Lords Sitting of 18 February 1988

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Ely): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Message from the Queen
The Earl of Airlie: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a message from Her Majesty the Queen, signed by her own hand. The message is as follows:
"I have received your Address praying that I will give directions that there be presented on behalf of both Houses of Parliament the gift of a vice-regal chair to the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia to mark the bicentenary in 1988 of the first European settlement of Australia and the opening of the new Parliament House in Canberra. It gave me great pleasure to learn that you desire to make such a presentation and I will gladly give directions for carrying your proposal into effect".

BA/B.Cal Merger: EC Inquiry
3.2 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, recognising the obligation of the European Commission to look into possible breaches of the EC's founding treaty and the right of the Commission to take such matters to the European Court if warranted, they will clarify the legal right of the Commission to open a formal inquiry into the merger of British Airways and British Caledonian.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, the competition rules of the Treaty of Rome set out in Articles 85 and 86 may apply to certain mergers. Under the EC regulation laying down the procedures for the enforcement of Articles 85 and 86 in relation to international air transport between Community airports, the Commission may investigate on its own initiative or following a complaint.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, while believing that had the Minister been able to announce speedy and effective action he would have done so, may I ask him whether it is correct that a number of small airlines have formally asked the Community to look into the merger because they believe it to be anti-competitive and against provisions in the Treaty of Rome? If that is the case, can the Minister tell the House whether such queries will be referred to the Commission, leaving the Council of Ministers with no say in the matter at all?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. This was a matter that I referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which concluded that, in the light of proposals developed by British Airways, it would not operate against the public interest. It is open to other individuals to approach the Commission. That has been done. Investigations with British Airways and Commission officials are, I believe, continuing. But it is a matter solely for the Commission and the company involved, and I cannot comment upon it.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I am sure it is me and not the Minister, but may I ask him whether, in answer to what I just asked him, it is the case that such queries concerning requests from smaller airlines that these matters be looked into would be referred to the Commission and that the Council of Transport Ministers would have no say in the matter?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, that is a matter for the Commission. My understanding of the present position is that the matter is with the Commission and with Commissioner Sutherland in particular. It is very much a matter for what he proposes and where he proposes to take it afterwards.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, in spite of the undoubted legal expertise of Her Majesty's Ministers, this Question is not properly addressed to them? Does not Article 177( b) of the Treaty of Rome preserve the right of interpreting the validity of the articles of the treaty to the European Court of Justice; and would it not be better for the noble Baroness to address herself to that authoritative source?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am happy to dispute one fact with my noble friend. I lay no claim whatsoever to any legal ability.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, following on from the question of the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, is it true that the only action the Commission could take, were it to believe that the merger was contrary either to Article 85, or, in practice, to Article 86, would be to take the matter to the European Court? Is it then seriously proposed that a case should drag through the European Court the result of which might be the dismemberment of British Airways and British Caledonian?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, is in this instance being carried away with the thought. At the moment the matter is still with the commissioner. Let us see what he does with it and then we shall see whether we should worry from that time onwards.

Runway Capacity
3.7 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to secure that sufficient runway space is available for British civil aviation at the end of the century.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the 1985 White Paper Airports Policy (Cmnd. 9542) set out the pattern of airport development to meet the demand for air travel into the mid-1990s. We naturally keep the adequacy of capacity, including runway capacity, under review, as does the Civil Aviation Authority, which has a statutory duty to make formal recommendations to my right honourable friend on such matters.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that punctiliously correct reply. Do Her Majesty's Government appreciate the difficult, not to say dangerous, situation that is building up with the volume of air traffic coming into the South-East of England becoming excessive for only four major runways?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are well aware of the position but it is up to the CAA to make a formal recommendation. Until it does, the Government cannot take action.
Lord Harvey of Prestbury: My Lords, can my noble friend say why there is only one runway at Gatwick? Is it not a fact that the buildings were so placed that it is impossible to build a second one?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that is not the reason that I have in front of me. There is an agreement made under Section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 between the airport operator and the county council. The Government were not party to that agreement.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, may I ask the Minister in respect of his reply, which I did not think took us any further, whether he is aware that the chairman of the CAA, Mr. Christopher Tugendhat, said last month that additional capacity was necessary in the 1990s and beyond, while the chairman of British Airports Authority plc, Sir Norman Payne, said that it was not necessary to consider the matter now? Can he tell the House with whom ultimately the decision rests, and if it is with the Government, when will they do something about it?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, my right honourable friend was naturally interested to see what Mr. Tugendhat had to say about capacity. The initiative is quite definitely with the CAA. He was also interested to hear what Sir Norman Payne had to say. Sir Norman Payne said that there was no need to look at runway capacity for a couple of years. That is how the matter stands at the moment. The noble Baroness has tabled a similar Question for next Thursday when the Minister will be back in his place and I am sure will be delighted to reply to her.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, has the noble Viscount looked carefully at the Question tabled by the noble
754
Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter? It refers to available runway space for British civil aviation. Is there not at present adequate runway space throughout the United Kingdom? The problem may be lack of runway space in the South-East. If Stansted should regrettably reach its maximum capacity of 25 million passengers per annum, we are likely to have adequate runway space. Is not the real problem the safety of air space, of which we may be running short in the South-East?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall refer that question to my noble friend, who will no doubt answer it next week.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, has not the time come to consider fast surface transport to the northern airfields? They could take much more traffic. If they were used more, it would produce an enormous amount of activity and employment in the North.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall convey my noble friend's remarks to my right honourable friend.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that some of us worry not so much about whether there is adequate runway space at the end of the century but whether there is enough space at the end of the runway? Could that anxiety be kept at the forefront of the minds of those who are dealing with these matters?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall convey the noble Lord's anxiety to my right honourable friend.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the plan to build a bridge at the end of the STOLport runway in the Docklands which, if it is allowed to proceed, will permanently reduce the capacity and financial viability of that airport? Will he look into the matter?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I did not know about that proposal. I shall therefore look into it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that Stansted Airport could take 25 million passengers a year with one runway would be an achievement which no airport in the world has so far got anywhere near?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not think that I can comment.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, is it possible that the time is coming when, as was suggested in the House years ago, the reclamation of the Goodwin and Maplin Sands might be suitable locations for an airport?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, those were indeed happy days, but the proposals never came to fruition.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, could I remind the Minister of an unpleasant fact? Does he remember that the last time the CAA put forward a proposition in connection with the development of civil aviation in this country the Government totally ignored it? Does he expect us to believe that when the

755
CAA puts forward a recommendation, as Mr. Tugendhat said recently, that there should be additional runway space, any more notice will be taken of it than last time?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, yes, I do, because my right honourable friend has the power under Section 69 of the Airports Act 1986 to direct the CAA to take the steps that it thinks appropriate to encourage or facilitate a Section 16(2) recommendation. That power of direction was included in the Act at the instigation of your Lordships' House.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is not part of the trouble that the proposition to build a third London Airport at Stansted in the early 1960s was referred to the Roskill Commission, which, at a cost of £1,250,000, came to the conclusion that the third London Airport should be located at Cublington? That area was unfortunately near to the home of the proprietor of the Daily Telegraph and was turned down by the Conservative Government, who then proposed that the airport should be sited at Maplin Sands. That proposition was again turned down and the Labour Government decided that no London airport was to be built. It was only in 1987, something like 25 years after the original proposal was put forward, that the Government announced that Stansted would be the third London airport.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I think that we are beginning to fly over rather old ground, if I may put it that way. Perhaps it is time to find a runway.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, who on earth wants to go to Stansted?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I know some people who may wish to do so.

Teaching Vacancies: London and South East
3.14 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what fraction of teaching posts are currently vacant in maintained schools in London and the South East, and whether these vacancies are attributable to the relatively low level of teachers' salaries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, in January 1987, 1·9 per cent. of full-time teaching posts in maintained secondary schools in the South East and London were vacant, or filled by temporary appointment only. This is the latest figure available, and it dates from before the Government introduced the new pay structure last year. Teachers' vacancy rates have for a number of years been higher in London and the South East than in other parts of the country.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer to my Question. I should like to pursue that matter further and ask whether she
756
can confirm a story in this week's edition of The Times Educational Supplement that the evidence given by her department to the interim advisory committee on teachers' pay indicated that it would like to see some additional funds earmarked to meet the difficulties in the South East, but that those funds would have to be found by paying teachers in the rest of the country at a rate lower than the rate of inflation and that therefore their incomes would fall.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can neither confirm nor deny the report in The Times Educational Supplement. London allowances have for many years been paid to teachers working in and around London. The Government asked the interim advisory committee to consider other regional variations in salaries. Its report is due by the end of March. Therefore, any comments made in advance of its publication are pure speculation.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is it not a fact that the London allowance in no way compensates for the extra cost of accommodation and housing in London and until that matter is put right there will continue to be a grave shortage of teachers in the area?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes. The evidence suggests that the higher level of vacancies in the South East is due to the price of housing rather than rates of pay. However, a similar pattern of vacancies can be found in other professions.
Lord Morris: My Lords, am I right in thinking that many of the shortages are in the specialist disciplines? Will Her Majesty's Government do anything to find the special skills that are required to fill the vacancies that she mentioned?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government have launched a wide range of initiatives designed to remedy the shortage of teachers in certain subjects. Those initiatives include a bursary of some £1,250 for trainee maths, physics, technology and craft design technology teachers. There are also many other initiatives, including training such as two-year B.Eds and part-time courses using distance learning. There is nationwide publicity with the new regionally based unit—the Teaching as a Career Unit—to promote teaching as a career; and £16·5 million has been set aside in 1987–88 for in-service training for teachers teaching shortage subjects who are perhaps not properly or fully qualified to do so (the so-called "hidden" shortage). So there are a number of ways in which the Government are making an effort to tackle the problem.
Baroness David: My Lords, will the Minister tell us what is the percentage of vacancies in London and the South East in the shortage subjects, such as science and languages?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I do not have those figures at present. I do not know whether they are readily available but, if they are, I shall write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, does the Minister agree that insecurity and uncertainty about the Government's intentions over the last year in

757
regard to the ILEA has been enough to deter teachers from applying for posts in the capital?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord on that question. However, we have now removed that uncertainty.
Lord Peston: My Lords, were I to ask the noble Baroness whether she would also favour the use of the market mechanism to deal with the shortage subjects, which has also been reported in the education press, would her answer be that that also is speculation?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it is perhaps unwise for the Government Front Bench to assume that Bills will pass unchanged through Parliament?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I was of course speaking of our intentions. By putting forward our proposals we believe that we have removed a great deal of the speculation and uncertainty that has arisen.

Education Reform Bill: Financial Impact
3.19 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Department of Education and Science is assessing the implications for the department itself of the provisions in the Education Reform Bill for financial and other managerial delegation to schools and colleges.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the main impact of schemes of financial delegation will be at local level. The manpower implications for the department of implementing the Bill have been taken into account in the manpower plans for 1988–89 set out in the 1988 Public Expenditure White Paper.
Baroness David: My Lords, could I ask the Minister by how many the staff at the DES is expected to increase in the next few years? In the Education Reform Bill, are not the plans for financial delegation to schools and colleges to be referred to the Secretary of State? That obviously means the civil servants in the DES. The Secretary of State can vary the scheme; he can make a new scheme; he can agree the scheme. There is a great deal of work going to the DES.
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords. The department's manpower is planned to rise from 2,501 on 1st January this year to an average of 2,560 in 1988–89. This increase takes into account the extra workload related to the Bill overall. When schemes are actually submitted some redeployment of that manpower may be necessary.
But the noble Baroness is perfectly right. There are certain procedures, such as consultation and
758
guidance, as well as the approval of schemes, which will be taken into account. The small team in the department which was set up last November amounts to four people. I think it is not expected that that would need to do more than double.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, have not the Government acknowledged in Committee on the Education Reform Bill in another place that in the case of large schools, in particular groups of schools, a specially trained person will be required to manage the financial side of things? Are the Government suggesting that the cost of this necessary training should fall on local resources? Or will there be special funds provided?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government are considering what extra costs might fall to local education authorities, for example, in the training of head teachers and governors, the promotion of schemes and the introduction of new information systems, and whether any additional support may be needed. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is thinking along the lines of the possiblity of specific grant support for implementaion of these functions.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether she thinks that in the allocation of finance to large comprehensive schools and other schools there could be such savings that they will pay for the administration and additional staff?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords. We sincerely hope that will be the case. Indeed, there is considerable experience already in the country, since I believe some 25 per cent. of local authorities already have pilot projects under way in this area.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be a mistake to use our Question Time for trespassing on matters which we shall be discussing in great detail when the Bill referred to comes before us?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend that we are likely to be discussing this in some detail in the future when the Bill comes before us.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, meanwhile, has the Minister noted that, if we put together her last two answers, this would suggest that the policy of the Government towards education in London and the south-east is for fewer teachers and more civil servants? Is this quite what the Secretary of State for Education had in mind when he first started his grandiose plans?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that the figures which I have quoted for any increase in civil servants show that it will be a very small increase in a department that is already very small. I believe that the noble Lord is perhaps being slightly mischievious in putting that question.
Baroness David: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the DES has increased or decreased its staff, and by how many, in the last few years?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I think I quoted the projected figures at the outset in response to the first supplementary question. I think that those small increases are in line with a trend which has developed over the last few years. But I should perhaps have said, in relation to the previous supplementary question, that I would like to underline that the pupil/teacher ratio in this country is at the best level ever. It is currently 17·3 to one, and it is going down.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Baroness has told us that there is a special unit in the DES to deal with this matter. Since it is a question of finance and management, could the Minister tell us to what extent the people in the team have expert knowledge and training in financial management?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I would reply to that by saying that they have adequate expertise and knowledge to deal with this matter.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether it is the intention of the Department of Education to seek the views of all the professionals in public education and to make an assessment of their views? Some of the views which have been expressed are critical and those concerned are not at all satisfied with some of the incidents referred to in ministerial statements on the reform of the Education Bill itself. Would it not be possible to see these very important people, to seek their views? That is the essence of a true democracy.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, that is a very wide supplementary question. We have gone through a considerable consultation process since the original plans were announced in the Government's manifesto. In relation to the particular area of financial delegation, there are of course a number of authorities where schemes are under way and where there is experience. In addition to all this, Coopers & Lybrand have prepared a specific study for the Government which has been published and is available to all concerned. We have always said that the consultation process is an ongoing one and, judging by the number of responses which we are still receiving, it still it.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will not the Minister reply to my question? She has given me her opinion but she has not given me an answer.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have taken note of the remarks of the noble Baroness.

Business
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Civil Service: the next steps.

Local Government Bill
3.27 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Local government administration]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 91A:
Page 38, line 27, at end insert—
("(2) In subsection (2) (complaint not to be entertained unless made through a member of the authority concerned) after "unless" there shall be inserted "it is made in writing to the Local Commissioner specifying the action alleged to constitute maladministration or".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 91B, 91C and 91D. While some noble Lords are leaving the Chamber perhaps I may say that the small number of noble Lords who took a close interest in the detailed proceedings on this Bill in Committee might recall that I moved two series of amendments in Committee. Both were concerned with the local ombudsman. The first group was concerned with the right to direct access to the local ombudsman and the second with powers of review of the decisions of the local ombudsman.
The argument which was put forward then for direct access to the local ombudsman was very straightforward. The commission for local authority administration in its reports over the years has always argued that it was an unnecessary and damaging restriction to its work that access to the ombudsman had to be through a local councillor. The great majority of local councillors are happy and ready to forward any complaint by their constituents which they consider justified, or even which they may not consider justified, to the ombudsman. However, historically there has been evidence that about 20 per cent. of councillors are not willing to do that. It seems wrong that the constituents of those councillors should in that way be denied easy access to the local authority ombudsman. These amendments have been drafted to overcome that position and to provide for complaints to be entertained if they are made in writing to the local commissioner, specifying the action alleged to constitute maladministration.
This need not take up very much of your Lordships' time because I acknowledge with thanks immediately that it has been indicated to me that the Government are willing to support this series of amendments. Indeed, I am grateful to the Minister and the department for assistance with the drafting of the amendments. On that basis I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I undertook in Committee to consider further the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, to provide members of the public with direct access to the local ombudsman rather than having to refer complaints through a member of the authority concerned, as at present.

