of us have the same attitude towards field sports. All I say is that several million pounds in foreign currency is earned each year by people who let their shooting to foreigners. Gamekeepers cannot pursue their occupation without dogs. Why should they, in effect, subsidise this urban dog warden service? Of course, the same point about tax applies to them, but, even so, why should they pay even a proportion?
I would put one special case of remission which has not yet been mentioned, that is for spayed dogs. The Working Party considered this and dismissed it as being administratively difficult, but I do not see why it should be. If, when somebody queues up at the Post Office counter (or wherever it is to be) for an annual dog licence and he produces a certificate from the vet, stating that such-and-such a bitch, with the owner's name and address given, has been spayed, why should that person not perhaps have remitted some part of the licence fee? It would give such a person an inducement not to let the animal breed. Although I see some administrative difficulties about the scheme, it was not so long ago that we had different licences for different car engines; and I do not feel that this suggestion is impossible.
The Working Party suggested in a slightly feeble way that there might be higher fees for dogs such as alsatians. This is mentioned in paragraph 12.4 of

975
the report. For the life of me I cannot see why. The Working Party put alsatians in what they are pleased to call a more powerful class of dog. The worst bite that I ever had was from a very small terrier owned by a girl friend, and it did not like any advances being made towards its owner. What the Working Party was thinking of when it wanted a higher fee for a more powerful dog I know not.
I must not become too facetious about this, and I should like to say a few words on habits. The Working Party sets out very succinctly and sensibly the difficulties which dogs bring unto themselves, their owners and the general population. I wonder slightly at the fact that the Working Party takes the definition of a stray dog in Section 3 of the Dogs Act and gives it a much more sweeping definition in its paragraph 3.2. Section 3 of the Dogs Act envisages dogs being at large without them necessarily being strays. The Working Party agrees to define a stray as a dog at large on a highway or place of public resort and appearing to be unaccompanied. In my mind there is no doubt that it will lead to considerable resentment on the part of the population if any dog at large and unaccompanied is to be regarded as a stray and be liable to be impounded. But on due reflection I think that that is something we will have to get used to, and if any kind of control of dogs in urban situations is to be effecttive, that is something which will have to come about.
No doubt there are many places in the country which will not have dog wardens. I suppose that small towns and villages will not ever find it necessary to have a dog warden, and such places probably do not suffer any great difficulty over stray dogs. So far as the country areas are concerned, I think that a much greater difficulty is likely to be that of sheep worrying, and here again I was slightly disappointed in the attitude of the Working Party. It was not too keen on an extension of the Animals Act 1971, which incidentally so far as Section 9 is concerned, does not extend to Scotland at all. Paragraph 17 of the report, dealing with access land, unfortunately in my submission, fails to recommend that there should be on the part of local authorities a duty to require owners in such circumstances to have their dogs on leads.
976
The point is made, first, that farmers can take out policies of insurance so far as livestock and the worrying of sheep is concerned. My Lords, that is expensive, and I happen to know that after one or two cases no insurance company will underwrite the risk. Secondly, it says that in cases of access land the farmer can make a stipulation on the question of dogs under control and treat as trespassers those who refuse to observe that. We know what happens so far as trespassers are concerned. The law treats them gently under most circumstances, and I have no doubt it will be the same in this case. My Lords, if the Government contemplate legislation there will, I think, have to be some further thought. Whether or not it will be on the lines that I suggest, one knows not. In the meantime, I think all noble Lords will be grateful, as I have said, first, to the Working Party for having crystallised our minds on what is a considerable problem and, secondly, to my noble friend for having brought the matter up this afternoon.
7.21 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, for providing an opportunity for us to debate this subject today. The speeches of those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate give a very clear indication of the depth of public concern about this problem and the differing attitudes towards some of the recommendations. It is a subject which has tended to persuade some people, at least, to divide into pro-dog and anti-dog factions. I think your Lordships have generally avoided that misleading and unhelpful posture tonight.
My Lords, I do not believe that there is a "dog problem as such, and nor did the Working Party. What we have really been debating today is the complex social question which relates directly to an animal which in one form or another has been man's close companion for many thousands of years. A recent article in the magazine Nature suggested that dog had been the first wild animal to be domesticated, and this at a time when great parts of Europe, down even as far as the very spot at which we are now holding our debate, were covered by massive ice sheets. Through all the changes and chances of man's existence since that time, the dog has been

977
not only his companion but his co-worker; and I think it is this kind of historical perspective which is necessary in any debate on how dogs can be associated with our modern urban civilisation.
It was certainly not with any wish to come up with a series of predetermined or facile answers that my right honourable friend the Minister for Sport and Recreation set up the Working Party in July 1974. The membership of the Working Party consisted of officials from Government Departments, local authority associations and police associations; and their terms of reference were deliberately set out in very broad terms. I will remind your Lordships of these terms of reference. They were:
"To examine the law, custom and practice relating to the control of dogs, including licensing arrangements, and the control of strays; and to make recommendations."
No one could call those restrictive terms; and I think the Working Party very properly chose to interpret the terms liberally and to seek advice from a wide range of outside organisations to assist them in their work.
As your Lordships will see from Appendix F to the Working Party's report, some 91 organisations were invited to comment, and many of them responded very helpfully by submitting comments in writing. A number of organisations were also invited to give oral evidence, and this proved to be of the greatest value to the Working Party. My noble friend Lord Houghton, in his capacity as chairman of the Joint Advisory Committee on Pets in Society, was able to give the Working Party the benefit of his experience and advice; and, as your Lordships will have heard this afternoon, he had a very great deal of value to say to the Working Party.
Although the Working Party's inquiries ranged widely, I think it was inevitable that the greater part of that report should focus on the question of stray dogs and the problems to which they give rise. We live in a small and crowded island, and in our cities every square yard (or perhaps in these days I ought to say every square metre) of ground is very valuable. In such a situation, a large number of stray animals is bound to give rise to anxiety. We have had various suggestions made tonight as to what is the number of stray animals that are around the country.
978
My noble friend Lord Houghton referred to it; and the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, referred to the number of dogs and the ways in which we might be able to control them—even introducing family planning for dogs. But the most reliable estimate of the total dog population in the United Kingdom is that which was set out in a report, published in 1975, by the Joint Advisory Committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Houghton.
That report estimated then that the dog population was 3½ 2 million in 1956, 5 million in 1966 and is probably over 6 million today. There was a recent market research survey, carried out by Audits of Great Britain, which suggested that the dog population was falling and stood at 4½ 8 million in June 1976; but my Department's view is that, since that survey was based on questions asked of house-holders, it would not necessarily give a very reliable indication of the number of unlicensed dogs, and we think that perhaps the estimate of my noble friend Lord Houghton's committee is probably still the most reasonably accurate which we have today.