761
That was one of the recommendations of the Widdicombe inquiry into the conduct of local authority business as well as being a change which the commissioners themselves have advocated for a number of years. I am sure that your Lordships will be pleased to hear that in our consideration of the Widdicombe Report and the many comments we have received on it we have concluded firmly in favour of direct access to the local ombudsman.
We agreed with the inquiry that the arrangements for channelled access through a member could confuse and deter complainants especially when councillors are strongly committed to their authority. Although the referral system provides an opportunity for the member to try to get complaints remedied without involving the local ombudsman, the local commissioner will continue to be required to satisfy himself that authorities have been given the opportunity to investigate and redress any complaint that he receives direct before deciding whether to conduct an investigation himself.
As the matter has now been raised by the noble Lord. there would be no point in delaying action. The amendment is an improvement on the one tabled in Committee in that it will still enable councillors to use the ombudsman to take up complaints which they have received if they wish to do so. I am sure that this is desirable and that members will want to continue to be able to become involved on behalf of their constituents in this way. The amendments will also extend direct access to Scotland as well as England and Wales. I commend them to your Lordships.
Baroness Serota: My Lords, I just intervene briefly to say how delighted I am to learn from the noble Earl that the Government are prepared at long last to accept this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said, the case for direct access to the local ombudsman has been argued both inside and outside this House for some 10 years. It is certainly a great pleasure to me as founder chairman of the Commission for Local Administration to know that this improvement is now going to be made in the legislation. I must also thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and those noble Lords who have supported both this amendment and previous ones on earlier legislation in that their efforts have come to this successful conclusion.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 91B to 91D:
Page 38, line 31, after ("so") insert ("after "unless it was made to" there shall be inserted "the Local Commissioner or" and").
Page 40, line 14, at end insert—
("(a) in subsection (2) after "unless" there shall be inserted "it is made in writing to the Commissioner specifying the action alleged to constitute maladministration or".").
Page 40, line 15, after ("(4)") insert ("after "unless it was made to" there shall be inserted "the Commissioner or" and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 91B to 91D en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 30 [Additional powers for auditors of local authorities etc.]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 29, line 24, leave out ("two months") and insert ("one year").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 92 I shall also speak to Amendment No. 93. I wish to say in order to be helpful that the grouping which has been made available through the usual channels is not entirely rational. Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 go together. Amendments Nos. 94 and 95 go together. Amendment No. 96 does not go with any other amendment. Amendments Nos. 97 and 98 go together and Amendment No. 99 must stand alone. I apologise for not having checked this adequately in advance but the best I can do is to make that information available now.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 92 and 93, which refer to Clause 30, arises from the nature of the introduction of this clause and what is now Schedule 4 at a very late stage in Committee. I protested very loudly in Committee, I am afraid, that it was quite unsatisfactory for such a major new schedule and a new clause introducing it to be introduced in the Chamber on a Bill which had already been considered fully by the House of Commons and which had very little chance of detailed consideration by Parliament as a result of its late introduction.
As a result of that we were able to find a little bit more time for Report and I am grateful to the usual channels for making that possible. But the fundamental objection still arises. I have put down a series of amendments to the clause and to the schedule, but I do not claim that the consideration which I have been able to give to this matter in any way matches the consideration which would have been given if the matter had taken its normal course through Committee in another place. Therefore it is still the case that in my view the clause and the schedule have been unwisely if not improperly introduced into the Bill.
There is a further reason for saying that, and that is that the matter of the clause and the schedule which is increasing the powers and the responsibilities above all of local authority auditors is one which was considered by the Widdicombe Committee alongside the powers and responsibilities of local authority treasurers. Widdicombe always thought that the two matters went together. Yet to our astonishment we find that the powers and responsibilities of auditors are being dealt with in this Bill, whereas the powers and responsibilities of local authority treasurers are being dealt with in the Local Government Finance Bill which is being considered in another place.
The purpose of these amendments is to delay the implementation of the changes to the powers and responsibilities of auditors until at least the Local Government Finance Bill has seen its way on to the statute book so that the two can properly be considered together. I still think it is wrong that we should be dealing with them separately in separate Bills and at separate times in separate Houses. That is illogical, irrational and out of line with the thinking of Widdicombe but at least it is possible to make some minor improvement by seeing to it that as

763
regards local authorities, whatever happens in Parliament, the end result takes place at the same time and can be implemented at the same time.
Parliamentary scrutiny of this matter, as I said, has not been adequate. The least that the Government can do under the circumstances is to make this very modest concession and help local authorities with the implementation of the changes which they require. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have brought the provisions in the Bill forward in advance of our response to the Widdicombe Committee's report as a whole because we see a clear and pressing need to do something in this area. I would not claim that substantial breaches of the law by authorities are a widespread occurrence. However, our concerns stem from the increasing frequency with which a small minority of authorities are running up against the law in their attempts to evade and defy duties and controls that Parliament has put in place. Our concerns also stem from the wholly unsatisfactory delays in resolving such cases and from the preference which I think many in your Lordships' House will share for prompt prevention rather than delayed retribution.
Your Lordships will be familiar with the surcharges case in Lambeth and Liverpool which arose from late rate-making in 1985. Some of your Lordships may not, however, realise that the auditor is still, some three years after the event, progressing his inquiries in four London boroughs in respect of the late rate-making in 1985. Such delays are costly. They cause frustration to those who wish to see action taken to redress wrong-doing and to bring those responsible to account. They are a source of continuing uncertainty to those directly involved.
During the past year auditors have publicly warned a number of authorities about their ability to meet future expenditure and produce lawfully balanced budgets. Such failure, auditors have warned, could well give rise to expenditure which is contrary to law and to loss occasioned by wilful misconduct.
Such developments are still small in number. They must be unwelcome to all who care for the long-term future of local government. It is in this context that these new powers are needed. The sooner they are in place the less danger there is likely to be.
New Section 25A in Schedule 4 empowers the auditor to issue a prohibition order if he has reason to believe that the authority is about to take or has taken a decision or course of action which would lead to unlawful expenditure or the making of an unlawful loss or is about to enter an unlawful item of account. These circumstances are similar to those in which provisions in Part IX of the Local Government Finance Bill seek to impose a duty on chief finance officers to report to their authorities. Those measures, foreshadowed in the Green Paper Paying for Local Government, are part of the new system of financing local government and making it more accountable to its electorate and they are provided for in that Bill.
The provisions in this Bill concerning the powers of the auditor are closely related but do not follow from the Green Paper proposals. They are not part of an authority's own financial administration but concern
764
the legal and regulatory framework in which authorities operate. However, the development of the two measures has gone forward in parallel. As I have said, they are closely related. We should normally expect the chief finance officer's report—assuming that Parliament accepts the provisions—to provide the mechanism which alerts the auditor to potential unlawfulness.
To ensure that there is consistency and that the mechanism works in practice, we propose to bring forward amendments to the Local Government Finance Bill when it comes before your Lordships' House so that the same wording is adopted as is used in this section and which is related to the circumstances in which the chief finance officer is required to make a report.
We also propose to bring forward an amendment to that Bill to require the chief finance officer to notify the auditor when he so reports, and to notify him of the meeting at which the authority is to consider his report. Your Lordships will therefore have an opportunity to debate the relationship between the provisions concerning the duties of the chief finance officer in that Bill and those which are now before us concerning the auditor.
If your Lordships or my right honourable friend the Secretary of State feel that any further consequential amendments to the present Bill are called for as a result of those considerations, then those can be brought forward. I was surprised by part of what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said. On the previous four amendments he was happy to accept matters which we had put forward in advance of our report on the Widdicombe inquiry. He is not quite so keen to accept what we have put forward this time. He has asked for further concessions from the Government. He has been to the well four times and has been successful four times this afternoon. I am afraid that on the fifth occasion I must ask your Lordships to say no to him.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: What a cheek, my Lords! We have closed one subject; I have made all the right noises. The amendments which I put down with the help of the draftsmen of the department followed on amendments which were debated at Committee stage. This is a totally different matter from the first consideration—which is all we have—of a long schedule and introductory clause. Certainly we were not able to debate those with any due consideration at Committee stage. As I said, even the Report stage is not a substitute for detailed consideration in Committee in another place.
However, the noble Earl has given certain undertakings concerning the wording of the Local Government Finance Bill and he has assured the House that when we come to consider that Bill it will be possible to consider the relevance of the wording both to the powers and the responsibilities of treasurers and of auditors. If this Bill has reached the statute book and its powers have come into force two months after that date, I do not immediately see how that will be possible. I shall have to think about the logic and read the words of the Minister very carefully. In those circumstances, it is appropriate that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 93 not moved.]

Civil Service: Management Reforms
3.43 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the management of the Civil Service. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr. Speaker, with permission I should like to make a statement on management in the Civil Service. I asked the efficiency unit to report to me on the progress of management reforms in the Civil Service. They have produced a report entitled Improving Management in Government: The Next Steps.
"The report finds that many Civil Service managers want to see further changes to give more room and flexibility for the exercise of personal responsibility. The report recommends, first, that to the greatest extent practicable, the executive functions of government—as distinct from policy advice—should be carried out by units clearly designated within departments, referred to in the report as agencies. Responsibility for the day-to-day operations of each agency should be delegated to a chief executive. He would be responsible for management within a framework of policy objectives and resources set by the responsible Minister, in consultation with the Treasury.
"Secondly, the Government should commit themselves to a progressive programme for attaining that objective. Thirdly, staff should be properly trained and prepared for management of the delivery of services whether within or outside central government. Fourthly, a project manager at a senior level should ensure that the programme of change takes place.
"The Government have accepted those four recommendations, which will set the direction for further development of management reform in the Civil Service. Each agency will be accountable to a Minister, who will in turn be accountable to Parliament for the agency's performance. Those agencies will generally be within the Civil Service, and their staff will continue to be civil servants. The Government will develop a continuing programme for establishing agencies, applying progressively the lessons of the experience gained.
"The Civil Service unions will be consulted about the setting up of particular agencies. They will also be consulted if any change in terms and conditions of civil servants is contemplated. The centre of the Civil Service must be organised in a way which is helpful to bringing about change. A Permanent Secretary in the office of the Minister for the Civil Service will be responsible through the head of the Home Civil Service to me for managing the process of change needed to implement the recommendations.
"I have placed copies of the efficiency unit's report, together with a list of executive functions which appear promising candidates as initial agencies, in the Library and copies are available in the Vote Office.".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for repeating the Statement. We have seen a good deal of speculation in the press over the past few days concerning the matter. From my own information, I am bound to say that those reports have caused some concern and uncertainty within the Civil Service. It is therefore good that the Statement is now being made.
There is a case for reform. We certainly do not resist the need for reasonable change. However, we shall wish to consider the arguments in the report very carefully. It is also essential that there should be adequate consultation with all the unions concerned. I understand that the general secretaries of the Civil Service unions are seeing the Cabinet Secretary today and that the unions will be further consulted about the agencies. The Statement refers to consultation on particular agencies. Will the consultation be across the whole range of all the agencies concerned?
Consultation is right and proper because the setting up of the agencies will be a major and radical change whose implications will need the most careful consideration. It has been reported that a large segment of the Civil Service is to be managed by semi-independent executive boards. Can the noble Lord tell the House whether that is the case? If so, what does "semi-independent" mean? What areas of their work will be held accountable to the Government and what areas, if any, may enjoy independence? Is the noble Lord able to indicate some of the executive functions which are candidates as initial agencies? What are the priorities of the Government in that regard?
Further, can the noble Lord tell us something more about the financial arrangements? Will he confirm that all the agencies will remain accountable and subject to government audit? The Statement says nothing about decentralisation and dispersal. Will the objective be to disperse significant units of the Civil Service to the regions of England, Wales and Scotland?
It will help to remove uncertainty if the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, can say a word about redundancies. In view of the significance of the employment issue, has he any idea at this time of the implications of that matter for jobs in the Civil Service? For example, can he give a guarantee on behalf of the Government that there will be no compulsory redundancies as a result of the implementation of the recommendations?
There are currently about 600,000 civil servants in the United Kingdom. How many of them is it proposed will remain in London? How many therefore might be expected to be dispersed to the regions and to Scotland and Wales, with considerable advantage to those areas, especially those with high levels of unemployment?
Finally, there is no indication in the Statement of a timescale. Will the noble Lord say when the four recommendations that have been accepted by the Government may be set in motion and how long it will be before the whole exercise is implemented?
Lord Diamond: My Lords, we too wish to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for having repeated this very important Statement. Our reactions very largely tie in with what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos.

767
My major difficulty is that, as is made absolutely plain in the Statement, the report on management in government relates to the next steps. We are grateful to be informed about the next steps but we cannot honestly judge "next steps" until we have an idea of the Government's general policy. Next steps in what direction? One must surely think through, work out and agree upon one's general policy before one starts taking steps. Although we know that the Government have given great thought to those matters, we are totally unaware of the general policy decisions with regard to management in the Civil Service and the Civil Service generally. We shall not be able to come to a firm conclusion about those steps or indeed any steps until we know the direction in which the Government wish to step.
The Statement begs many questions. For example, as has been hinted at by the noble Lord who has just spoken, we on these Benches are very interested in devolution—devolution downwards, to the regions and indeed to local authorities in order to get as near as possible to the citizen himself or herself. The Statement says nothing about that possibility. The indications seem to be that the Government if anything are consolidating their attitude of moving control ever further from the citizen back to Whitehall and taking ever more steps, ever more control from the local authority which is in close touch with the citizen and bringing it back to Whitehall which is not. I shall be grateful if the Leader of the House could say a word on that subject.
We are also very concerned about the question of accountability. After all, the whole of the Statement seems to be about the balance of advantage in terms of improving management of the Civil Service so as to provide more efficiency and, we hope, a better service on the one hand as against lack of accountability on the other. Where does the balance lie? We are unable to come to any conclusion on that point until we are told exactly what the Statement means on that score.
The Statement says that:
"Responsibility for the day to day operations… should be delegated to a Chief Executive".
We all know the phrase "day to day operations" and are familiar with it in relation to all the nationalised industries. The Statement goes on to say that the Chief Executive:
"would be responsible for management within a framework of policy objectives and resources set by the responsible Minister".
which seems to indicate that day to day management is not in the same category as general policy and resources set by a Minister. Ministers are of course accountable and responsible to both Houses of Parliament. The Statement continues:
"Each agency will be accountable to a Minister, who will in turn be accountable to Parliament for the agency's performance".
There is nothing inconsistent between that statement and the earlier statement, if the earlier statement means that Ministers will no longer be accountable and responsible to Parliament for day to day actions of the civil servants in their departments which has been and is the situation up to this very moment.
I am not suggesting for one moment that we should return to the stage where a senior Minister feels obliged to resign his office because some individual
768
civil servant in his department who acted in good faith has taken a step which is clearly subject to criticism. I am not suggesting that for one second. However, Parliament must know exactly where it stands in terms of which actions of which civil servants it can question. The whole purpose of questions, especially in the other place, is that they should be a direct link between the citizen and the Minister which does not exist except through his Member of Parliament and that Member's right to ask questions which must be answered. Therefore we are pressing the Government very strongly to be quite precise and clear about the extent to which parliamentary accountability will be diminished as a result of giving effect to the proposals in the Statement.
Another matter on which I think clarification is needed is the statement that:
"These agencies will generally be within the Civil Service, and their staff will continue to be civil servants".
On a strict reading that can only mean that there will be some staff who will be civil servants and members of agencies which will be within the Civil Service and some staff who will continue to be civil servants and will be members of agencies which will not be within the Civil Service. I do not understand that point and I ask for clarification.
Also I should like to know whether the Government will continue to accept their responsibilities—as I know the Leader of the House does from a statement that he made on a previous occasion—and continue to justify in public and in both Houses the acts of civil servants within their respective departments. They should not try to shift the blame to individuals who are totally unable, and should continue to be unable, to express themselves in defence of something that they have done. They need to be defended by government Ministers standing up and taking responsibility and I hope that the Government will say that they continue to recognise that responsibility under the new arrangements.
We welcome what has been said about consultation. We assume that those consultations cover all matters relating to pension rights, redundancy and conditions of service. Questions have already been asked about numbers, so there is no need for me to raise that point.
Finally, I believe that there are two much smaller questions on internal arrangements which also need clarification. What will be the position as between the two branches as it were: the policy-making staff and the agency staff? In terms of their promotion what will be the ability of civil servants to move from one branch to the other? It seems as though two parallel ladders of promotion are being set up. I ask whether it will be possible for promotion to continue as hitherto, irrespective of the particular type of responsibility held.
The other question on the same matter of internal management refers to the last statement to the effect that a permanent secretary in the office of a Minister for the Civil Service will be responsible through the head of the Home Civil Service for managing the process. Does that mean that the head of the Home Civil Service will be responsible, full stop? Of course he will delegate certain responsibilities to those who

769
assist him, as all heads of Civil Service departments do. But the reference to the permanent secretary being responsible is rather confusing. Will the Minister be good enough to remove that confusion?
We have not had time between half-past three and now to consider the report, which was not available until then, or to consider the candidates in the report, and we shall have to do that. Everything is therefore subject to very careful consideration. We do not wish to reject the general idea. The Government may have good reason for moving in this direction; we do not know, and we shall examine the proposals with sympathy.
4 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Diamond, for their reception of my right honourable friend's Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said there is a case for reform, and I agree. Although there have been very good examples of improvements in Civil Service efficiency, nevertheless we must look back 20 years to the Fulton Report, which was accepted by the Labour Government of the day, to see that Fulton recommended that principles of accountable management should be introduced into the Civil Service, and recommended also further study of hiving-off functions as a means of ensuring accountable management. So although today's Statement is an important one, it is not exactly revolutionary.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked whether the consultation he understood was starting today would be across the whole range of the agencies concerned. I am sure that departments will be consulting their trade unions about the establishment of the agencies that have been suggested for them and that there will also be central consultation with the project manager —the new permanent secretary who has been appointed in that respect and to whom the last question of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, referred. I am sure also that staff and unions will be consulted in the normal way if there are any changes proposed in conditions of service.
The noble Lord asked also what were to be the financial arrangements and about the semi-independent executive boards of which he had read. I can best refer him to paragraph 20 of the report itself, which states:
"These units,"—
meaning agencies—
"large or small, need to be given a well defined framework in which to operate, which sets out the policy, the budget, specific targets and the results to be achieved".
It is that framework, to be agreed between departments and the Treasury in consultation with the project manager, which will be absolutely crucial in setting up the agencies.
Both noble Lords also asked the important question: will there continue to be ministerial accountability? It was a question to which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, devoted quite a few of his remarks. The answer is, yes. Ministers will continue to be accountable to Parliament for the work of their departments including the work of the agencies. That
770
means that the scope of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration will not be affected by today's proposal. Indeed, the scope of the Public Accounts Committee will not be affected by what has been said today.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked about dispersal, and indeed I believe he was looking for the Government to say that this would be part and parcel of a new thrust for dispersal. Today's Statement is about Civil Service structure and not about geographical location, which is not actually mentioned in the report. Relocation remains among the Government's policies for helping the Civil Service to become more flexible and more responsive to market conditions, but there is no more I can say about that subject today. The noble Lord also asked me to give him an assurance about redundancies so far as concerns today's Statement. I cannot give any such assurance but I emphasise that the new approach announced today is about organising the Civil Service so that it can do an even better job: it is not about cuts.
The noble Lord asked me what will be the timescale for the setting up of agencies. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library of your Lordships' House together with a list of executive functions that look to be promising candidates for the first agencies. there are 12 of them and they include Her Majesty's Stationery Office. the Employment Service, the Passport Department, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Directorate, the Vehicles Inspectorate and so on—there are 12 of them. So far as concerns the timescale, Mr. Peter Kemp, at present a deputy secretary in the Treasury, is to be promoted to permanent secretary and to be the project manager. He will continue in post as long as is necessary to get the changes established. His task is to assist with the process of setting up the agencies; management of the agencies will be the responsibility of the departments. We intend, with proper consultation, to proceed with that but I cannot give the noble Lord an exact timescale.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, complained that The Next Steps is all right provided the Government's general policy is known. That is set out on page 2 of the copy of the Statement that the noble Lord has, which states:
"The report finds that many Civil Service managers want to see further changes to give more room and flexibility for the exercise of personal responsibility".
The noble Lord asked whether there will be devolution, of which his own party is in favour, to those who are individually working in the Civil Service. The key feature of today's proposal is the delegation of responsibility for day-to-day operations to a chief executive and those who will be working with him in the agency. He asked also whether all that is to happen inside or outside the Civil Service. The Statement makes clear that generally the agencies will remain within the Civil Service and directly accountable to Ministers for the implementation of government policy, but I will say more about that. It may be appropriate in some cases to appoint the head of an agency from outside the Civil Service, but I am sure that in many cases the Civil Service will provide good candidates.

771
The whole point of today's announcement is the management of the Civil Service, not from outside it. I give an undertaking that appointments will continue to be by fair and open competition in accordance with the rules of the Civil Service Commission.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, asked about the position of agency staff in relation to policy staff, who remain completely within the departments. That is an important question because a key aspect of the proposals is that those concerned with the formulation of policy should have experience and information about its implementation and execution and that interchange of staff between agencies and the centre of departments should be fostered. I believe the approach I am trying to describe can provide the basis for further advances in management in the Civil Service. In making this Statement today, there is no intention on the part of the Government to try to keep everybody in watertight compartments; I think that interchange will be the name of the game and could help very much towards further improvements in efficiency within the Civil Service.
Lord Jay: My Lords, does the Minister's answer mean that the actions of the agencies' employees will be subject to parliamentary questions in both Houses in the same way as the actions of civil servants are now?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, Ministers will continue to account for all the work of their departments including the work of agencies. The rights of honourable Members in another place to question Ministers and to hold them to account will not change.
Lord Alport: My Lords, can my noble friend say what are the implications of this scheme so far as concerns recruitment in the the Civil Service? Will it mean that the present standards of entry into the Civil Service will continue as at present, or will the agencies have complete freedom to recruit as they wish and to hire and fire as they wish in respect of the staff at all ranks of their agencies?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, our intention is for agencies to be allowed some flexibility on terms and conditions for service within the framework set by the responsible Minister, though obviously there will need to be controls to safeguard public expenditure. The degree of flexibility can differ from agency to agency depending on the requirements of the job to be done—and that is a very old expression. That goes back to Fulton. Staff and unions, however, will be consulted in the normal way if any change in terms and conditions of service is contemplated.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Diamond has indicated that we on these Benches are interested and have considerable sympathy with the objectives of this report. Perhaps I may be allowed to refer to the yellow report and to the paper accompanying it.
There is one point on which I should like clarification. I see that among the departments for which agencies are to be set up is the Employment
772
Service. For the past 12 years the Employment Service has been part of the Manpower Services Commission. Only last autumn it was told that it was going to be split away from the Manpower Services Commission and returned to the Department of Employment. This is inevitably causing a considerable amount of upheaval.
The link between training and employment is so close that many of us involved in these services were very worried at that split. However, having gone back to the Department of Employment, if they are to be taken out again and put into another agency with yet another upheaval, this can have only an adverse effect on the operation of these extremely important services. Does the left hand know what the right hand is doing with these moves?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, this is not as revolutionary as all that. It is an attempt—and I believe that it will be a successful attempt—to follow on from what Fulton recommended as along ago as 20 years with regard to improving management in the Civil Service. We are talking about Jobcentres and unemployment benefit services, which offer a comprehensive service to employment seekers. We believe that these are promising candidates, as the Statement says, for agency status. There will be proper consultation. However, we believe that this is right.
The noble Baroness said that this involves an upheaval. We are not talking about relocation. We are not talking about privatisation. We are talking about what we believe is a more effective management structure.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord has not answered my question. We are having two changes simultaneously, both of which disrupt the operation of the Employment Service. Why on earth does the Employment Service have to go back to the Department of Employment in order to be taken out again? Why can the Government not wait and simply take it from the Manpower Services Commission into this new agency in one jump, because these changes disrupt?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, this is a matter to which we should return. There will be proper consultation. I am anxious to underline the fact that the list of executive functions which look to be promising candidates for the first agencies have not yet been subject to final decisions. Nonetheless, what I said in answer to the noble Baroness stands. At the same time, the noble Baroness had made clear her concerns on this matter.
Lord Peston: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to bear in mind, as policy develops, that some of us consider that we have an excellent Civil Service? It is one of the few institutions in this country that is admired world-wide for its honesty, probity, reliability and devotion to duty. I believe that it is one of the few institutions that the rest of the world would swap for their own. I do not think that they would change their businessmen for ours; and they would not change their trade union structures for ours. But I think that they would like to have our Civil Service.

773
It would be quite out of keeping with the times if I were to suggest that it did not require reform. But I hope the noble Lord will bear in mind that what might be required is some reform and some conservation of what is good. What is not required is destruction of a first-class service.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the genesis of this in many ways goes back to Fulton. There are quite clear recommendations to distinguish those within departments whose primary responsibility is planning for the future from those who are responsible for accountable management.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that I believe a very important integral part of this will be interchange in the future. Meanwhile, the noble Lord has expressed his party's admiration for the Civil Service. On this side I pay tribute on behalf of the Government to the service which the nation has every right to be proud of.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will the members of these agencies and the people recruited by them be subject to the Official Secrets Act and to the usual duty of confidentiality?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have answered such a question earlier. They will generally be within the Civil Service. Those who are will be responsible in the same way as all other civil servants.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, on 17th December the Minister—who was not then the Leader of the House—in reply to a debate said that he was very interested in the suggestion from one of his own friends that we should look carefully at the question of moving a government department out of London to the regions. He has already said that the question of decentralisation and dispersal of civil servants is not mentioned in the report.
Who will take the decision about dispersal of civil servants? Will the Government take the decision, and will they take it before the new organisation is set up? I see a very real danger that if we have semi-private organisations they will become more closely related, if they remain in the South-East, to other aspects of our society, such as the banks and clearing houses, and it may well be that in those circumstances the London weighting—which is a blight on this country—may increase fivefold. If that is the situation then all the congestion in the South-East will become considerably worse.
I repeat my questions. First, what is the timescale? Secondly, will it be the Government who decide on decentralisation, especially in view of the rumours that civil servants in London are bitterly opposing any such idea?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have answered the question about the timescale. I have told the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that I cannot give him any exact timescale. However, matters will proceed based, first, on the list which has been placed with copies of the report in the Library of your Lordships'
774
House, giving the list of executive functions which look to be promising candidates.
In answer to the second point of the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, I understand his concern about relocation. But perhaps I may underline this point. Relocation is not mentioned in this report. Nonetheless, relocation remains among the Government's policies for helping the Civil Service to become more flexible and responsive to market conditions. It is no good the noble Lord pressing me; there is nothing more that I can say on that today.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, is the noble Lord seriously telling the House that he is not aware whether the decision about relocating government departments will be taken by government or by the new set-up?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I suggest that the noble Lord reads the report. He will see then that relocation does not form part of the report.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, the noble Lord has me at a disadvantage. He has read the report and therefore should know.
On the same important principle, perhaps I may ask this question. Will this House and another place have more time to consider these proposals before they are put into effect; or will this be a matter between government and the civil servants?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we intend to proceed now to implement the proposals in the way that I have explained. But there will be opportunities for the views of those who wish to comment to be taken into account as the programme for establishing the agencies proceeds. We welcome consideration and discussion of these matters by the Select Committees.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I apologise for rising again but I should like to clarify one point. I drew attention to the enormous importance attached by us to The Next Steps as being those consistent with the overall policy. The Minister suggested that I should look at page 2 which indicates that many Civil Service managers want to see further changes to give more room and flexibility for the exercise of personal responsibilities. Is that the totality of the Government's policy with regard to the Civil Service? The Minister must be as aware as I am that the morale of the Civil Service is at a low ebb. The removal of uncertainty would assist in improving morale. We are anxious to discover what is in the Government's mind overall with regard to the Civil Service. The report merely indicates giving more room and flexibility to the exercise of personal responsibility.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it is important that I should say at what is probably the end of this exchange that the report—prepared by civil servants on secondment from their departments—records that many people in the Civil Service wish to see a move in this direction. The report recommends a move in the direction which the Government wish to see as a matter of policy. The strides made in the past within the Civil Service have been undoubted and have

775
improved value for money, efficiency and productivity.
The steps announced in the Statement will enable us to carry the improvements still further. The new approach will define responsibility more clearly within departments and will provide a framework within which Civil Service managers have greater incentive and opportunity for better management so that they can produce an improved service for taxpayers and for the public at large. That is the general strategy so far as concerns the Government and also the main thrust of the report.