The Working Party, as the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has said, defines a stray dog as:
"Any dog at large in a highway or place of public resort which appears to an authorised officer to be unaccompanied by a person."
As the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, said, a dog which is a stray for only a few hours, perhaps while its owners are at work, is just as liable to cause trouble as an animal with no home at all; and the number of strays is very difficult to calculate. We have only one authentic statistic, and that is the number of dogs seized as strays by the police in a sixmonth period in 1974. This was 100,000. But it is generally accepted that the number of dogs seized as strays is only a very small proportion of those which are strays as defined by the Working Party. Various estimates have appeared in the Press suggesting that the number of strays might even be as high as 1 million, and we accept that this is a possible but not a verifiable estimate. But the anxiety of the public about strays has been reflected in the correspondence which has been coming into the Department of the Environment about the fouling of parks and footpaths, road safety hazards caused by stray dogs, the worrying of livestock,

979
the risk of attack by packs of stray dogs and the possible health risk by contact with dogs.
I have referred to the membership of the Working Party and to the many different organisations from which they sought advice. I think it is interesting that, in the light of their researches, the Working Party unanimously came up with recommendations for the control of stray dogs which, in general if not perhaps in detail, coincided very closely with the recommendations in the report entitled, Dogs in the United Kingdom, made by the Advisory Committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Houghton. As many of your Lordships have already noted, the main recommendations of the Working Party amount to a proposal to remove the responsibility for dogs from the police and to give it to a dog warden organisation, which would be a local authority responsibility and would be paid for by licence fees.
My Lords, the details associated with this recommendation are a matter for discussion, but there has been a considerable measure of support, both in your Lordships' House this evening and among the public at large who have written in on the report's recommendation, for the concept of such a change in structure.
The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, inquired about whether the police or the dog warden scheme would be the best way to deal with this. There would have to be some transitional arrangements until people were used to the dog wardens. There are about 50 dog warden schemes in operation at the present moment. Experience suggests that this transitional period need not be too long. The police would not lose all interest and we would expect them to be co-operating with the wardens. The noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, raised an interesting comment on the magnificent work which the Battersea Dogs Home has done for many years and he must be very proud of his association with it. He queried whether the waiting period, or the period of holding dogs, ought to be reduced from seven days to five days. I am advised that the Working Party recommended five days instead of seven days because general experience, in their view, showed that almost all dogs that will be claimed are claimed within 48 hours.
980
Their retention is a cost to the public and five days seems to allow ample time. I was swayed personally by the arguments that the noble Lord put up and we will bear his comments in mind when having further discussions.
The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, also raised the question of the veterinary co-operation with the dog warden scheme; and the dog warden scheme would be expected to work in full co-operation with the veterinary profession. The noble Lords, Lord Balerno and Lord Ferrier, also reminded us of the sheep dogs and that wonderful programme based on Buttermere, of one man and his dog, which was enjoyed by many people. I was reminded of many years ago when I was in the Lake District, where a farmer was working young puppies and I commented about how nice they were. He told me in broad Cumbrian, an accent I cannot imitate, that I could have "young Fustian". When I inquired why, he told me that it was because he would not work. That bears out the point that the noble Lord made, that you may breed all the puppies you like but they are not necessarily all worker puppies.
The Government have not yet decided what action they will take on any suggestion or any recommendation in the report, but there can be little argument that since the passing of the Dogs Act in 1906, which gave the police responsibility for the capture, custody and disposal of stray dogs, the calls on police manpower have increased substantially. If it is eventually decided that the responsibility for dealing with stray dogs should be removed from the police, the local authorities are the obvious alternative to ask to set up a dog warden service.
The Working Party recommended that if such a service is to be set up, it should be financed by means of the licence fee. This is a question which has arisen in much of the correspondence which we have received in the Department and which has been raised this evening. The Working Party's recommendation that the licence fee should he £5 has been criticised. I do not think that the most important question is whether the level of the fee should be this sum or that sum, but rather whether it is right that the fee should be set at such a level as to pay for a dog warden service. Associated with this is the question of

981
whether everybody should have to pay this fee, or whether some groups within the Community, the pensioners or the various groups within the Community, the pensioners or the various groups mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield—
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, would the noble Baroness agree that the relationship between the licence fee and the number of exemptions is an important one?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, certainly this is something that the Department and this House would have to look at in due course when we are proposing legislation. The question of whether some owners are not liable to pay the fee or whether some breeds are supposed to have a higher fee paid for them is something that we should have to look at carefully. It is something that might have wider implications than just the licensing of a dog or various categories being exempted from having a licence. I should not like to express an opinion off the cuff. I should like to look at that point when considering all the other recommendations.
We come up against the very real human problems that so many noble Lords talked about tonight. To many people a dog is a treasured companion, and it might seem hard to add to the already formidable cost of keeping a dog by what would be to some people a substantial increase in the licence fee. But, as has been pointed out, it is an expensive matter to keep and feed a dog properly, and a substantial increase to the licence—which, after all, has not been changed for nearly a hundred years—does not seem likely to be a significant element in a person's decision whether or not to keep a dog.
The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, referred to the various odd bits of legislation that we have concerning dogs at the moment and expressed the hope that any future legislation would not be left to some Private Member's Bill to tidy it up, and that it would be nice and tidy to have some form of consolidation legislation. I should not have thought that there was much hope for time for this in the fore-seeable future. There is not a need for a great deal more legislation in order to implement many of the Working Party recommendations, if that is the final
982
decision. The only recommendations which would require wholly new legislation are those which require all dogs to wear some form of identification mark; those which would require dogs to be kept on a lead in certain roads; those which would give the responsible authority powers to collect and dispose of dogs whose owners were no longer able to look after them; and those which would give the local authority discretionary power to subsidise the establishment of spaying clinics from licence revenue and to prevent the issue of licences to persons under the age of 18, or such age as the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, might persuade us was appropriate.
So far as block licensing is concerned—and this was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford—there is no commitment to the Working Party's rejection of this idea. The Government are consulting widely, and our minds remain open on how the licensing system ought to be constructed. We are still having consultations and will have to come with firm proposals after consultation with all bodies and individuals. So far as the national scheme for wardens is concerned, the Government must stand by their prime need to commit no more manpower or resources and to have any scheme that might be adopted a self-financing scheme. Certainly, today of all days, with the earlier Statement, we could not advocate any scheme which involved the use of any more manpower or any more of our resources.