Local Government Bill
4.22 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 30.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 29, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) The Audit Commission shall include a report of the use of auditors powers under this section and that Schedule in its annual report required to be published under Schedule 3 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 94, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 95. It will be obvious to your Lordships that it would not make sense for the audit commission to be required to report annually on the matters which are the subject of the schedule if the commission had no responsibilities for carrying them out. Therefore, Amendment No. 94 refers to the report but Amendment No. 95 is the important amendment. The schedule provides that instead of the existing local authority auditors taking responsibility for the prohibition orders and the judicial review which may follow, it should be taken by the audit commission.
I suggest that the normal audit responsibilities of an auditor should not be too closely confused with the function of an auditor as an adjudicator or a quasi-prosecutor. I also suggest that as soon as one has the possibility of a prohibition order, as proposed in the schedule, one begins to change the nature of the relationship between the auditor and the local authority. Working auditors must work closely in the offices of the authority. They must build up a position of mutual trust with the officials of the authority. They must have the power and the duty to draw matters to the attention of the authority and to ensure that they receive all the information necessary to fulfil their responsibilities. However, according to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, as soon as they are put into the position of judge and jury, in addition to being auditors, one begins to have a potential deterioration in the relationship.
There is a possibility of a conflict of interest and the certainty of problems in the day-to-day conduct of the audit procedures. That was made clear in the Widdicombe Report which states at paragrpah 9.48 that,
"there would be advantage in creating greater distance between the job of the auditor on the ground and the job of audit service as
776
adjudicator under section 20 of the 1982 Act and as quasi-prosecutor under section 19 of the Act".
The Widdicombe Report goes on to state that in many ways the committee prefers the Scottish arrangements whereby the Controller of Audit in Scotland, who is the professional head of the audit service, has the responsibility to put forward a special report to the Commission for Local Authority Accounts where it is considered that there has been illegal expenditure or a loss caused by negligence or misconduct.
The Government now propose to increase the powers of auditors. I am not arguing the principle of whether the powers are necessary. I do not dissent from some of the remarks made by the noble Earl during the discussion on the previous amendment. If there have been abuses they should be dealt with as quickly as possible. However, that is not the question at issue. The question at issue is who should carry that out. I am conscious that the audit commission was reluctant to undertake those responsibilities.
However, the local authority auditors in England, through their professional body (the English ICA), have challenged the plans for the extension of their responsibilities. They consider that they are unwise and that they raise the possibility of a conflict of interest between their normal audit functions and the new functions envisaged under the new schedule. I believe that those concerns should be taken into acount. There must be a better reason than has been put forward as to why the Government should depart from the Widdicombe recommendations. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Widdicombe Committee felt that powers for preemptive action should lie with the audit commission whereas the provisions of Schedule 4 place the powers with the auditor. This accords with the views that the commission itself expressed in response to Widdicombe and in its proposals for changes in audit legislation. This weighed heavily in our consideration. We also took account of the obvious practical difficulties in giving a power for swift action to a commission which normally meets once a month and whose eminent members are busy people with widespread interests who cannot always be contacted in haste. We further recognised that the authority and standing which the commission as a body has established is due in no small part to the unity it has managed to preserve in taking some difficult decisions. I believe it would put unreasonable strain on the commission and perhaps change its nature in an unproductive way if it was required to make decisions to take action against individual councils.
It is the auditor who must assemble the evidence and is best placed to decide whether a case exists to invoke statutory sanctions. I do not believe that these powers are ones which will be of any concern to the vast majority of law-abiding authorities and that therefore they are unlikely to trouble the good relationships between those authorities and their auditors. I shall have more to say about the relationships in our discussions on the next amendment.
I return to Amendment No. 94. Those noble Lords who are familiar with the annual reports produced by

777
the commission will know what admirably clear and informative records it provides of the commission's activities during the year. I am sure that the commission will report at least as fully on the use of the powers as it does in respect of its other functions. I can see no particular reason why we should impose reporting requirements on the commission in respect of this function alone. I feel sure that we can confidently leave the matter to the commission's discretion, as we do with other matters.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's response but not at all satisfied with it. I am a great admirer of the audit commission. In addition to its function fo scarifying local authorities on occasions, it has a good reputation for scarifying the Government, who set it up. I do not say a word against Mr. Davies, because he has been in office for only a short time, but its independence under Mr. John Banham was quite outstanding. The argument about the report is a minor matter.
I find it surprising that the Government are so inflexible about the composition and duties of the audit commission. It meets once a month and that reflects the fact that it is not full-time. Its members are not permanent members of the commission. That does not mean that it could not have a staff of people capable of doing the work. When I moved the amendment I drew attention to the situation in Scotland and to the approval expressed by Widdicombe for the Scottish procedures although Widdicombe fell short of wanting any role for the Secretary of State, as there is in Scotland.
I am not satisfied with the reply from the Minister. I believe that we will have to find some other way of bringing this matter forward and drawing attention to it. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 [Sections to be inserted in Part III of Local Government Finance Act 1982]:
[Amendment No. 95 not moved.]
4.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 40, line 44, after ("if") insert ("after consultation with the body or officer concerned")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe that Amendment No. 96 is a matter of common justice and decency in business procedures. What it says is that a prohibition order (a stop notice on a local authority) shall be served by an auditor only after consultation with the person concerned. Consultation does not mean that the person concerned has any power to stop the stop notice. We will see from later amendments that there could be a possibility of misunderstanding, failure of communication or of the auditor not having the full picture. Surely it should not cause any difficulty. It would be normal practice for anyone taking the strong step of issuing a prohibition order to consult the person concerned before he did so.
I do not believe that this amendment is particularly contentious or that it is outside normal professional practice. I should have thought that it would cause no great difficulty for the Government to accept it. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, while the decision on when to use the new powers will be a matter solely for the auditor's discretion, auditors will be able to look to the commission for advice and guidance. They will also be required to take account of any relevant advice which the commission may include in the code of audit practice. I understand that it would be the intention of the commission to review the code to include such advice following Royal Assent.
Before making any alterations to the code the commission is required to consult the local authority associations and the accountancy bodies and any alterations must be sent to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who will lay them before Parliament. This means that the House will have the opportunity to see and to consider any guidance which prescribes the way in which auditors should carry out these functions. I would expect that auditors would consult closely with the authority or officer concerned before deciding to take what is a very serious step to issue a prohibition notice.
I am sure that the guidance of the commission will deal with this question and set out appropriate procedures. I do not believe that it would be right to require the auditor to consult. The essence of these powers is that, while they may only be used sparingly, where they are used they may need to be used quickly. There seems little point in giving the auditor a power for quick pre-emptive action and then so tying him down with requirements as to consultation that he is invariably too late for the power to be effective.
That is the reason why we believe that the noble Lord's amendment is not acceptable. He is right to say that it would be normal common courtesy for an auditor to discuss the matter with an officer or an authority, but I am sure he can imagine better than I a situation where it would be necessary for an auditor to act very speedily in order to prevent a local authority or an officer taking an action of the nature which this part of the Bill is designed to prevent.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister has gone some way to setting my mind at ease about this matter. I look forward to seeing the guidelines which will be produced. It is true, as the noble Earl says, that we shall have an opportunity to raise any concerns that we have about the guidelines when they come before us. However, by convention our ability to make changes or to oppose such matters is extremely restricted. In view of that reply I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 40, line 44, leave out ("he has reason to believe") and insert ("in the performance of his duties under section 15 of this Act it comes to his attention").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 97 I wish to speak also to

779
Amendment No. 98. A couple of amendments ago the Minister gave a great deal of weight to the views of the audit commission when we were dealing with whether it or local authority auditors should be responsible for the whole prohibition notice procedure. If he were to agree to Amendments Nos. 97 and 98 he would be acceding to the views of the audit commission which have been expressed to him. I understand that from the press, because I do not have the original documentation. I also understand that that was in response to the Department of the Environment's consultation paper.
As regards Amendment No. 97 the audit commission says:
"Auditors should not be expected to 'seek out' potentially unlawful acts beyond the scope of their normal duties. A requirement to take action should therefore only apply to matters which come to the auditor's attention".
That is what Amendment No. 97 seeks to provide.
The audit commission goes on to say:
"Any action taken should be restricted to those issues regarded as 'substantial' by the auditor, either in terms of amounts of money or general principle".
That is what Amendment No. 98 seeks to give effect to. This seems to me to be a common sense response on the part of the audit commission. The Minister will no doubt say that these matters can also be dealt with in the guidelines. I can almost see his brief in front of him. I believe that if he were to say that he agrees on behalf of the Government with what the audit commission has said and that he would expect those provisions to be in the guidelines, that probably would be as far as we could hope to take it. To enable him to do so, I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I understand and sympathise with the intention behind Amendment No. 98. I agree that these powers should be principally addressed to substantial breaches of the law. It would not make good sense for the auditor to pursue trivial matters by way of a prohibition notice. The use of the power will inevitably involve expenditure of the auditor's time and costs in obtaining legal and other advice. It would not be sensible to incur expenditure which is disproportionate to the unlawful expenditure or loss likely to be incurred. The audit commission has made it known that it also shares this view, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has just said to the House. I am sure that the commission's guidance in the code will chart a sensible course and, as I have said, your Lordships will have the opportunity of considering it. I hope that that is of some comfort to the noble Lord.
Amendment No. 97 would seek to limit the use of these powers to matters coming to the auditor's attention in performance of his duties under Section 15 of the 1982 Act. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, that refers to matters coming to his attention in the course of the audit.
The difficulty which Widdicombe identified with the operation of Sections 19 and 20 is that these powers are backward looking. The auditor can only take action after the event when the extent of the losses are known and can be certified. That is why we need pre-emptive powers which can be used in anticipation of the accounts and why that effect would not be achieved by tying these powers to the auditors' duties under Section 15.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which indeed I anticipated to a considerable extent. I should prefer the matter to be on the face of the schedule. It would relieve the minds not only of the auditors, but also the local authorities would know, as a matter of statute, the extent to which auditors are likely to impose prohibition orders on them. There may well be cases for some prohibition orders. But, as the Minister said, the fewer cases there are the greater the likelihood that an amicable settlement can be reached without the imposition of a prohibition order.
However, with the assurances given by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 98 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 42, leave out lines 28 to 31.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment we move on almost two pages in this complex schedule. New Section 25C states:
"No action shall lie against an auditor in respect of any loss or damage alleged to have been caused by reason of the issue of a prohibition order which was issued in good faith".
The exemption from the possibility of action applies peculiarly to auditors; but it does not apply to local authorities. If a local authority has to break or abort a contract as a result of a prohibition order by the auditor, then the local authority is open to damages. However, the auditor is treated differently. He is indemnified if he acts in good faith.
I emphasise that a considerable amount of money could be at stake. Some contracts which could be subject to a prohibition order can cost millions or tens of millions of pounds. The temptation could exist for an auditor who is worried but who has not had the time properly to investigate to issue a prohibition order to be on the safe side. That could be extremely dangerous.
I do not doubt in any way the professional quality of local authority auditors; that is not what I am here to question. However, I do question the propriety of virtually encouraging a local authority auditor to take what might be precipitate action because he is sure that he is indemnified under the very weak provision that he has acted "in good faith". That does not apply to any other profession of which I am aware and I do not believe that auditors themselves wish it to apply to the auditing profession. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, where an order is revoked by the auditor or quashed on appeal, one or more of the parties may claim to have suffered loss which could have been avoided if the auditor had not interfered. Given the great caution which auditors have shown over many years in the exercise of their existing powers, there is every reason to believe that they will use these new powers with the utmost responsibility and that such cases are likely to be very exceptional. However, where they do arise Schedule 4 provides protection for the auditor against claims for damages provided he acted in good

781
faith. Third parties may be able to seek redress from the local authorities.
As I have said, the essence of these new powers is that while they may only be used sparingly, where they are used they may need to be used quickly. In such circumstances the auditor will not always have full information about the action an authority is contemplating and there is the possibility that the authority may deliberately conceal such information from the auditor. Therefore, I am sure the noble Lord will agree that the risk is that auditors would be reluctant to use their new powers to the full if they faced the possibility of claims where a genuine mistake had been made. Also, if auditors were not protected against claims in damages the commission would have to indemnify them and as the only source of revenue open to the commission and the auditor is audit fees the costs would have to be borne by local government as a whole.
In general, the knowledge that authorities may have to bear the costs which may follow from the prohibition order procedures will help to ensure that they keep their auditors well informed of any unusual or unconventional financial decisions which they propose to take. Having said that, I should like to read in the Official Report what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said. I give him no commitment but there were one or two points which I should like to study and give further consideration. However, I repeat that it must be without commitment to come forward with an amendment at a later stage.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am particularly grateful to the Minister. It is certainly appropriate that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 100:
Before Clause 36, insert the following new Clause:
("Dog Registration Scheme.
.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the establishment and administration of a dog registration scheme by local authorities, or such other organisations as he may, after consulting with them, designate.
(2) Regulations made under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope this amendment will encourage a slightly more relaxed attitude than some noble Lords have so far taken. However, one should not for a moment be misled. We believe as strongly in the rightness and sense of our case as any noble Lord whose amendment has so far been discussed. Fortunately, the problem is non-party political.
In Committee, an amendment was moved that had the effect of keeping the dog licence. For better or worse, that amendment was defeated. It is not intended this afternoon that your Lordships' time should be wasted or your patience tried. Nor is there any intention to break the rules in asking your Lordships again to debate the issue. However, I must remind the House that the Government have decided to scrap the dog licence and put nothing—I repeat,
782
nothing—in its place. If I may say so, this is a real case of throwing the baby out with the bath water; or perhaps I should say, the Christmas puppy on to my farm at Easter.
This amendment proposes a scheme to replace the scrapped licence and to solve the dog problem. The amendment is remarkably simple, as your Lordships can see. It gives the Secretary of State the power to set up a self-financing registration scheme for dogs which could provide the necessary resources to fund a dog warden system. I hope that we shall convince your Lordships that the amendment will solve problems that all who love dogs (or all who hate dogs) believe need to be solved.
First, it would identify the dog with the owner. Secondly, over a period of time, it would drastically reduce the strays problem. Thirdly, it would reduce the problem of dogs fouling our streets and public places. Fourthly, it would return lost dogs to their owners. Fifthly, needless to say, it would reduce if not eliminate the worrying of livestock particularly on land used by dogs.
We do not intend to weary the House by repeating ourselves, so I leave the details of how the amendment would achieve those objectives to fellow supporters of the amendment. I should however like to tell your Lordships that there is 100 per cent. support for the amendment from the farming organisations, from the animal welfare organisations and from the Association of District Councils, which I suggest your Lordships should take note of.
It is not every day that we agree. Indeed, if my memory serves me right, there have been occasions when I have disagreed radically with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. However, as in 1981 when we agreed on crossbows and airguns, this afternoon I am delighted to say that we are again in total agreement on how to solve the dog problem. I suggest that the agreement between all the organisations that are directly involved with animals, hour by hour, day by day, week by week, should be weighed against any contrary view that my noble friend on the Front Bench might be tempted to promote.
My noble friend the Leader of the House said on Second Reading that he would respect the views of those who felt that the control of dogs was in need of overhaul. He understated the case. We are suggesting just that. It needs a major overhaul. Apart from keeping the door open for the Secretary of State to do this, the amendment suggests a practical way forward for dealing with the responsibility that I believe we have for dogs and indeed to society. I beg to move.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, in Committee I referred to the position in Northern Ireland and to the contradictions that exist in government policy. The Government introduced there a dog licence of £5 which today provides most of the money for dog warden schemes that are maintained in every district council in Northern Ireland. In the rest of the United Kingdom the dog licence has been abolished, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, said, nothing has been put in its place.
The Minister said that the Northern Ireland scheme was working well. I believe that he did not tell

783
the whole story. From January 1984 every keeper of a dog had to have a licence. All district councils have dog pounds and dog warden schemes, and there have been very positive trends. Between 1980 and 1983, an average of 47,500 licences were issued annually. Since 1934, licence applications have jumped by almost 62 per cent. The number of stray dogs impounded together with the number of prosecutions for livestock worried, though it peaked in 1985, is now declining. This peak was due to the establishment of the dog warden schemes within district councils.
The decline in the number of strays continued in 1987. Cases of livestock worrying have fallen considerably. The Ulster Farmers Union has commented:
"Sheep are now being kept in areas close to built-up communities where, for many years past, this would not have been possible due to the fear of attacks from dogs".
According to the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, there are fewer strays roaming unrestrained in Northern Ireland and many more dogs are walked on leads. In the view of the USPCA, the scheme has been a great success. The director says:
"Not only are dogs looked after better now but far fewer are suffering from irresponsible and uncaring dog owners. I feel personally that the changing attitude towards dogs in this country is encouraging".
The general conclusion is that it has been a resounding success which makes the Government's action in abandoning the licence but putting nothing in its place seem quite inexplicable. The licence is not an end in itself. It is the foundation of a system of regulation that has been proved in Northern Ireland. It has improved dog welfare and minimised the problems caused by dogs while costing the ordinary ratepayer very little. We believe that the order in Northern Ireland has proved its worth and should have been copied in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The abandonment of the licence has reduced the sum of money available to local authorities as they will no longer receive the money collected from the licence, and presumably the Government will save £3.5 million which they had to pay in collecting the inadequate dog licence. The Government will gain, local authorities will lose, and in addition they will be expected to find money from already hard-pressed resources for dog warden schemes. As a member of a local authority I know well the pressure on finances for local government. Even when some money was available from the dog licence not every local authority was able to maintain a dog warden scheme. Many had only part-time services and part-time wardens. The chances of local authorities being able to maintain dog warden schemes out of their own resources in our view is very limited.
One of the central difficulties is that, unless one can identify the owner of a dog, enforcement of the 30 Acts relating to dogs is almost impossible. The present requirement that a dog should have a collar is not precise enough proof of ownership to enforce the law against those who are cruel to dogs or those whose dogs worry sheep or even postmen or to enforce the by-laws recently promulgated by the Home Office in respect of the fouling of pavements.
784
It is necessary to know not just the house but the owner against whom action has to be taken.
If there is no dog licence we need a registration system that will give the information clearly. It is hoped that, as in Northern Ireland, the number of strays in these circumstnces and the number of dogs that are slaughtered would be much reduced.
However, this can be done only if there are dog wardens as in Northern Ireland to supervise and enforce the law, to encourage responsible dog ownership by education and to take strays back to their owners as quickly as possible, thus reducing the number of dogs—nearly 1,000 per day—that have to be put down. A national registration scheme backed by law could provide for a once-and-for-all registration fee that could pay for the national register and provide money for a dog warden scheme. It would avoid the necessity for the Governnment to have to spend money and it would raise standards all round.
Under the registration scheme an owner would register with his or her local council and would receive a disc. The details would be transferred by the local council to the register. The details would lapse after 15 years on the assumption that that is the natural life of a dog. Because of the once-and-for-all nature of the registration, it would not need a large bureaucracy as would be the case if there were to be annual payments for this purpose.
The amount of dog licence in Northern Ireland is £5. We are not aware of any real resistance to paying it; on the contrary, responsible dog owners and non-owners have both welcomed the improvement.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, showed real concern on Second Reading about those problems from which it seems the Government are running away. The problems remain and the Government have produced no answer as to how they can be dealt with. They are cruelty to dogs and the prosecutions that should arise on that matter, the worrying of sheep, the fouling of pavements and attacks on postmen. All need the identification of owner before action can take place under the statute or under the by-law. It means also that the vital work of educating people, particularly children, in responsible dog ownership and attention to strays will be entirely neglected. All these we believe can be done with a registration system.
Lord Somers: My Lords, the amendment seeks an absolute minimum, and I cannot see any reason why the Government should refuse this. As the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, said, it is imperative that there should be some kind of dog warden scheme, but what is the point if one cannot identify the dog?
Dogs are found sometimes on the road a long way from their proper home. I lived a good many years in a rather suburban surrounding and I think that I got to know very well the kind of mentality that produces this problem. These people know nothing about animals. They buy a young puppy to amuse their child, much in the same way as they would buy a child a teddy bear. The child grows a little older and gets tired of the dog and the parents get tired of having to feed it. What is the answer? They take the dog a long

785
way from its home, dump it somewhere on the road and drive away. The dog is left homeless and so wanders about on the road. The number of road accidents caused by stray dogs is indescribable.
Something must be done to combat this state of affairs. A registration system as proposed is in my view the only solution. If the Government refuse it, I cannot think what the alternative is.
Under Amendment No. 101, the Government have ample plans for the seizure of dogs. But, when the dogs have been seized, what do the Government intend should be done if it is not known to whom a dog belongs? Registration is the only solution.
5 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the amendment. I live close to an urban area and we experience a good deal of damage from dogs. There is a dog pound nearby to which neglected dogs are taken and are eventually destroyed in large numbers. All the voluntary bodies support registration, and we have heard how it is effective in Northern Ireland. I find the case for supporting the amendment overwhelming.
Lord Dulverton: My Lords, I spoke briefly during the previous discussion. I should like to support my noble friend and noble Lords on all sides of the House who have put their names to the amendment. In rising to support it, I wish only to reaffirm my deep concern about the fearful cruelty to and neglect of dogs which results from irresponsible and almost unthinking acquisition of them by people who have no idea of how to make them (properly handled) the useful and devoted friends that they can and really want to become.
I was sorry when your Lordships rejected at Committee stage the attempted persuasion by a number of us to retain a meaningful dog licence. As I spelt out then, my case was largely based on a desire to evince a real earnest on the part of a dog owner to value his or her assumption of such a responsibility, and of course to prevent cruelty. Only two days ago the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals made public its assessment of a great increase (already bad enough in all conscience) in instances of infliction of cruelty on dogs.
My Lords, have you no heart for this disgraceful matter? We must do all that we can to alleviate or prevent it. If you have a heart, do vote in favour of the amendment which could go a long way towards remedying the state of affairs on which I have touched. It may be difficult, but it is not unachievable with the goodwill of the National Farmers' Union, the Country Landowners Association, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the members of the Joint Advisory Committee on Pets in Society. It has eight members, including the National Canine Defence League to which I belong.
I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is not convinced by my arguments. I am sorry, too, because he is also a personal friend. I hope indeed that my noble friend on the Front Bench may persuade him to look kindly on this very humanitarian and practical amendment. We in
786
Britain like to pride ourselves on animal care. How can we do so if we ignore the amendment?
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I too should like to lend my support to the amendment which was so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. In doing so, he drew attention to the five objectives which would be achieved by the acceptance of the amendment. I should like to refer specifically to this third objective, which is to limit the fouling of pavements. I do so as president of the Tidy Britain group.
We are about to launch a major campaign—with, I am glad to say, full Government support—to try to make another attempt to deal with the litter problem in Britain. This seems to be the wrong time to be allowing one form of litter to continue untrammelled. After the withdrawal of the licensing system I feel that there will be a need for the owners of dogs to be faced with some degree of responsibility for their pets. The question of fouling is an important aspect of that.
Many dog owners are careful in this respect; but some certainly are not, as any visual inspection of a normal London pavement will show. For that and for all the other reasons given, I very much hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, I apologise to the House because I was not able to take part in the debate at Committee stage. However, I heard the final speech of my noble friend the Minister, and of course I have studied it since. I strongly support this amendment because it is the last chance to get something done to carry out the desirable objective to which many speakers have referred.
I feel that the Minister brushed aside (possibly on instructions from above) the very reasonable concerns put forward by responsible and important groups such as the National Farmers' Union, the RSPCA, veterinary surgeons and the various other authorities which, as the noble Lord who moved the amendment has pointed out, have urged that dogs should be registered. It is possible that noble Lords will ask me what I know about it. If they will look back at Hansard over the past few years they will see that I have taken part in moves by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and others to bring about the proper care and protection of animals.
As a boy—as a child almost—I was mixed up with research into animal ailments. Throughout the years I have been a dog owner and have taken a great interest in them as a result. I have been involved with hounds. I bred a pointer which won a red ticket at Crufts—an experience which I found a most moving one. I think it is the only occasion on which I have wept in public. I suddenly found myself with a red ticket for a pup I had bred myself. Throughout my life I have had a great deal to do with animals and with dogs.
As I am a member of the Kipling Society, I keep thinking of what Kipling wrote:
"Binkie's the same as the 'First Friend' was,
And I am the man in the cave".
I wonder whether the Government really appreciate the part that a dog plays in the life of thousands of families. I urge the House to support an amendment put forward by reasonable and responsible people. I

787
feel that full weight should be given to the views expressed by the important associations to which I referred.
One reason why I feel qualified to press for registration is that on one occasion in India a terrier of mine picked up rabies and eventually bit me. My friends said that it was biting me which killed it; but the fact remains that,
"the man recovered of the bite [thanks to Pasteur]. The dog it was that died."
If that does not go to prove my personal interest in the matter, I should like to conclude by saying that we cannot afford not to pass this amendment. As was pointed out by the previous speaker, the money can be obtained. The noble Lord, Lord Irving, indicated that the £5 fee in Northern Ireland provides adequate funds for local authorities to carry out a sensible and strict watch over dogs. I think that £10 is too much. I have taken the opinions of many dog owners with whom I am friendly. They say that although most people dodge the present 37½ pence dog licence fee, they would really run away from £10; but £5 would do it. Suitable registration would resolve many of the difficulties to which previous speakers have referred. I shall not repeat the many appeals that have been made. I urge—indeed I beg—the House to pass the amendment. Let us not lose it. This may be the last chance to clear up the matter for goodness knows how long.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I shall speak for three minutes on this matter. I have already spoken on it twice: once at length on Second Reading, and once in Committee.
The amendment is a good one. I hope to heavens that its movers will divide the House upon it. The Government must accept it. My noble friend talked about making your Lordships weep. I cannot remember what it was that he was trying to make us weep about. If your Lordships want to weep, I can tell the House of two instances where in the Highlands, sheepdogs of mine, through their power of reason, working in pairs, saved the lives of two shepherds. If that does not make your Lordships weep, then what will?
We have an opportunity to solve the problem of appalling cruelty to dogs. We have 6 million dogs in this country. They are chucked out on the motorways. About 500,000 stray dogs have to be put down every year. I have said all this before and I shall not repeat it.
I have certain connections in Northern Ireland as I am Deputy Lieutenant of Antrim. I can assure your Lordships that the dog scheme in the north of Ireland has been a great success. I understand the Government's reluctance to accept amendments in Committee regarding the collection of an annual fee of £5 or £10, but they have no excuse now not to accept the amendment. We are talking about one payment only for the registration of dogs. Dog owners can then be traced. The sooner the matter goes to a Division, the better.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I rise with some diffidence and rather nervously to make a point which I suspect will make me unpopular in what has been a one-sided debate thus far. I do so for this reason. I have every sympathy with all the points that
788
have been made. I agree with what has been said about some of the problems caused by the existence of dogs. I have listened with great attention to each speaker, but no one has convinced me that registering a dog, or buying a licence, will resolve the problems. I cannot see how it can.
One has only to think of some of the practical problems. For example, registering a dog will not stop a dog worrying a sheep or fouling pavements. It will not stop cruelty and will not stop someone being irresponsible and dumping the dog on the roadside, which is what happens.
The identity of ownership is a particular problem. If it were as simple to buy a dog as it is to buy a television set in a shop, then it would be merely a matter of registering the dog and the owner's identity would be well known. Many thousands of dogs in this country are acquired by a variety of means. Someone may arrive with a litter of puppies which they found in a back road somewhere. Who then becomes the owner? Is it the little girl who arrives home with a puppy in her arms and says, "I have just been given this puppy"? The answer is that the mother, father or someone else has then to go out and register the dog and put a sum of money on the table. If the parents or the adults in the family refuse to do that, the chances are that the little girl is left standing there with the puppy. Who then is the owner of the puppy?
There are hundreds of practical difficulties about that scheme, which I mentioned previously. I shall not go into much detail again on the subject. It involves a layer of bureaucracy that we could do well without. As for the warden schemes about which many of your Lordships have talked, there is nothing now to stop local authorities from having such schemes—in fact, many do, and they operate well. Obviously there are different solutions for different areas of the country. The problems vary from one part of the country to the other. It would be a matter for the local authorities to determine a scheme that is right for their area.
The common theme that runs through all that has been said is how one finances the scheme. The amendment does not resolve the financing because we are talking here of a one-off payment. That payment would bring in one sum of money. Thereafter, local authorities would be left with an annual difficulty of how to fund a warden scheme, and so forth.
As regards the licensing scheme, we all know that unless it is substantial it will not properly fund the scheme. However, if it is substantial, the first thing we shall do is jump up and down and say, "Is it not dreadful for old people to have to pay the licence"? Then we shall have exemptions for old people, one-parent families and many different people. But what happens when it is children who own the dogs? Many children own dogs, not the mother or the father. What can be done about small children who do not have the wherewithal to buy a licence?
Those are the practical problems in supporting the amendment and a licensing system. I suggest that we get rid of the bureaucracy and the cost of collecting the money. As we all know the present scheme brings in little money but it costs a lot to collect. We should then, in our different ways use our energy and resources and turn our minds towards solving the

789
problems which have been outlined so emotionally by your Lordships. Those problems are very real. We should try to resolve them in a way that will genuinely tackle the difficulties and will not merely prop up a system that will satisfy our consciences, but which will do little in a practical way.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I have listened to the speeches from all sides of the House, and I am grateful for the support. I am astonished at what it would take to convince the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I should have thought that the arguments adduced have been devastating. They have been backed up by practical examples. I shall not repeat the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford; but if the noble Baroness heard it and was not convinced that it supported the amendment, then I am amazed. I admire her resistance to facts.
All sides of the House feel that the Government have become convinced that the problem is insoluble. the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell (who was a Minister and has great experience) made a speech in Committee in which he catalogued the number of times this matter had been discussed. It has been discussed so often that a practical solution has evaded the Government and they now regard it as an insoluble problem.
Cash is the solution to the problem. All members of local authorities know how strapped they are for money and how they find it enormously difficult to fulfil their existing obligations. The Northern Ireland and foreign experience shows that if the money is available, great advances can be made in the problems (which we have all detailed) and in the appalling inhumanity caused to animals because of a lack of control. I think that the amendment is good. It enables the Government to choose how they will do it. It does not lay down exactly what will be done; it gives them plenty of scope. I beg the Government to accept the amendment. I beg them to do so with the humility for which I am well known.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, it is a very practical matter, causing enormous concern in the House and throughout the country. I hope the Minister will be able to accept the amendment.
Lord Margadale: My Lords, I hate to disagree with most people in the House, but I very much concur with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I have never spoken to her before but I agree with what she said. I wonder how many people in the Chamber this afternoon have read the next amendment. I suspect rather few. I feel that if we have a vote in favour of the amendment, many local authorities will have lots of different rules which will be muddling and they will get into great confusion before matters go very far. The next amendment, if noble Lords read it, lays down much more what is to be done, leaving matters fairly fluid at the same time. I hope very much that the noble Lord on the Front Bench in answering this amendment will say a word about the next amendment, which I think is better.
The Earl of Malmesbury: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question. I find myself in sympathy with everybody who has spoken, but what happens when a dog dies? Will the register get bigger and bigger? There must be some means of reporting that fact.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, before I reply perhaps I may take the opportunity of answering the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury. If noble Lords vote against this clause this afternoon there will not be such a register.
As the afternoon has proceeded, I feel that I belong to a smaller and smaller minority since I am a dog-owning farmer who does not agree. At the Committee stage the noble Lords, Lord Stanley and Lord Irving, argued that the most important issue concerned the identification of dogs—being able to relate a particular animal to its owner or keeper. As they have made clear today, like so many other noble Lords, they see a registration scheme or schemes as the method of securing this objective. The noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and the noble Lord, Lord Somers, also did so.
I can understand the reasons why this amendment has been tabled. I can appreciate how attractive the idea of registration must seem to those who are dedicated to the welfare and care of dogs. But I am afraid that, as I indicated when dealing with this subject in Committee, I do not think that the concept has really been thought through.
I then pointed out that the logic of the idea required that each animal be permanently and uniqely marked. I drew attention to the problems of creating and maintaining the necessary data-base. I pointed to the costs that would arise, costs for which it would be impossible to make exemptions for blind or needy owners. Above all, I asked how such a scheme could be enforced. Even the most sophisticated and expensive system would still be liable to evasion by the irresponsible, the very people who cause the problems which noble Lords are trying to address this afternoon.
The reservations which I then expressed remain. The clause before us does not address any of them. It implies that some kind of registration would be a good thing, and leaves it to the Secretary of State to solve what I believe to be the consequent insoluble problems. I do not think I am being unfair in paraphrasing it as, "We can't think of a way but we hope the Secretary of State can".
I do not think that this is a satisfactory basis for legislation and I am under no illusions about your Lordships' reaction if the Government were to table such a clause. It would give the Secretary of State quite wide and ill-defined powers. It makes no mention of costs or how they might be met. The implication is that local authorities, or whoever runs a dog registration scheme, would make a charge for registration. I think your Lordships will agree that if local authorities, or anyone else, are to be empowered to make a charge on the public, that power should be enshrined in primary legislation. The nature of the duties to be imposed, the basis on which charges should be levied cannot be left to be decided by regulation.