My Lords, many of the other recommendations in the Working Party Report follow from the concept of a dog warden's service and an increased licence fee. There are obvious arguments in favour of some system of identifying a dog for which a licence fee has been paid. In this context, I think it worth while reminding your Lordships that we estimate that at present only one-half of all the dog owners in this country who ought to pay the licence fee in fact do so. If the licence fee were to be increased and the services provided for the fee were to be improved, it would be more than ever unjust if a substantial proportion of dog owners did not pay anything at all.
Then we have had reference tonight from several noble Lords about the threat of rabies which has spread steadily Westward across the continent of Europe

983
for the past 30 years. As your Lordships will know from a recent series of Questions in this House, import controls and quarantine arrangements have been strengthened and there are contingency plans to deal with an outbreak of rabies should this ever occur. It is infinitely preferable that we should concentrate on preventive measures of this kind since a rabies out-break on a large scale would have a most serious effect on the human and wild life in this country. The control of strays is one obvious measure which would reduce the problems of dealing with a rabies outbreak, should this occur. My noble friend Lord Strabolgi has reminded me that there is in our Printed Paper Office, available for any noble Lord who is interested, details of the Memorandum by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what are our up-to-date arrangements and contingency plans for dealing with rabies.
But rabies is really in a category by itself as regards hazards to human health. As the Working Party points out, there are other health hazards; but dogs which are correctly managed and cared for constitute only a very small hazard to human health. A linked problem of which we have not heard much tonight is that of the nuisance which dogs cause by fouling footpaths and parks and other urban spaces. It is on this latter point that my Department has had more correspondence than anything else and it is clearly a matter of great public concern. Such fouling is of course nauseatingly unpleasant, and it may in a small number of cases—particularly in the case of small children—be hazardous to health.
The Working Party I believe have taken a rational and sensible view of the matter. Many of the chief hazards—particularly the one referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, the toxocara canis which is a common round worm in dogs—can he dealt with if the dogs arc properly cared for and are dcwormed. The dog which is carefully looked after and treated in this way clearly presents much less of a risk than does the stray; and again we find ourselves back to the need to control strays. The same is true of the nuisance which dogs cause in parks and play areas for children. Dogs have to be exercised; and perhaps your Lordships will not misunderstand me when f say that their every
984
movement cannot be controlled. But the dog which is out with his owner is much less likely to go into a children's play area or into places where fouling would be particularly irksome, and the Working Party's view that if the number of stray dogs can be reduced so will the nuisance caused by dogs seems to me to be a sensible one.
The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, referred to the worrying of sheep. That certainly is a serious problem in some parts of the country. In 1973, over 4,000 sheep were killed and 3,500 injured as a result of attacks by dogs. The Working Party felt that the law in England and Wales was adequate, and to give farmers any further powers might be seen as giving them a licence to kill dogs as they please. But there has been a great increase in livestock worrying in Northern Ireland, and the Working Party acknowledge that the authorities there might wish to strenghen their own laws beyond the limits which at the moment we find acceptable in England and Wales.
My Lords, the Motion for Papers before the House is to take note of the report of the Working Party, and I think in the course of our deliberations this evening we have done this rather effectively. The Working Party's report has been presented to my right honourable friend the Minister for Sport and Recreation and, as you will have seen from the foreword to the report, he has made it plain that the Government have no present proposals for action in any of the areas covered by the report's recommendations. This is so very much a matter which directly affects the happiness of families throughout the country that the Government thought it right both to publish the report and to invite comments upon it.
I said earlier in this speech that it was all too easy but misleading to divide into pro and anti-dog factions. The correspondence which the Government's invitation in the foreword to the report has generated has inevitably shown a very wide range of opinion. Many of the points which have been made in correspondence have been echoed in the course of this debate, and it has been extremely helpful that so far some 110 persons and groups have thought it worthwhile to raise particular points with their Members of Parliament, and some 180 others have written in direct to the Department.

985
Many of the organisations which were consulted by the Working Party have also sent in their comments on the published report.
It is clear from this that the subject has—as one would expect—aroused a great deal of public interest. All the points which have been raised by the various correspondents have been carefully noted and will be taken fully into account by the Government before any decisions are taken on action to implement the recommendations of the Working Party's report. I am sure I do not need to assure your Lordships that all the points which have been made in this debate will similarly be noted very carefully.
But the consultation process is not yet complete. We have not yet received the views of the local authority associations whose members would be most directly affected if the recommendations of the report were to be implemented, and letters from the public and other interested organisations are still coming in. It has therefore been a most opportune moment for this House to discuss this question and, as I said at the beginning of my reply, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, for raising it. It was also most helpful to hear the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, on this subject about which he is so knowledgeable and concerned; and also the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, on the work of the Battersea Dogs Home with which he has been associated for so long, and the many other notable contributions in the discussion. I assure your Lordships that what has been said in this debate will be important in helping the Government to decide their policy on a matter on which considerations have to be humane in a sense which allows that word to extend beyond humanity. I am most grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this discussion this evening.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Baroness for that most excellent reply. It does not hold out many hopes of very much being done and it will not leave her unsurprised when I tell her that there are some among us who might in the future keep on stirring and pressing this matter. May I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate; it has been most interesting and has covered all the points which I expected to be raised. I therefore merely conclude
986
by asking your Lordships' leave to with-draw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: DIRECT ELECTIONS
7.46 p.m.
Lord CHELWOOD Lord CHELWOOD rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give an assurance that the Bill to provide for direct elections to the European Parliament will be given sufficient priority to ensure that the Boundary Commission can complete their recommendations for Parliament's consideration in ample time before May/June 1978; and whether they will say what procedure and timetable they have in mind. The noble Lord said: My Lords. may I start by putting the Question that I am asking the Government in its context. I will not discuss the following vital questions: the method of election of Members of the European Parliament which, to be fair, must include some kind of proportional representation, if not in 1978 then at any rate in the following election; the distribution of seats in the United Kingdom; the very heavy burden of the dual mandate, particularly where Members of another place are concerned; or the necessity of close links between Members of the European Parliament and Westminster. These are all important matters but I do not want to divert attention from the Unstarred Question to which I am speaking. But I would make this comment: to allow a wrangle about such things to delay the holding of direct elections in 1978 would surely be to allow the best to he the enemy of the good. I do not think that we can hope to get it right the first time.
It was foreseen as long ago as 1951, in the treaty that brought about the Coal and Steel Community, that direct elections were essential to imbue the European Assembly with the authority and influence that can only flow from making Members answerable to their constituents. This was borne in upon me very strongly indeed when I was privileged to be a member of the Conservative delegation to the European Parliament in 1973 and 1974.