791
I repeat that I do understand the purpose and intentions of those who have tabled the clause. I recognise and indeed can applaud their wish to improve dog control. But the clause being considered will lead us into an expensive and ineffective blind alley. We have already made it clear that we will work with others to try to find practical improvements. But they must be practical and workable.
The difficulty is that everyone in your Lordships' House and throughout our country is distressed when they see the effects of bad and irresponsible ownership, and strays. The fact of the matter is that if seven shillings and sixpence was not a deterrent I see no reason why a higher fee should be. I urge your Lordships to reject this clause.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether there is any contradiction between the two amendments. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, is permissive. It gives an extra weapon which the Government may decide in due course to use. But the Government amendment is also helpful. Is there any objection on the Government's part to having their amendment as well as the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, if my noble friend is not going to reply, perhaps I can finish this debate, because I am sure we want a decision. I think I must answer one or two questions. First of all, there is the question of money. Yes, it will cost money. We are suggesting that it could cost £15 once and for all. That does not sound much, and the reason for that is the help which we shall receive from the RSPCA, which is horrified at the amount of money it has to spend doing the horrible task of putting down unwanted dogs.
I must turn to some of the criticisms by my noble friend Lady Blatch. As regards registration, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has said, the whole point is money. We are going to get money from this registration fee. It will be good money because it will be subsidised by privatisation, with the RSPCA helping. That is where we will get the enforcement and how we will get it all done. The reason it is not done now is that there is no money to do it, as was clearly pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Irving.
Then there is the question of bureaucracy. We dealt with this last time. I do not think my noble friend Lord Hesketh could have read what I said, in much the same way as I do not read what he says when I do not like it. But he is not as old as I am. I have children who are 20 years old. I cannot understand computers, and I am permanently made to feel small by the children when they play with or use their computers.
It is perfectly easy to do this job and to cope with all the problems which the noble Baroness mentioned, such as exempting old-age pensioners. That is perfectly easy. I am too old and ancient to understand these wretched computers, but my children can and they could teach her. I ask the noble Baroness to come along to my farm and have a lesson next week and maybe she will understand it, as I could not yesterday.
792
Finally, I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Margadale, who referred to the next amendment. In principle I like it, but it is a little like my Dutch barn after last week's storm: it is riddled with holes. Believe it or not, my Lords, the holes are finance. Just wait until the local authorities see it; just wait.
I have said enough. If noble Lords believe that nothing needs to be done over the dog problem they can follow the Government into the Not-Contents Lobby. We have produced an outline plan of how the dog problem can be solved; but much more important, we, the promoters of this amendment who represent the views of the farming and animal welfare organisations as well as the local councils, have the enthusiasm, the will and indeed the expertise to put this work into principle. That is a principle that those of us who have been soldiers may remember. The important thing is the intention, not the method. Perhaps younger noble Lords among us have not had to serve but that is the important thing in life.
If noble Lords believe that problems are no problem either to themselves, society or indeed farm animals, then they should take the Government's view and go into the Government Lobby. However if noble Lords believe like us that something should be done they should follow us into the Content Lobby and give another place time to think again. The choice is for noble Lords.
5.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 100) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 112; Not-Contents, 88.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Airedale, L.

Greenway, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gregson, L.

Amherst, E.

Grey, E.

Ardwick, L.

Halsbury, E.

Attlee, E.

Hampton, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hanworth, V.

Basnett, L.

Hayter, L.

Bathurst, E.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Birk, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jacques, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Jeger, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kearton, L.

Carter, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Killearn, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kilmarnock, L

Craigavon, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Croft, L.

Lawrence, L.

David, B.

Listowel, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Longford, E.

Diamond, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Dulverton, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Ennals, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L. [Teller.]

Ewart-Biggs, B.

McNair, L.

Ezra, L.

Mais, L.

Falkender, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Falkland, V.

Mayhew, L.

Ferrier, L.

Meston, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Minto, E.

Gainsborough, E.

Molloy, L.

Gallacher, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Galpern, L.

Monson, L.

Gisborough, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

793

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Serota, B.

Moyne, L.

Shannon, E.

Mulley, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Somers, L.

Newall, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Nicol, B.

[Teller.]

Northfield, L.

Stedman, B.

Peston, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Phillips, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Tordoff, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Underhill, L.

Rea, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Roskill, L.

White, B.

Rugby, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Seear, B.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Joseph, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kimball, L.

Arran, E.

Kitchener, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Layton, L.

Beloff, L.

Long, V.

Belstead, L.

Luke, L.

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L.

Braye, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Margadale, L.

Butterworth, L.

Marley, L.

Caithness, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Merrivale, L.

Carnock, L.

Mersey, V.

Coleraine, L.

Milverton, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Moran, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Morris, L.

Cowley, E.

Mottistone, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Munster, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Nelson, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Deedes, L.

Onslow, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Orkney, E.

Derwent, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Renton, L.

Dundee, E.

Rochdale, V.

Eccles, V.

Rodney, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Selborne, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elton, L.

Southborough, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Fortescue, E.

Gainford, L.

Teviot, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Teynham, L.

Haddington, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Havers, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hesketh, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hives, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Holderness, L.

Windlesham, L.

Hooper, B.

Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 101:
After Clause 36, insert the following new clause:
("Control of stray dogs.
.—(1) The Dogs Act 1906 shall be amended in accordance with the provisions of this section.
(2) Section 3 (seizure of stray dogs) shall be amended as follows for the purpose of conferring upon a duly authorised officer of a
794
local authority the same powers as those conferred upon a police officer by that section—

(a) in subsection (1), after the word "officer" there shall be inserted the words "or a duly authorised officer of a local authority";

(b) in subsections (2) and (4), after the word "behalf" there shall be inserted the words "or a duly authorised officer of a local authority";

(c) in subsection (6), after the word "area" where it first occurs there shall be inserted the words "and the local authority for an area" and for the words "in that area" there shall be substituted the words "by the officers of his force or, as the case may be, by the local authority's officers";

(d) in subsection (7), for the words from the beginning to the word "section" there shall be substituted the words "A dog seized under this section shall not be disposed of"; and

(e) after subsection 9 there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(9A) In this section and section 4 below, the expression "local authority" means a district council, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London or the Council of the Isles of Scilly."

(3) Section 3 shall be amended as follows for the purpose of extending the powers of seizure and detention of stray dogs to those found on land or premises other than highways or places of public resort—

(a) in subsection (1), after the word "resort" there shall be inserted the words "or on any other land or premises"; and

(b) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(1A) The powers under subsection (1) of this section shall not be exercised in relation to a dog found on any land or premises other than a highway or place of public resort unless the owner or occupier of the land or premises has consented to such exercise."

(4) At the end of section 4(1) (delivery of stray dogs to police) there shall be inserted the words "but this subsection shall not apply where the finder is a duly authorised officer of a local authority".
(5) Any enactment in any local Act which amends section 3 or confers powers on a local authority (within the meaning of that section) in relation to that section as it applies to the area of the local authority shall cease to have effect.
(6) This section shall come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.
(7) This section extends to England and Wales only.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the introduction of this amendment with the consequential Amendment No. 105 I believe shows the Government's concern about the problem of stray dogs—one of the main areas of concern expressed during the extensive debates on Clause 36 and other amendments put down for consideration. Stray dogs can be responsible for sheep worrying or attacks on postmen as well as generally creating a dirty environment. Those which have owners are more likely than not to have irresponsible owners who neither license nor care for their pets. If the owner cannot be traced then society has to deal with the strays.
At present, in England and Wales, it is mainly the police who deal with stray dogs. Under the Dogs Act 1906 they have powers to seize, detain and dispose of stray dogs. Where this happens the police normally take the dog to a local kennel from where it may be claimed if the expenses are paid. Those that are not claimed in a week are either destroyed or sold to members of the public.
I said that in England and Wales it is mainly the police who must deal with strays. In Scotland, local authorities do have similar powers to the police by virtue of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. And about 100 local authorities in England have seen fit to take the same powers by means of local Acts.

795
The Government have decided, after due consultation with the associations representing local authorities in England and Wales, to introduce this clause into the Bill in order to enable all local authorities to appoint officers with the powers to deal with stray dogs. Where they consider the local problem justifies the appointment of such officers, they will be able to provide these without needing first to pass primary legislation. The police will retain their powers to deal with stray dogs; this is necessary because there are areas such as motorways where it is only the police who are in a position to take any necessary action.
The new powers are permissive, not mandatory. It will be for authorities themselves to decide whether and to what extent they choose to use them, taking account of their own priorities and the resources available. The provision of dog warden services is, par excellence, a matter for local choice and decision. We do not think that it would be right or necessary to treat such a service any differently from the many other local services financed by the rates.
The powers which will become available to local authorities will enable them to appoint dog wardens to seize stray dogs found on highways or in public places and in other places with the landowner's permission. The local authority will be able to detain the dog until the owner has claimed it and has paid all the costs incurred in its detention. If a dog's owner can be identified, he must serve a notice on him in writing saying that the dog has been seized and that it will be liable to be sold or destroyed if not claimed within seven days. If a dog remains unclaimed after seven days it may be sold or destroyed in a manner to cause as little pain as possible.
In addition those local authorities which choose to exercise this function will be required to keep a register of stray dogs they seize containing a brief description of the dog, date of seizure and disposal details. The register will be open to members of the public for inspection at all reasonable times. Thus this simple clause will be a significant step forward in dog control measures by enabling local authorities, which are in the best position to judge local needs, to take action in parallel with the police to deal effectively with stray dogs. I beg to move.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, in view of the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Margadale, in speaking to the previous amendment in which he suggested that this amendment is a far better one than that which the House in its wisdom has accepted, I wish to make it clear that it is concerned only with stray dogs and solves none of the other problems which we have been talking about.
I and a number of animal welfare organisations are very disturbed about the amendment for several reasons. The first is that power is divided between the police and the local authority. Who is ultimately responsible? A number of animal welfare organisations will be worried that they will be left holding the baby—or, more accurately, the dog—and may well be responsible for maintaining such dogs for the statutory seven days.
Secondly, once again there is nothing in the Bill about funding. Last year it cost £1.7 million to deal with stray dogs. That came from the police fund. Can
796
the noble Lord say whether the expenses involved, whether those of local authorities, police or others, in dealing with such dogs will come out of the police fund? If not, where will the money come from? We accept that local authorities could and indeed should take the responsibility. However, the amendment is defective in the way which I have suggested.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, I should like to reinforce one point made by the noble Lord. Lord Irving. Where is the £1.7 million to come from? Can my noble friend say whether it will be funded to the local authorities? If he cannot say that today, I sympathise with him and perhaps he can tell us the answer at Third Reading.
Lord Renton: My Lords, on the point of substance, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Irving, or any other noble Lord need worry about the fact that the police are having their powers added to. Local authority officers can also do that work. There are many precedents. Law enforcement is often shared between local authorities or indeed other authorities and the police. In any event, the police have a general duty of law enforcement. With great respect, there is nothing in that point.
I wish to refer to a matter of drafting. For once, I should like to commend the draftsman. Twice in this clause we are told the purpose of the amendments. We find in subsection (2) that the section is to be amended:
"for the purpose of conferring upon a duly authorised officer of a local authority the same powers as those conferred upon a police officer by that section".
There are then sensible, brief textual amendments. The alternative would have been to repeal the whole of the previous clause and re-enact it as amended. That would have taken up a lot of space. This is an easy and accurate way of accomplishing the same thing. In subsection (3) we find the purpose of the other amendments stated. I need not read them out. For once I am happy to commend the draftsman.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for his commendation of the draftsman. As regards the police and their relationship with a local authority, they will have to keep their existing responsibilities in the case of motorways. As I pointed out, they are the only people who will be able to deal with dogs which are on motorways.
As regards funding, that will come from the rates, which, as I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Irving, receive a substantial contribution from the central government.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 102 not moved.]
Schedule 7 [Repeals]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 52, line 28, column 3, at end insert—

("In section 20, in subsection (1 ), in paragraph (a) of the definition of "development body", subparagraph (iii) and the word "and" at the end of subparagraph (ii).")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
In the Title:
[Amendment No. 104 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 105:
Line 12, after ("licences") insert ("and stray dogs").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn for five minutes.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 5.47 p.m. to 5.52 p.m.]

Licensing Bill
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, one thing that one learns about your Lordships' House is that nothing is predictable—either the results of votes on amendments or the rate at which amendments are dealt with. I apologise for the fact that I was not in my place at the time that I should have been. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Perhaps I could explain to your Lordships the context in which the provisions of the Bill are framed. Three considerations lie behind the Bill. The first is that the habits, conventions and customs of society change with time, and it is only right and proper that Parliament should periodically up-date statutes in order to conform with such changes.
Licensing hours are overdue for reform. The enforced closing of pubs in the afternoon dates back to the First World War when it was introduced in order to prevent munitions workers getting drunk and thereby jeopardising the war effort. But this is an explanation which, frankly, does not wash today. It is neither convincing nor satisfying for a group of frustrated tourists to be told that they cannot get a glass of beer at 3.15 in the afternoon, because 70 years ago some munitions workers might have got tight, and we might have lost the war. It makes us all look rather stupid.
Pubs are a great British tradition. They are not merely places to drink. They are meeting places for friends. They are debating chambers for rich and poor alike. They are social centres for small communities and they are refuges for weary travellers and tourists who seek refreshment.
Dr. Johnson once said:
"There is no private house in which people can enjoy themselves so well as in a capital tavern".
I doubt that he would recognise many of today's taverns but that is largely because they have evolved to meet the changing demands of society whilst maintaining the social atmosphere to which Dr. Johnson was doubtless alluding.
798
Pubs today are used by businessmen who seek a sandwich and a beer for lunch. One wonders why they should not be able to lunch at 3.30 in the same way that they can at 1.30. In the "olden days", only women of somewhat questionable virtue were to be found in pubs. But today respectable women all over the country are to be found in pubs. They visit them to relax in the middle of their day's shopping. And, why should that not be in the afternoon? The British pub is a great tourist attraction. One can even find them on the Costa Brava—if one goes to that sort of place—attracting the British tourists to Spain. Pubs have become a familiar, welcome, and peculiarly British part of life, renowned and remembered for what they are and for what they do when the doors are open and not when the doors are shut.
The second consideration, though, is the recognition that the misuse of alcohol is a serious problem with long-term consequences for individuals and society. Excessive drinking has always been regarded as a problem, but it is only in recent years that the addictive nature of alcohol and the longer term consequences of alcohol misuse have been widely appreciated.
It is also only in recent years that governments themselves have accepted a responsibility for preventing the effects of misuse, other than avoiding drunkenness as such. We have laws governing drinking and driving and we accept a proper—though I hope not a too paternalistic— duty to help to protect people from themselves.
The main question that we have to ask ourselves is whether the changes in the licensing hours which are proposed in this Bill will have any significant effect on alcohol misuse. Our conclusions are that they will not.
Since 1976 pubs in Scotland have been able to apply to open 24 hours a day. There has been no evidence to indicate that there are, as a result, more problems for society or increased health problems. It is difficult to believe that a person who wishes or needs to drink in the afternoons will be seriously deterred by the licensing hours at present. If he is so inclined, he can happily go down to the off-licence and indulge himself at home to his heart's content—or to its distress. If we wish to prevent or cure misuse, the use of the licensing hours is not the answer.
The third consideration that we have in mind is that we believe that people should have freedom of choice, unless there are over-riding reasons to prevent it for the benefit of society at large. In the early 1970s a committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Erroll of Hale recommended far more sweeping proposals for reform, including opening hours of 10 a.m. to 12 midnight. That was 18 years ago. This Bill is a tortoise by comparison.
We believe that there are no over-riding reasons to prevent someone having a drink at 4 p.m. if he or she so wishes. Some will prefer to drink at 1 p.m. or at 7 p.m. But there are perhaps few of us who have not sought a drink at 4 o'clock in the afternoon on holiday or on a hot day. Why should the law not allow that?
I have taken the liberty of dwelling at some length on the context in which the Bill has been framed, because it is a Bill which needs to be seen in the light of the changed circumstances of today. Its main

799
provision will be to allow licensed premises to open from 11 a.m. to 11 p.m., thereby removing the present restriction on afternoon opening.
This relaxation in Clause 1 will apply to public houses, hotels, wine bars and other licensed premises (such as theatres), as well as to registered private members' clubs. There is no requirement to open for longer hours if the landlord or owner does not so wish. The provision merely removes the obligation to close. The relaxation will not apply on Sundays, Christmas Day and Good Friday. The hours of opening on those days will remain the same as at present.
We recognise that there are many people who would like to see the restrictions on Sunday opening removed; but we think, on balance, that would not find favour. People who wish to eat out in a restaurant, may also drink there on Sunday afternoons. For those who wish only a drink, I doubt if 2 p.m. closing is so great a restriction. The new provisions will not affect the existing provisions for extensions of hours on a regular or occasional basis but the opportunity has been taken to correct some anomalies. I believe that 11 p.m. is a reasonable compromise on weekdays between the views of those who wish to drink late in the evenings and those who fear disturbance of their rest as a result.
The present law provides for a 10-minute drinking-up time at the end of any period of permitted hours. This period has proved difficult to enforce and it can give rise to some unseemly confrontations between licensees and customers who are unwilling to leave. Clause 2 of the Bill, which was added at Committee stage in another place, extends the drinking-up period in all premises to 20 minutes. By allowing customers to finish their drinks at a more leisurely pace, we hope landlords will find it easier to clear their premises in a relaxed and orderly fashion.
Clause 3 is a safety net provision. We hope that it will be unnecessary. It will enable the police and local residents to apply to the licensing justices, or to the magistrates' court in the case of a registered club, for what is termed a restriction order. The effect of such an order—which may be made if premises give rise to problems of annoyance, disturbance or disorderly conduct—is to require those premises to close for all or part of the afternoon break.
A number of the remaining clauses are concerned with the correction of anomalies and with some streamlining changes to the existing licensing law. They are essentially procedural changes and I hope not controversial. I thought that it might be convenient to your Lordships if I were not to weary the House with the details of them but I shall be happy to answer any points on those to which you may wish to refer.
I should though refer to Clauses 13, 14 and 15, which are relatively recent additions to the Bill and which relate specifically to the problems of under-age drinking. First, I should put them in context. There is increasing concern about young people's drinking habits, the part which alcohol plays in crime and the apparent ease with which under 18 year-olds are able to purchase alcohol. That is why a working group was established by the Home Office Standing Conference on Crime Prevention to look specifically at those issues. I should like to pay tribute to the
800
noble Baroness, Lady Masham, who as chairman of the working group so ably steered the group, which presented such a comprehensive report through its detailed considerations.
The report of the noble Baroness's working group was considered in detail at the recent meeting of the Interdepartmental Ministerial Group on Alcohol Misuse. This ministerial group, under the chairmanship of my right honourable friend the Lord President of the Council, was established in order to review and develop the Government's strategy for combating the misuse of alcohol and to oversee its implementation.
The problems of alcohol needed a more specific approach than the pretty blunt tool of licensing hours. It is that approach to which the ministerial group is addressing itself. At its first meeting the group decided that young people and their use of alcohol should be the first priority of attention, and the programme of measures, which was agreed by the ministerial group, included amendments to the Licensing Bill which implement the recommendations of the noble Baroness's report relating to the laws on under-age drinking. Those are found in Clauses 13 to 15 of the Bill. Because they are relatively recent additions, it may be helpful if I offer some explanation of their purpose and effect.
Clause 13 amends the Licensing Act 1964 to make it an offence for a person to sell alcohol to a minor on on- or off-licensed premises. As the law now stands, the prosecution needs to prove that the licensee or his staff "knowingly" sold alcohol to a young person. That is a very difficult test to sustain and it is all too easy for a licensee to claim that he did not know the age of a customer. It may be very difficult for a responsible licensee, who is anxious to observe the law, to assess with any degree of accuracy a young person's age. One does not need to be a licensee to have the same difficulty. Many young people not only look much older than their years but they often dress and behave in a way which makes them appear to be older and sometimes this is done deliberately to deceive the licensee.
In view of that, we have provided a new defence, which is in the Scottish licensing law and which will allow the person charged to prove that he exercised all due diligence to discover this customer's age or that he had no reason to suspect that the person was under 18. I believe that this clause, together with an increase in the maximum penalty on conviction to a level 3 fine, which is £400, will help strengthen the law in that particular area. We hope too that it will instil a greater sense of responsibility and will highlight the widespread public concern about the harmful effects of under-age drinking.
Clause 14 introduces new controls over the sale of alcohol in wholesale quantities on wholesale premises. Because such transactions are not subject to the controls in the Licensing Act, it is not unlawful for sales to be made to customers under the age of 18. The Working Group on Young People and Alcohol highlighted that anomaly, which Clause 14 seeks to correct. It will make it an offence to sell alcohol to a person who is under 18, subject to the same defence available to a licensee provided in Clause 13, and to fail to supervise a sale by a person under 18. The

801
young person who is under age and who buys or attempts to buy alcohol will be committing an offence.
It was also a recommendation of the noble Baroness's working group that the law should stipulate that all sales of alcohol should be made by or should be effectively supervised by people who are over the age of 18. At present no one who is under the age of 18 may be employed in a bar or licensed premises. We are not persuaded that a similar prohibition should apply to all licensed premises since that could seriously affect job opportunities. We accept, however, the need for direct supervision of young people who sell alcohol from off-licensed outlets, whether supermarkets, corner shops or the self-contained off-licence. This will be achieved by Clause 15.
I hope that with that explanation your Lordships will agree to the Second Reading of this Bill, which seeks to reflect the changes in lifestyles, in social habits and conventions. For the majority of the population that means removing outdated and illogical restrictions on their freedom to choose when and where to drink socially outside the home. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Earl Ferrers.)
6.7 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his clear presentation and also for giving the reasons behind this Bill to extend our licensing laws. He made clear the changes in our way of life that he felt necessitated the changes now proposed. Before I say anything more, let me say that the views I shall be putting forward in this debate are my own. I do not speak on behalf of my noble friends, who will no doubt be presenting different arguments of their own.
This is by no means the first time I have spoken on this subject in the House. I remember in particular a debate initiated by the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, when the question of extending opening hours was discussed. I took the view then, as I do now, that certain anomalies exist in our licensing laws in our present-day life. In the noble Viscount's debate, I went to some length to stress the importance in which the public house is held in the lives of small communities, in villages and so on. I acknowledged also the pleasure that they give people and how vital it is that the services public houses render should be what their users want. I agree that the present restrictions on afternoon opening are an oddity and may well inconvenience a growing number of people.
I have on previous occasions, however, spoken also of the need to improve the service given by pubs whereby whole families could together enjoy visits to public houses. I even suggested that the environment of a public house should be changed to such a degree as to enable children to be present without any harm being done to them. I agree that there are now many pubs offering a variety of food and non-alcoholic drinks that are treated as places for families to visit rather than merely for hard drinking. However, I very much doubt whether this spirit has permeated public houses in all areas. I fear that in some of the
802
harsher inner city areas one would still find that the habit of hard drinking permeates the pubs. This factor should be borne in mind.
I welcome the view from the tourist office that there will be a great number of additional jobs. Subsequent improvements will be made to the service in pubs with the relaxation of the hours.
This leads me to my second point. If there are more jobs then presumably there will also be more drinking. Surely one follows on from the other. On present concessions with regard to the question of alcoholism, I believe that there is a worry that this Bill does not contain the necessary safeguards to protect the interests of society as a whole with the level of alcohol abuse as high as it is at present. These concerns are different from fundamental matters such as disorderly conduct in an individual public house that disadvantages the neighbourhood. I know that has been dealt with in Clause 3 of the Bill.
The safeguards to which I refer are those needed to reduce the amount of alcohol-related crime, the amount of drunken driving, and the present level of people in hospital with drink-related illnesses. The facts of alcohol abuse clearly demonstrate this need. For example, 45 per cent. of all violent crimes in Britain are alcohol-related. Published figures reveal that in one-third of cases of child abuse there is an alcohol-related factor. This is a time when child abuse quite rightly is a major concern. We should take note of that chilling statistic.
Every year there are between 1,400 and 1,500 road deaths caused by some form of alcohol abuse. Between 8 million and 14 million working days each year are lost through absenteeism caused by drunkenness. It is important to remember that behind every statistic on alcohol lie devasted families, ruined health and wasted lives. Above all, alchohol abuse affects the innocent, the victims of drunk-driving accidents, the victims of assault, and the families that have to suffer the effects of abuse on someone close to them.
Who will benefit from afternoon drinking? They fall largely into two categories. The first is tourists and those people who are on holiday. That is therefore to the good. However, as the extension does not cover Sundays, those who are employed will not benefit. This makes me question the Government's intention.
The noble Earl has explained why he feels that Sunday opening is not necessary but I wonder why this group of working people should be so unfairly left out. On Sundays, working people may have a little time on their hands. They may like to go for a walk late in the morning, taking their dogs with them. When they finally reach the pub they will find that they will be unable to have a drink with their sandwiches. I am not sure that I agree with the explanation that the noble Earl has given on why he has not included Sunday in this extension.
The second group to benefit on weekdays is the unemployed and the young. It is important to draw special attention to those two categories, especially where they merge. The combination of youth unemployment, inner city conditions, and pubs open all day could be extremely dangerous and I feel it needs very careful thought.

803
This brings me to one of the more serious inadequacies of this Bill in Clauses 13, 14 and 15. I am not sure that I share the confidence of the noble Earl that the safeguards on juvenile drinking are covered in these clauses. Perhaps I may give some of the more sombre statistics about juvenile drinking to show how it is increasing at great speed.
From their own sponsored research evidence, the Government know that one in five 15 year-old boys and one in ten 15 year-old girls drink above the recommended safe health limits. The Home Office knows that in 1985 for the first time this century a 16 year-old male ran a greater risk of appearing before the courts for a drunkenness offence than a male aged between 30 and 60. The Department of Health knows that, in 1984, 2 per cent. of 3,000 patients discharged from detoxification units in the north-east London regional health authority area were under 15 years old. In some district health authorities the figure was as high as 5 per cent. Lastly, one in every four drunkenness offences is committed by 16 to 24 year-olds and one in 14 by children under the legal age. Therefore the number of young people who commit drunkenness offences is increasing.
Where do these underage drinkers obtain their drink? The Minister fairly said that it is indeed very often in pubs. The OPCS report on adolescent drunking, commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Security and published in December 1986, found that almost half of the 15 year-olds who drink obtained it in pubs. By the time they were 17 it was the vast majority of them. Even a sizeable majority of 13 year-olds bought their drink in pubs. The report states:
"Most adolescents who buy alcohol appear to buy it unchecked. More than half of those who say that they usually buy alcohol in pubs or clubs say they have never been refused service and more than two-thirds who have been refused say it happened to them only once".
Surely the Government's first priority in the Licensing Bill should have been to deal with this problem in a stronger way than I believe they have in this Bill.
During the Committee stage of this Bill in another place my right honourable friends tried to persuade the Government to bring in these necessary safeguards. The noble Earl has explained the present position. In order to prosecute, the police must prove that sales were made knowingly to underage clients by license holders. Publicans therefore did not ask young people how old they were because then they would have known and could have been prosecuted.
My right honourable friends tried to have the word "knowingly" removed, making sales to minors an absolute offence but allowing a defence if charged. To support them in their attempt they had the recommendation of the Home Office working group chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that the offence of selling alcohol to those under age should be made absolute in order to allow better enforcement.
This is not exactly what happened. Although the Government agreed to this at Committee Stage, they changed their minds before Report stage. A final decision was to drop the word "knowingly" but to insert a defence; namely, that the person charged had no reason to suspect that the person was under 18. Surely that will be as difficult to prove as
804
"knowingly" has been. Contrary to the Government's assurances, the fact that this is the word enshrined in the Scottish Licensing Act 1976 does not mean that it will be effective in dealing with the problems in England and Wales, because there is no evidence to show that this provision has alleviated the problem in Scotland. In the light of that we must question seriously whether the Government have dealt appropriately with under-age drinking and whether proposed changes will effect a change to enable the police and the courts to deal with a serious abuse of the law and with the dreadful effects on the health of young people in this country.
I should like to conclude by saying that my criticism of the Bill is not its content but its timing. I suggest that we are not quite ready for it. I further suggest that it is putting the cart before the horse to have first a Bill extending licensing hours and later the Wakeham Report to review and develop the Government's strategy for combating the misuse of alcohol. I also suggest that the recommendations made in the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, should be considered more seriously. We all accept the problem of young drinkers and share in the deep anxiety. I believe that if we introduce a Bill about the availability of alcohol, we should look also at the control of the sale of alcohol in supermarkets because surely that is one of the problems. We should also take note of the fact that, in order to curb alcoholism, other countries are going to great lengths. France is banning the TV advertising of alcohol because it is concerned at the fact that alcoholism in that country is so great.
Although, as the noble Earl said, the Bill fits in with the way of life in this country in having public houses open in the afternoon, there is a major problem in the rise of alcoholism, especially among young people. In the light of that fact many people may think that the Bill is premature. I believe that a great deal more educating must be done. More should be done to promote services for those with alcohol problems. We need to look more closely at the whole drink culture. I find it difficult to understand that if in this country someone refuses a drink he is treated as a spoilsport and as someone who is spoiling the party for everyone else. If there is an alcoholic in the family there is often an inhibited attitude towards it and it is difficult for people to accept that it exists. They would rather push the problem under the carpet in the same way as the Anglo-Saxon refuses to face up to certain factors such as death.
I welcome the Bill for what it stands for but I maintain my criticism that it is premature. It is strange that the Government have put a committee to work on the problem of alcoholism but that before knowing the result they have made a fundamental change in the licensing laws of this country.
6.23 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, over the past three or four years we have debated the subject of licensing laws on a number of occasions. A number of those debates have been introduced to your Lordships' House by the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery. I am grateful to him for doing so because we have had the opportunity of considering