If direct elections are not held in 1978, it will be a severe setback indeed for the prospects and effectiveness of the European Community. An Assembly that is appointed cannot carry on a satisfactory dialogue with the Commission, which is very important, and still less exercise any significant influence, let alone control, over the Council of Ministers. I think that both these things are of the essence of democracy in the Community. In any case, as the Prime Minister said in another place (at col.946 of Hansard) when he was Foreign Secretary, on 10th November last year, in speaking on direct elections:
"That is a treaty requirement and, of course, we shall honour it."
Sir Harold Wilson, when Prime Minister, was bound to reserve the Government's position at the Paris Summit about two years ago, during the period of the so-called "renegotiation" and before the referendum had been held following on it. I do not quarrel for a moment with his Statement in another place on 4th December last year that we required a period of consultation between political Parties in this country, and time for consideration of the issues by Parliament before adopting a final position about direct elections as early as 1978. I think that is a fair paraphrase of what he then said. So much then, very briefly and, I hope, accurately and fairly, for the context of this question. I do not think there can possibly be any disagreement between the noble Lord who is to reply and myself, at any rate so far. I hope there will not be any disagreement later, although I fear it may not be possible for us to agree so completely about what I am now going to say.
Why did we have to wait for more than two months after the Prime Minister's Statement, which I have just paraphrased, before a Green Paper was published, which begged many questions and did not give much of a lead? I thought that was regrettable. On the other hand, it was very helpful for a Select Committee of this House to produce in double-quick time on 9th March what really amounted to a supplement of the Green Paper, which was a good deal more informative. The Green Paper contained the following phrase in the second paragraph:
988
"… consultation with the political Parties is already in progress."
I should like to ask the noble Lord what consultations there have been between the Parties. I have never been in the inner councils of the Conservative Party, although I was perhaps on the fringe of them for a number of years. Now. quite beyond argument, I am well "beyond the fringe", so that I do not really know what is going on. I certainly have not heard of any consultations between the Parties, despite the quotation I have just read. Therefore, may I ask the noble Lord: Who is taking part in them? Are they still going on? What conclusions have been reached? What subjects have been discussed? I should like to know the answers to those questions, and I think many other people would, too.
May I also ask: Why was the Select Committee of another place not set up until May, six weeks after the Government announced their willingness to do just that? They themselves protested about the delay, and I cannot understand why the Select Committee was not set up as early as last January. That would have given a lot more time and made a great deal of difference to the very tight programme which we now face. Perhaps I should just mention here that as a matter of courtesy I wrote to Mr. Sydney Irving, the very able chairman of the Select Committee in another place, to tell him that we were having this short debate this evening.
The Green Paper had a full two-day debate on the adjournment at the end of March in another place. We in this Chamber debated it at the same time, alongside the Report of our own Select Committee. I think that those two debates, if one reads them carefully, provided the Government with some extremely useful guidance. No doubt that was one reason why the Prime Minister said in another place on 29th March that he was,
"… ready to go ahead with elections when other Member States are also ready."
That is a direct quotation. Since then, however, so far as debates in Parliament are concerned, nothing at all has happened and nine months, which is a reasonable period for gestation, have passed since those debates took place.
The Select Committee did its utmost to make up for lost time, and I may say that

989
a good deal of time had been lost. I think they should be praised for what they did. I was very pleased that Mr. Hattersley was a member of the Committee, as a senior Foreign Office Minister, and that his place was taken later by a Minister from the Home Office. All along, therefore, the Government made sure that they kept in step with the Select Committee of another place. Their first Report was produced as early as the 15th June and, in paragraph 14, reached the tentative conclusion that,
"It should be possible to hold direct elections in May or June 1978."
There was no debate on their first Report, which was a pity; but it was no doubt with this in mind that the Prime Minister said in Parliament on 14th July that the Government were only keeping the possibility of nominating representatives to the European Parliament in mind,
"… should it prove impossible to hold elections here in 1978."
I would stress the word, "impossible". That was no doubt a word which he chose carefully. On that occasion, he was pressed by the Leader of the Opposition, Mrs. Thatcher, to introduce legislation as soon as possible, but he undertook to do so only "in due course".
On the other hand, he did knock down a very big Aunt Sally which had been put up in paragraph 4 of the Green Paper when, after telling Mr. Thorpe there were no insuperable difficulties about 1978, he added in another reply, I think to Mr. Willie Hamilton, that he:
"… saw no reason why the devolution Bill and the Bill to provide for direct elections should not go through in the next Session if Parliament wishes them to."
I am sure that Parliament does wish them to. As we all know, there is a substantial majority in both Houses hoping for just that to happen.
Meanwhile, the Select Committee were still working overtime and a second Report issued on 3rd August reached this highly important conclusion. I think it is important that I should quote it in full, but I will read it very quickly. I quote from paragraph 23:
"The Committee have made this Second (Interim) Report, because they regard it as essential that, if this country is to continue to seek to hold direct elections in May or June 1978, the House should be invited to take decisions at an early date on the allocation of seats between the component Darts of the United Kingdom, the
990
electoral system and the terms of reference and procedures to be given to the Boundary Commissions. They therefore urge that the Government should find time for a debate in the House on these issues in the autumn at the earliest possible moment."—
I would stress those words—
"In any event a short Bill should be introduced at the outset of the new Session."
There was no debate on the second Report of the Select Committee and that, too, was very regrettable. Then we had their third Report, which rubbed in well and truly the need for a sense of urgency on the part of the Government. I should like to read now paragraph 48—I apologise for these quotations, but they are very significant—which is as follows:
"The Committee can find no reason which would lead them to depart from the advice which they tendered in their second Report. This is that it is essential, if the United Kingdom is not to be the cause of delay in the holding of direct elections at present scheduled for May or June 1978, that the House should he invited to take decisions at an early date on the main questions to be resolved."
Then comes a very pregnant sentence:
"The timetable envisaged by the Committee—which is the only realistic one consistent with the Boundary Commissions being able to complete their work—is dependent upon the first enabling bill dealing with the most urgent matters receiving the royal assent by the end of February, 1977. Proceedings on a second bill (if such were found to be necessary) and on the motion to approve the Order in Council relating to the Community Decision and Act could be taken at a later date."
There has been no debate on their third Report, either, my Lords.
I believe that the Select Committee's recommendations, when read in conjunction with the published evidence, which is most interesting, would find over-whelming general support in both Houses of Parliament, while naturally being fiercely opposed by critics of the fact that we are members of the Community, whichever side of the House they may sit on. To this extent, the passage of the necessary legislation has been greatly eased and a lot of the preparatory work that the Government would otherwise have had to do has been done for them.
There was an exchange, which is relevant at this point of my argument, in another place on 9th December, when the Leader of the Opposition asked the Leader of the House:
"When will the Bill for direct elections be published, as it is important that there should be a considerable interval between its publication and debate?"
Mr. Foot, the Leader of the House, replied:
"I can give no date for publication",
and he added:
"I shall bear in mind what she said."—[Official Report, Commons; col.630.]
So that did not get us very much further.
So I ask the noble Lord who is to reply to this debate: Where is the Bill? Has it been drafted? When is it going to be introduced? Why has it not yet been introduced? What is to stop it being introduced next week or, at any rate, when another place resumes its work on 10th January? What is to stop that? What is the latest date by which the Government think that the Boundary Commission must start their work—because this is the critical question—and how long do the Boundary Commission need? Could they do some preliminary work as soon as the Bill has had its Second Reading in another place, as suggested by the Chairman of the Select Committee, Mr. Sydney Irving? There has been no answer to that question that I have seen. Will the Commission use a simplified procedure, which could take only nine weeks—though I think that that would be very over-simplified—rather than the full procedure, which we understand would take 30 weeks; or do the Government have in mind something in between?
When will the Decision and Act approved in Brussels on 20th September be embodied in an Order in Council for ratification by Parliament? I do not think there is any great hurry about that, as the Select Committee suggested. I do not want to over-emphasise a somewhat strange remark in paragraph 34 of the Green Paper, which appeared to suggest that the work of the Boundary Commission might be short-circuited in some way by making what is described as "special arrangements". I should not myself he in favour of anything like that. I think that the Boundary Commission must have time, even if their procedure is some-what shortened, to do work which satisfies the public that it is in every way fair to the electorate.
Unless the questions I have asked are answered satisfactorily today—and I am sorry to say this, but I feel strongly that this is the case—the Government seem to
992
lay themselves open to accusations of bad faith through deliberately dragging their feet. I simply cannot believe that, for some spurious administrative reasons, we are going to be told that direct elections in 1978 are "impossible", to go back to the Prime Minister's word. That would be totally out of character for Mr. Callaghan, whose qualities I know very well. He was President of the Labour Party in the constituency that I used to represent, and I perhaps know him rather better than a good many other Conservatives; and I admire his qualities, too.
Certainly, the Government cannot claim lack of Parliamentary time for a measure commanding such overwhelming support in both Houses. This is a rather controversial remark, though I have no wish to imbue this speech with any Party political character, but it is none the less true that instead priority was given during the Recess—which ruined a holiday that I had planned—to forcing through Parliament highly controversial Bills wanted only by a minority in a minority Government. It was being whispered last summer, and whispered quite loudly, that in order to avoid still further trouble with the Left Wing of the Labour Party—the Government have no need to worry about the official Opposition Parties in this respect—some reason would be found for continuing to nominate British members of the European Parliament in 1978, even if all the other eight countries were prepared, as promised, to hold direct elections. I note here that only France has continuing difficulties about the possibility of holding direct elections in 1978, and that these difficulties are being openly and squarely faced. We understand that the Danes have overcome the difficulties which they had previously described.
It is being said in Brussels—I do not know whether or not it is true, but I believe it to be true—that if any one country defaults, direct elections will not be held at all. In other words, it is all or none. I do not know whether that is true, and if the noble Lord is able to confirm this I will much appreciate it. But even if it is not true, I cannot think of being in a more unsatisfactory position than that we should nominate 81 members of the European Parliament, while the other eight countries are electing theirs. Indeed, I wonder very much how many Members of another place will be willing to accept the dual

993
mandate, which is a very heavy strain upon them as I know from my own personal experience; it was a sufficient strain when I came to your Lordships' House.
So I conclude by saying that I frankly refuse to believe the rumours to which I have referred that we may default, though they are growing in volume, and I ask the noble Lord who is to reply to this debate, and whose European credentials are absolutely impeccable, to refute these rumours without any ifs or buts. It is only in that way that he can prove me right and the doubters, here and abroad, wrong. I feel that far too much time has been lost already. Let us lose no more.
8.7 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, we on these Benches are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, for putting this important Question to the Government this evening. I should like to support the noble Lord's plea that the Government should give an assurance that all the arrangements, which have to be made, will be made in good time for direct elections to he held in this country in May/June 1978. I do not think one can overestimate the significance of these direct elections, because we shall have, for the first time, a Community institution deriving authority from the people of the Community, and not from any Government or Parliament, and it will he a chance to involve people in the Community in the European enterprise and to have a wide discussion of European issues. I feel that it would lamentable if, in all the rest of the European Economic Community, the Governments were ready to give this chance to the people, but not the Government in the United Kingdom, which prides itself on being the home of Parliamentary democracy and the home of the Mother of Parliaments.
I should like to take up the point which has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, and say that it is also my understanding that if our Government are not ready to proceed with direct elections in 1978, then there cannot he direct elections at all throughout the Community. Certainly, paragraph 38 of the Third Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons would seem to bear that out. I, too, shall be grateful to have some clarification of that point from the noble Lord, Lord Harris, when he comes to reply.
994
I shall listen, too, with great interest and some concern, to the details of the time-table which I hope he will give us. One reason for concern is the fact, already referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, that the House of Commons Select Committee said that legislation must be through both Houses of Parliament by the end of February, and yet we have not, as the noble Lord said, seen the Bill. The second reason for concern arises from a fear that dangerous delay may be caused by the Government's apparent determination to stick to the first past the post electoral system. Of course, in the past, we have deployed from these Benches the arguments against the use of that system for elections to the European Parliament. We shall do so again in the future, I have no doubt. We deployed the arguments for a form of proportional representation in the past and we shall do the same again in the future. These arguments have commended themselves to many in your Lordships' House but only one of those arguments will I mention tonight, and that because it is directly relevant to the subject-metter of the question which we have before us.
The drawing up of 81 constituencies through the grouping of Parliamentary constituencies into large, single Member constituencies is bound to be a contentious process. The way in which the boundaries are drawn inevitably affects the political outcome. Mr. Michael Steed, who is something of an expert in these matters, has demonstrated this very clearly by taking the constituencies in the old East and North Ridings of Yorkshire and dividing the Parliamentary constituencies into European constituencies in two different ways. Under each division, nine Parliamentary constituencies go to a European constituency. Mr. Steed then took the October 1974 Election figures and showed that one division would produce five Labour Members and the second division three Conservative and two Labour Members.
In the light of that, we must ask this question: Is it not going to be a slow and protracted process to obtain agreement on 81 constituencies which are acceptable to all sides? With proportional representation no such difficulty, of course, arises. We could take as multi-Member constituencies the 13 economic planning regions. The boundaries are already

995
drawn, and since the results will be proportionate within each constituency the exact boundaries do not, in any case, matter in the same way. So there would be no arguments and no delay. I hope that the Government will not hesitate to use proportional representation in the way I have described if that is the only way in which they can meet the deadline. In any event, whatever they decide about the electoral system, I hope that the Government will give the assurance asked for by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, and will show clearly how it is to be fulfilled.
8.13 p.m.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Clielwood has put down an Unstarred Question to which we shall expect from the Government a positive and helpful answer. I must say that the procedure of Unstarred Questions is rather like the Book of Genesis: that one question begets rather a lot of other questions. I shall also, therefore, be putting further questions to the Minister. First, I endorse absolutely what my noble friend has said relating to the 48th paragraph of the Select Committee's Report on Direct Elections. That Committee made it perfectly clear that unless the necessary legislation was through both Houses by the end of February 1977 there would be very little possibility, if ally, of this country being ready to participate in direct elections by May or June of 1978.
The first question which has been put by my noble friend and which I endorse is this: Is it a fact that if the legislation is not ready by the end of February 1977 it will still be possible so far as this country is concerned to hold direct elections by May or June 1978? The Select Committee itself, an all-Party Committee—here I should like to congratulate the Committee on the excellent work that it did—terminated its work with all possible speed by 9th November so that the necessary legislative measures would be included in the Queen's Speech and introduced during this Session. Of course, that is referred to in the developments ill the European Committees of May to November 1976, paragraph 81. It states the Government's intention during the current Session of Parliament to introduce legislation to make provision for direct elections.
996
It must therefore be asked, since the warning note of the Select Committee had already been sounded, why the Government have not arranged to produce this Bill at the earliest possible moment. I wonder whether the possibility was ever considered of introducing this Bill in your Lordships' House while another place appears to be concerned with other constitutional matters. Would not this have been the kind of Bill which could have been introduced first in this House while the legislative period here is comparatively slack?
A series of questions arises in connection not only with the timetable itself but with the Government's underlying intentions. Do the Government accept the Select Committee's findings as to the latest date, February 1977, in order to complete the necessary procedures? This is very similar to the question which I put at the beginning of my intervention. Secondly, so as to speed up the procedures without detracting from a thorough and open process, can the Boundary Commissions be instructed to initiate their inquiries immediately following the Second Reading of the Bill in another place? I understand that this point has been mooted, and I should like either confirmation or denial from the Minister that this would or could be a possibility. And if it is possible, do the Government intend to follow this timing? It is clear that if the Boundary Commissions are to have proper time in which to do their work they should have at least six months, and the sooner they start the better.
The Government will be aware of the bitter disappointment to those countries which are actively preparing for these elections and which recognise the necessity for democratic control of the European institutions if we ourselves are not ready by the proposed date. How often were we told that the European countries in the Community, apart from ourselves, looked for guidance and inspiration to the United Kingdom as the home of democracy, with a Parliament and a Parliamentary system which is, or certainly was, the envy of the world. Have we even lost the entitlement to this claim, or are we in danger of losing it? So far as I am aware, other Member States have not expressed any doubt as to their capacity to be ready by May or June 1978.

997
Equally, we all start with our preparations from the same date, which was the signing of the Decision in Brussels on 20th September. Therefore one might take it that the starting post is the same for all Member States. If eight other Member States can do it, I do not see why we should not be able to do so also. Within two years both Greece and Portugal have adopted a new Constitution and have held democratic elections. Now Spain is undergoing the same process in roughly the same way, yet we in the United Kingdom may find it impossible even to introduce the necessary legislation, which was agreed at the Council meeting in December 1975, so that these elections would be held by May or June 1978—that is, 2½ years later.
It must therefore further be asked whether the Government envisage the possibility of nominating delegates while other countries elect their members by universal suffrage. Can the Government give a categoric denial either that this is their intention or that it is impossible under the Act, as drafted, signed on 20th September? I should like confirmation of the fact that the Government still maintain what Mr. Hattersley said in reply to a Question on 30th July 1976 at cols.443 and 444 of the Official Report, that if elections are not possible in Britain they will not be held anywhere in the Community. Is this still so? Do the Government believe that they could amend the existing Act, as drafted, within the Decision of 20th September, or do they plan to hold up elections, merely for the United Kingdom, by signing some form of amendment or reservation? I wonder whether or not the Government consider that this is legally possible.
The ungracious and ridiculous comments applied to your Lordships' House in recent weeks led us to believe that only elected bodies had any right to speak or to vote, so I should like to know what all these people—Mr. Foot included—are now saying about the European Parliament. One would have thought that they would be the first and the most eager to proceed to an elected body to control the bureaucratic institutions of Europe, and we shall look to them to support direct elections wholeheartedly and as quickly as possible in order to institute a democratically elected body.
998
The Government should be warned that the tolerance and patience of other Member States will be exhausted. They have put up with a sterile period of renegotiating and the referendum. This is not a political Party point, but both my noble friend Lord Chelwood and I were Members of the European Parliament and we can bear witness to the real patience and tolerance which our European friends showed during that very difficult period. So we really have to show that we are willing to play a full part in the European procedures, since they not only put up with us then but they are also supporting us in our failing economy. The good will generated at the time of our entry into the EEC is slowly being drained by the ambiguous and clouded intentions of the Government on this particular issue. So the Government are now asked, and have the opportunity, to give a convincing reassurance both to your Lordships and to our partners in the European Community, that they have every intention of honouring their undertaking to be ready to hold direct elections in this country by May or June 1978, on a date to be agreed within Article 9 of the Act, and to see that the necessary legislative procedures are completed in due time. If they do not, the weight that we once carried as a respected Member of the European Community will be lost; the voice of Britain, which is becoming less and less listened to outside Europe, will even be ignored among our friends, and ultimately this will be neither to the benefit of the other Member States of the Community nor, least of all, to ourselves.
So, in supporting the crucial question put to the Government by my noble friend Lord Chelwood, I hope that if the Minister is not able to answer all the points that have been raised this evening, he will give a written reply to those that he is not able to answer now.
8.23 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, as it is getting late I shall detain the House for only a few minutes. The noble Lord, Lord Chelwood—I should like to refer to him as my noble friend because he and I have now co-operated for many years in the common cause in various forums, and, to some extent, in the European Parliament —began his speech by saying something to the effect that there might be, and indeed

999
in principle there ought to be, proportional representation for elections to the European Parliament but that if it could not come now it should come in five years' time. and that in any case the elections should not be held up by what he called a "wrangle", presumably about the electoral procedure to be adopted in this country. I do not think it is a wrangle that will hold up the electoral procedure; I think it is the fact that if the elections are not held by PR they will not be held anyhow, and I shall try to explain why.
I do not think that the Boundary Commission can, in practice, start its work before the Bill has been approved by both Houses of Parliament. When will that be? At the moment it looks as though it might not be before March. Of course, the Parliamentary Committee said that it should be the end of February at the latest, but even if it were passed at the beginning of March that would only leave the Boundary Commission about six months in which to make its report. If it does not produce its report by about September or October, it will be difficult to arrange the elections because the candidates have to be chosen, there have to be great manoeuvres behind the scenes as to how the election is to be financed and who is to do what and so on. It will take a great deal of time to arrange all that, even after the Boundary Commission has reported and its report accepted.
When the Boundary Commission does meet—and even if the Government urge it to work quickly—its labours would obviously be held up by disputes, probably originating mostly on the Labour side, because, after all, there are more Labour people against the very idea of elections than there are Tories. Therefore there is reason to suppose that a great many objections will be raised on one side or another, but principally on the Labour side, to the actual boundaries proposed by the Commission. The Government might try to activate the Commission; but even if they did, have they any power to compel it to go ahead or to act more quickly? I do not know, but I should not have thought so.
Secondly, in spite of what the Government have always said about being committed, they are basically Laodicean about the whole question of direct elections.
1000
If we may venture to interpret their thoughts, they believe it would not matter all that much if they did not take place on time; it would not be a matter of supreme urgency or importance to this country. That is the impression we gain. Some of them may even think that it would not matter all that much if they did not happen at all. That may be an erroneous impression, but it is the impression we certainly get and I see that the noble Baroness is nodding her head. It is a fact that the British Government, alone among the Nine, have said that, although of course they want to have elections in May 1978, it may not be possible for Parliamentary reasons, and they reserve their right to put them off. That in itself gives rise to suspicions that they will not push matters beyond a certain point if it becomes difficult.
Now with proportional representation, as has been said so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Banks, it is obviously far easier for the Boundary Commission to get agreement on 15 or 16 big constituencies of five members than it would be on 81 constituencies. If you form a region, so to speak, of large constituencies of five members—15 or 16 for the whole of Great Britain—the location of the boundaries clearly becomes less important. Nor would it matter so much whether or not a little enclave came in to this huge area, for the addition of 100 votes one way or another under PR would make singularly little difference. Therefore the Boundary Commission would in these circumstances not have a great deal to do and would certainly be able to produce their report on time. So, if the Government are completely sincere in their intention to have the ground ready for elections in May or June 1978, then clearly they must favour PR and I think we can almost say that a decision against PR on the part of the Government would be a decision against direct elections as such. Some would say that that is what they want.
I do not propose to dilate upon the merits of PR as such. I would only say that there is no doubt that the first past the post system as practised here would, if there were a substantial swing in favour of one Party or another, result in a grotesquely disproportionate British representation in Strasbourg. No psephologist would disagree with that.

1001
I might therefore legitimately ask what a Labour Government would do if, as is quite likely, 63 of the 81 United Kingdom deputies were Tories? For this might well result in a Right-Wing majority in the Parliament while there was a Labour Government in this country. Surely the Labour Government—or other Socialist Governments on the Continent—would then maintain that majority decisions in such a constituted Parliament had no particular validity, the Parliament not really representing the people of Europe. So as far as this Government and other Socialist Governments in the Community are concerned, any decisions of that Parliament might then be suitably ignored. No doubt this would, mutatis mutandis, he the attitude taken by a Tory Government if a Tory Government were in office, and Labour had over 60 Members of the United Kingdom delegation.
My Lords, even if direct elections are not held owing to secret Labour apprehensions of this kind, they could, if held under our present electoral procedure, be a rather dangerous farce. I am sorry to say this, but I think it will he so. So I beg the two major Parties to consider this dreadful possibility before it is too late. I am not trying to make a Liberal case. I have not mentioned that aspect at all. I am speaking as a committed European in favour of an elected Parliament. As has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, this is probably the last hope of achieving progress towards some kind of democratic political European union, which is the only sane objective if we want to avoid becoming separate directed economies under the aegis of the Soviet Union. Besides if the elections are delayed it is not a question of delaying them for a year or two but probably for ever.
I would in conclusion give my support to what the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, suggested about the possibility of introducing legislation in this House. Why not? We have all the time available. The Bill could easily be discussed for the first time here. There is no reason why it should not be. It might be discussed more dispassionately here than it would be in the other place. And if by any chance we came to reasonable decisions on the Bill here and sent it back for discussion in the other place, the other place might even be influenced by our discussions. I do not know whether they might be influenced
1002
about proportional representation, but they might at least be influenced in certain other important directions. I therefore hope that serious consideration will be given to this suggestion, which was so well put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles.
8.33 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, this has been something of an old boys' reunion. Three former Members of the European Parliament have addressed the House and the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and I were involved in a successful election campaign only about eighteen months ago, so I do not think anyone has any reason to doubt the credentials of anyone participating in this debate this evening. Certainly, I recognise the concern expressed by all who have spoken in this debate which was initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood. However, I would like to make it quite clear at the outset that the Government are in no way despondent about the prospects of holding direct elections in the United Kingdom in May or June, 1978.
As the House knows, the gracious Speech contained a commitment to introduce legislation to provide for the election of United Kingdom Members of the European Assembly, and certainly this is no empty commitment, as 1 made clear when I spoke on the second day of the debate in reply to the gracious Speech. Before coming to the question raised in the report of the Select Committee of another place, I will deal with one point initially, that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, when he mentioned the question of consultation with the political Parties, and asked what sort of consultation had occurred.
My Lords, the situation was that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, when he was Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, invited the main political Parties to discuss direct election questions. Some Parties took up the offer; others did not. However, as the noble Lord will be aware, subsequently the political Parties gave evidence to the Select Committee, which has recently been working very hard indeed in another place. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, that we are

1003
all grateful to the Committee for having addressed itself with such vigour and persistence to the issues we are discussing today.
If I may just briefly return to my own speech, in the Address in reply to the gracious Speech I pointed out that the preamble to the Decision on direct elections, signed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 20th September, included a "best endeavours" clause relating to the holding of these elections in the period May to June 1978. The preamble notes that it is the intention of all signatories to the Decision to give effect to the conclusions of the European Council in Rome last December, that the election of the Assembly should be held on a single date within the period May to June 1978.
I should emphasise at the outset that the actual date for holding of the first direct elections has not yet been settled with our EEC partners. Under Article 10.1 of the Act annexed to the Decision signed on 20th September, it is laid down that the Council, acting unanimously after consulting the Assembly, shall determine the period referred to in Article 9(1) for the first elections. Article 9(1) says that elections to the Assembly shall be held on the date fixed by each Member State; for all Member States this date shall fall within the same period starting on a Thursday morning and ending on the following Sunday. This means that the Member States acting collectively, after consultation with the Assembly, must decide the Thursday to Sunday period during which the elections must be held. But each Member State may decide individually to hold the elections on a particular day—presumably Thursday in the case of the United Kingdom —within that Thursday to Sunday period. The crucial point here—and this is where I come to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elles—is that although all Member States are working towards a period in May or June 1978, it is unlikely that the Council would reach a decision on a period during those months unless all Member States were ready to hold elections by the dates in question.
Noble Lords have asked, very reasonably, whether we ourselves are going to
1004
meet the deadline which has been spoken about. As is well known, the Select Committee on Direct Elections recommended that early legislation should be introduced to permit constituencies to be drawn up on the basis of a fairly full Boundary Commission procedure. Like the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, the Select Committee urged the Government to introduce a Bill in time to ensure that the Boundary Commission can complete their recommendations for consideration by Parliament in ample time before June 1978. In the view of the Select Committee—and this point has been made by a number of noble Lords who have spoken this evening—this meant the Bill would receive the Royal Assent by the end of February next year; but that, I emphasise, is the judgment of the Committee, not that of the Government.
Of course the Government have taken note of what the Select Committee have said about the timing of the legislation. We appreciate the Committee's views on the desirability of drawing up constituencies in the United Kingdom using a fairly full Boundary Commission procedure. However, the Government have not yet finally decided whether such a procedure is essential, or whether it is really practicable to go ahead with legislation on this before other decisions are taken on the many complex, controversial and far-reaching recommendations of the Select Committee on the various matters concerned with the elections.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, I do not think this is the appropriate time for a detailed analysis of the other recommendations of the Select Committee which the Government must consider, but I will refer briefly, if I may, to some of the most important ones. Of course, the fact that we are debating the necessity for a full Boundary Commission procedure flows from the decision of the Select Committee to recommend—this is the point the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, just raised—the use of our traditional first past the post system for elections to the European Assembly.
I recognise that a number of noble Lords are strongly opposed to this recommendation. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has just made his position clear; the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has done so. On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord

1005
Chelwood, while indicating that he was sympathetic to the proposition so far as the use of proportional representation was concerned, indicated, as I understand it, that his principal concern was that the elections took place in time; that to him was the central issue. It is, of course, a major matter on which the Government will have to formulate a view, and I may say not only the Government but the Opposition as well. This is a matter which cannot just be pushed on one side as though it is a matter of no importance at all; it is, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, said, a matter of profound importance which we will have to consider.
There are other important issues which the Select Committee raise; for example, the number of seats to be allocated to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—not an easy matter. I must emphasise that the Boundary Commissions cannot begin to draw up constituencies until they have been finally told how many there are to be in each part of the United Kingdom. This brings me to one point which the noble Baroness raised on the question of whether the Boundary Commissions could start their work before the Act actually went on the Statute Book. The situation is that, in my view, the Commission could undertake in advance a considerable amount of informal preparatory work, but it would probably not be possible for the Commission to begin the formal part of their work—publication of draft recommendations and things of that sort—until the Bill receives the Royal Assent. But certainly the informal work could, in my view, be done once they had this important information, and when the Bill had been presented.
The Select Committee did not confine their recommendations to the electoral system to be used, the allocation of seats, and the procedure for drawing up constituencies. Their third report, which was published only at the end of last month, contains 26 further recommendations, many of which are controversial in ordinary electoral terms. Let me just take one example. The Committee recommended that British subjects resident abroad should be permitted to vote in direct elections in this country. I can, of course, understand the Committee's reasons for making this recommendation, as we all can. Nevertheless, this raises in a new form proposals which have been
1006
rejected, for Parliamentary Elections, by the Speaker's Conference which took place between 1965 and 1968, and for the referendum, by Parliament only last year. The Select Committee have argued strongly that direct elections are a special case, and clearly the Government must consider this matter, obviously not just the principle involved but also the practical implications of this, which I think anyone who has been concerned with the organisation of elections must recognise as a matter of considerable importance.
There are other matters, such as the rules for nomination, the level of the deposits, the limits on electoral expenses and whether there should be any reimbursement of such expenses, the appointment of returning officers and verification and counting procedures. All these are important matters.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, surely these are not matters for the Boundary Commission? The Boundary Commission could get to work and these things could be discussed at the same time.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, these are central matters, with great respect, so far as the formulation of legislation is concerned. These are matters on which 26 recommendations were presented only a few weeks ago, at the end of November. We must bear in mind that we are talking about profoundly serious questions so far as this is concerned. I do not argue that endless delay is justified because of this; I simply want to put to the House the fact that there are real issues here, and we cannot pretend that they are nonexistent issues which can be swept away.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord again, he cannot really expect us to believe that the Government have not been able to think about these matters until they received the Select Committee Report. Et has been known for years that there are to be direct elections. If the Government really meant business about direct elections, a great many of these matters would have been considered not just for months but for years.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I will repeat the point; I obviously did not make it sufficiently clear. The fact is that the third Report of the Select Committee came out at the end of November. It made a number of proposals which were based on the evidence which the Committee had taken from a very large number of people. Of course, it would have been perfectly reasonable for the Government to await the decision of this Committee, and it was recognised by the Committee that the Government were anxious to receive their report so that they could begin to formulate their own reaction to it. But, until we had the precise recommendation of a group of Parliamentarians specifically set up in order to study these matters, it would seem to me an almost total absurdity for the Government to come to a decision on these matters before receiving the final Report of the Committee, which went into detail in regard to precisely the problems with which the political Parties and others in this country are going to be confronted when these elections take place.
My Lords, as I indicated when I began, the Government are determined to be ready to hold direct elections in May or June of 1978. I emphasise once more that the committment to introduce legislation is there in the gracious Speech. Nevertheless it may be—and at the moment it is not possible to be definitive on this point —that in order to be ready for May or June 1978 we shall have to forego certain procedures and certain modifications or improvements to the Westminster electoral system which we might in ideal circumstances have regarded as desirable. A full Boundary Commission procedure might turn out to be an example, as might also the suggestion for the franchise to be extended to British subjects living outside the United Kingdom. Sweeping changes to our electoral system, which have been advocated, would also, in my view, be difficult to achieve by May or June of 1978. These are all matters to which the Government are currently giving urgent consideration, and I can assure the House that the Bill will be introduced as soon as practicable.