805
some of the curious characteristics of drinking in this country. It is against that background that the Government's Licensing Bill must be seen.
I declare the fact that I am president of an organisation known as Keep Alcohol Safeguards. It is supported by the churches, the medical profession and one of the government financed bodies involved with alcohol abuse. The title of the body may appear to indicate that it is against alcohol and against changes in the licensing laws. It is not; it agrees with a great deal of what has been said by the Minister.
There is nothing special about controlling the hours in which people drink as a way of dealing with alcohol abuse. If there were we should have less alcohol abuse than we have today. The harm that is done today is considerable and the noble Baroness has given the House a good picture of it. The road deaths are known to many; there are approximately 1,500 a year. Approximately 500 deaths a week are directly related to alcohol abuse and that is far in excess of deaths from drug abuse. Approximately 14 million working days are lost each year. In terms of hard cash, approximately £1.6 billion per annum is lost to industry as a result of alcohol abuse. That is shown in absenteeism, early death and so forth. There are also sexual offences and other alcohol-related crimes, to which the noble Baroness referred.
It is encouraging to note that over the past four years the background has changed to the extent that the amount of consumption appears to have reached a plateau. Before 1979 the consumption of alcohol per capita was approximately 5.4 litres of pure alcohol a year. If one uses one's imagination one can see that that is an enormous amount of alcohol. Since 1979 that figure has risen to approximately nine-and a-half litres of alcohol a year. That is a frightening thought but it is encouraging to know that the figure has flattened out, indicating some changes in attitude in our society towards the dangers of alcohol and showing a more responsible attitude.
However, I believe that the theme of many of the speeches, and much of the opposition and the momentum behind the amendments to the Bill, will be the fact that the plateau does not apply to the drinking habits of young people. Today approximately £300 million a year is spent on drink by people between the age of 15 to 20. That is a huge amount of money and it is not surprising therefore that the drinks industry directs its advertising and markets its products towards that enormous group of customers. That is the problem with which we must deal.
How do we change the attitude towards drink in this country? I do not think that a good example has been set to young people by their parents and the older age groups. I believe that up till now the attitude towards alcohol in this country is one of denial. It has been characterised perhaps by a family member developing a drink problem through increasing social drinking, by someone developing an early addiction or by a family member becoming wild and intoxicated at parites or football matches. There is a curious characteristic of denial about the whole area of drinking.
It is interesting to note that, as reported to me by psychiatrists and voluntary organisations, most
806
problems are reported not by the individual but by a close member of the family who has become so exasperated and troubled. The family has been seen to be seriously affected and after many months or years they have seen an expert and asked what they should do. The denial goes into the workplace and when an employee develops a drink problem the employer tends to say, "Poor old George, he has been doing a good job. We all have a bit too much to drink and maybe he will snap out of it". Of course he does not snap out of it. In most cases he gets worse until he becomes a hospital case and before that a liability to his company.
This denial of the problem seems to me to run all through society even to the level of government. In their approach to the change in the law I do not believe that they have given enough credence to the very serious problems that exist among young people with alcohol abuse. Although I do not object to the purposes of the Bill, I believe it is too early to introduce it. We are not sufficiently well prepared for it. I should have preferred the Government to wait for the findings of the Wakeham Committee. It has already produced some interesting, constructive and helpful ideas on the way in which alcohol abuse can be combated.
A great deal more work has to be done and a great deal more money has to be spent. If I can put it in rather graphic terms, the amount of money which comes to the Exchequer is £200 per minute from alcohol revenue at the level of duty which applies at the moment. Only 10p of that is spent on work to combat alcohol abuse. I believe it was the noble Baroness who said a moment ago as regards detoxification centres that in certain parts of the country there are many young people who are in a desperate state with organs which are already affected by alcohol. They are in desperate need of proper treatment but they are having to wait for as long as 15 to 20 weeks before they can be admitted to treatment. All that can be done with a young person in that condition is to give him more drink, because if he is left to withdraw by himself the consequences can be sometimes disastrous. There is a need for the Government to address themselves with more imagination to the whole question of young people and drink and the amount of money which has to be spent and where it is to be spent.
I ask the Minister whether the Government have a long-term strategy of introducing ways in which creative and effective help can be given to people, which should include young people and those unfortunate people—it is always about the same percentage in every society—who have a real addiction which is viewed as an illness. Recent research has shown that there is an enzyme peculiarity in the make-up of many alcoholics so they have an in-built propensity to this kind of addiction.
When I hear the spokesmen for the Government talk about this area of our life they often fail to distinguish between addiction and intoxication. In this country alcohol addiction is probably at no greater level than that of some of our neighbouring countries and possibly somewhat less. However, it is still a great harm in our society.
I am sure that all your Lordships will have had experiences at some time or another, whether

807
travelling by boat or on a train or attending a sporting event, of seeing the quite remarkable way in which the British express themselves, particularly young people, when under the influence of drink. This is reflected in the most extraordinary behaviour. Many of your Lordships may have seen on television the other evening the scenes at a boxing match when disorder broke out. Young people were actually seen on camera running about with packs of lager.
Incidentally, nowadays young people tend to drink stronger and stronger drinks. Despite the controls on advertising and the safeguards which have been imposed many manufacturers sail close to the wind. They advertise strong drinks with sometimes double the amount of alcohol; for example, ciders and special brew lagers. These have 8 per cent. alcohol or slightly more. A policeman told me that in the London area this is one of the major problems they have in managing youth disorder at football matches. This kind of drink makes people absolutely out of control if taken in excess. It is an extreme problem in terms of police management.
If I may say a little about advertising, I do not believe that it is something that we shall dwell upon when amendments are put forward. There may be amendments which deal with advertising. I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has already dealt with this wonderfully in her Home Office report. Some of the advertising which is directed at young people is very curious. I have in front of me a most astonishing picture, which is a copy of an advertisement for a brand of long life lager. The inducement to buy the lager is accompanied by an offer of a cassette which features a well-known pop group. It has a picture of a man or a boy in a state of exuberant abandon. The caption says:
"When you send off six ring pulls for the free Long Life Alive cassette … featuring eight hits … you'll be dancing too".
At the bottom of the advertisement it says,
"You'll be doing the same after six cans of Long Life".
It seems a most extraordinary invitation to people to go completely berserk.
Some of the matters which one sees in advertisements are quite extraordinary. I should like to know from the Minister what the reaction of the Government is to this trend where there are headlines on advertisements which say, "Hullo young drinkers" or "capture children and parents will follow". I believe there is a need for concern, and the concern will be for what follows this Bill in terms of response and creative action to get to grips with the problem of alcohol. We are seen as a nation of boozers, particularly in some neighbouring countries which have had the unhappy experience of receiving our football fans to their shores.
There is an encouraging trend and I should like the Minister to comment upon it. I have with me the current edition of Marketing Week which informs us that low alcohol and non-alcohol beers have now reached a market level of £50 million. I believe this to be encouraging because it tends to show that there is a breaking down of the rather disturbing macho attitudes of young people who believe it is necessary to drink, to drink a lot and to drink strong in order to appear a lady-killer or whatever other kind of killer you want to be. At the end of the leader in this
808
week's edition of Marketing Week it says this, and I believe it to be absolutely right:
"The thing now is to see if the brewers, prompted by likely changes in licensing hours and changing social attitudes"—
I am interested to note that they observe the social attitudes because this is the area upon which we need to concentrate—
— "can build on the changes in those attitudes and convert their pubs from smoke-filled drinking dens for adults only to all-day eating and drinking establishments that can be enjoyed by the whole population".
That echoes what the noble Baroness was saying just a moment ago.
I should like to see a strengthening of law enforcement particularly where under-age drinking is concerned. I should also like to see alcohol sales in supermarkets and off-licences rigorously controlled. I agree with what the Minister has said about young people serving drinks and the problem of creating unemployment. The situation seems to me to be asbsurd and I wonder whether other noble Lords agree. A young person is not allowed to buy a drink, yet can serve one. That is very curious. Recently several cases have been reported to me of very young people being in no position whatever to refuse another young person who wants to buy a drink. They would not have the authority to stop him. This is an area in which I should like to see a little more hard thinking.
My final point is that ideally I should like to see a postponement of the effectiveness of the Bill, if it goes on to the statute book, until the Wakeham Committee has completed its full report. Having said that, I can tell the Minister that I am not against the Bill. I agree with much of what he said but I should like to have assurances that safeguards will be tightened up, that law enforcement will be tightened up and that the Government will be fully behind new drives to make young people more aware of the harm that alcohol can cause.
6.40 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ely: My Lords, I listened with great respect to the noble Baroness and to the noble Viscount who spoke from such informed concern and I look forward to having my understanding further increased by the speeches of other noble Lords this evening.
I make it clear at once that I do not rise to speak against the Bill on Second Reading. Rather, I seek briefly, if I may, to avoid a misunderstanding to which supporters of the Bill might find themselves exposed and to emphasise what I believe needs emphasising positively in the present situation.
If I have an unease about the Bill, it is that those who support it might be taken wrongly in one important respect. To be involved in an extension of the hours in which alcohol is available could invite the criticism of complacency in the face of mounting anxiety about the results of misuse of alcohol which we see all about us; so much so that, as the noble Baroness eloquently said, this insidious thing is part of the climate of life. Its effects are evident in the threat to life and property, in the incidence of alcohol-induced illness, accidents or violence and, especially grievously, as already emphasised, in the reducing of the lives of those caught in its toils—particularly sadly, the young.

809
All that I understand about Her Majesty's Government leads me to believe that they are not complacent. I think in particular of the working group of the noble Baroness and what we have heard from the Minister of the ministerial group on alcohol misuse— the Wakeham Committee. From that, it is clear that the Government are much concerned to find ways to address the problem. To my mind, that is the point; it is the wider front that needs to be addressed.
I may be right or I may be wrong in taking the matter of licensing hours and when "time" will be called a little bit in its stride, as I do. However, I do so in the face of the major and urgent need for the positive aspects to be addressed. It comes down to the education of the social conscience. The influence of government and the use of public resources are vital together with encouragement of personal responsibility based on proper information. Ultimately, it rests with the individual— but always remembering our responsibility for each other.
It may interest noble Lords to learn that the Church of England's board for social responsibility has given this matter urgent attention and is about to publish what I believe will be a constructive and clear statement on alcohol misuse. This, it is hoped, will be useful in seeking to bring home to people the need for wisdom, discipline and, very importantly, a readiness to look for help in the ordering of their lives. But let us encourage the Government in their concern to tackle the matter with energy, determination and, using a word, if I may, from the speech of the noble Viscount, with imagination.
With this education dimension must go the necessary vigilance to protect the young. There are provisions in the Bill with regard to persons under the age of 18. We must, by the rigorous enforcement of rules, help society to an awareness of its responsibilities, particularly to the young, in this regard. We have been assured that the Government are aware of that.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I should like to give a general welcome to the Bill. I quarrel perhaps with the noble Baroness opposite and with the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, who both suggested that this is perhaps the wrong time. Those who have very sensitive feelings about this matter will always find a Bill of this nature is coming before Parliament at the wrong time. In looking back at the effect and the held-out promise of the Erroll Report some 14 years ago one sees that very little has happened since.
I should like to ask this question of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs: exactly who is to represent to your Lordships tonight the view on this Bill of the official Opposition? The noble Baroness made it clear that she was speaking for herself and for herself alone. We have had no expression of direction from the official Opposition. It would be useful to know exactly where they stand.
I do not want to take up too much time this evening, but I should like to refer immediately to Clause 1— that is, the clause amending the permitted opening hours. There is no doubt that eating habits in public houses have markedly changed in recent
810
years; though I recognise the sandwich and beer lunch. It is true that many pubs now offer a much wider menu, and many offer three-course luncheons. It seems to me that we not only need to meet the needs of tourists to eat and drink for longer hours but also perhaps the family on a Sunday. I note that in consideration of the permitted opening hours there was no change in the Sunday opening hours when the Bill was in another place. Indeed, I think the other place recognised the omission because my attention has been drawn to the fact that there is an Early Day Motion tabled on this very subject.
It is not unreasonable that Sunday hours should be extended perhaps to three or four o'clock in the afternoon so that a family, visitors, or whoever it may be, can enjoy a drink with a meal later on that day. It would be only those pubs with I believe a supper licence that could serve drinks. It would also bring pubs more into line with restaurants and with the provisions of the restaurant meals act which was piloted through your Lordships' House by my noble friend Lord Montgomery only a short while ago.
I should like to turn to Clause 30. I happen to believe that this clause which applies the due diligence test is really right. I am glad that the word "knowingly" was taken out in another place.
I can understand the concern expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. I wonder whether one might consider inserting into this Bill— or perhaps in another Bill, although it would be more appropriate in this Bill—a fit and proper test of the licensee to be applied by the justices. This would raise the profile of the responsibility of the licensee with regard to the sale of liquor to underage people.
I should like to mention also the sale of alcohol through off-licences or supermarkets. Your Lordships will probably recall that we had a long debate on the matter some years ago. I took the view then (as I do now) that there are anomalies. It is comparatively easy not only for the young but for anyone to buy alcohol in a supermarket perhaps without the social restraints that might apply when buying from off-sales in a pub. I attach no criticism to the supermarkets, which I believe implement the law as it stands diligently. In some supermarkets there are separate places, a kind of enclosure, but in many there are not. The supermarkets ensure that a cashier on a check-out, if a person is under age, stops the check-out until a supervisor arrives. I believe that supermarkets are doing all that they are now asked to do, and doing it reasonably well. I question whether we ask enough of them.
Finally, I move away from matters in the Bill. The noble Baroness used the term "drink culture". The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, used the word "appetising". The noble Baroness said that one might be seen to be the odd-ball if one did not have a drink. I do not believe that that is so any more than I believe that a guest in my private house is thought to be odd by my wife or by me when he or she says, "No, I won't have anything else to drink, I'm driving"; or, "Have you a soft drink?". Most responsible hosts, whether one is in a public or a private place, will say, "It's entirely up to you. It's over there, do help yourself". I do not believe that we should require of the private host anything more than due diligence, that which a proper and responsible host should apply in any event.

811
I was glad to hear what the right reverend Prelate had to say. He said he felt that opening hours, Sundays and drinking up time was one thing, but he saw the matter in a much wider context. I look forward to reading the report of the Churches.
I shall listen later with interest to how the Government concluded that 20 minutes was a proper drinking-up period. I can see more of a problem in future than there is now. In 10 minutes one can get through so much drink. That gives something like 16 minutes from time is called. On the one hand, before time, there are six minutes, then, after time is called, there is 20 minutes' drinking up time. A lot of booze will be bought and, in that last frantic 25/26 minutes, it will all go down. It reminds me very much of the Australian rush at 6 p.m. some years ago before the Australian licensing laws were altered. After consideration and advice, I may wish to table an amendment to reverse that position. However, we shall have the opportunity to discuss it. Meanwhile I am happy to give Second Reading of the Bill my wholehearted support.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I have very little to offer in the debate except an opinion. It is a combination of opinions that I suppose in the end prevails in a democracy.
First, I apologise to the House and to the Minister for being absent during his introductory speech and part of the speech of my noble friend. I was occupied upstairs in a Committee and was unable to arrive in time.
I have the strongest reservations about the Bill. I do not think that it is called for at present. There is a great deal of concern about alcoholic indulgence, excesses, abuse, drunkenness, violence and crime. I think that we have to take note of that concern. We have to face the fact that alcohol is an addiction. It is part of the drug category of human consumption. This is the evil part about it.
In many cases the consumption of alcohol is a craving for its addictive influences and not to quench a thirst, for example, so we have to watch this. Anything that people get hooked on we have to beware of. We all see signs of excess drinking and the silly way in which many young people in present circumstances are spending their money unwisely. Moreover, I find that there is deep resentment against the seductive persuasions of television advertising for alcoholic drink. That is the wrong message to give.
I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, from his experience at the Department of Transport, had nothing critical to say about drink and driving. We are remarkably timid about that. We go running scared in the face of the harder drugs that we do not understand and deeply fear. We erect all the apparatus of police surveillance, body searches, enforcing entry into premises and arrest on suspicion. The mighty force of suspicion, arrest and punishment is brought against the drugs that we fear most and do not like. Alcohol and tobacco, however, we are very used to. There are huge social and economic interests at the back of them. There is much social habit at the back of them. We see them go on notwithstanding the harm that they are doing. This is the atmosphere in which we have to consider the Bill.
812
I come now to drink and driving. I was in the Government 20 years ago when we were considering the matter. A Labour Cabinet, after a long and close discussion of the matter, decided in favour of the random test. After the election of 1966 the Minister of Transport changed and a new Minister had larger ambitions on legislation in that field. There were some murmurings in the party. We were also told that the motoring organisations were against it. There is nothing more undemocratic than the motoring organisations. Why one should feel that they are representing any point of view I have never understood.
However, random testing was abandoned and we settled in favour of what we now have, which is called the specific test. After 20 years we have not come to grips with drinking and driving. We have employed all kinds of promotional exercises, television programmes, police drives and so on but we have not taken it seriously enough even yet. I do not say that that would necessarily have been restrained by shorter drinking hours. One can never be sure. One can assume that with the abolition of the afternoon break for the opening of licensed premises there will be a greater temptation for people on the road to drink and drive. That is undesirable.
I regard the afternoon break as the symbol of the Bill and of the attitude behind it. It rather suggests that, notwithstanding all that has been said about drinking and driving and alcohol on the football terraces, which is another serious problem, the problem is not too serious. This is the moment to pause. There is the Wakeham Committee on Alcohol Abuse. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, who is to follow me was chairman of a committee on drinking among young people. I am sure that the House will listen closely to whatever she may have to say. These factors accumulate to show that we are concerned about alcohol consumption and its effect socially, in the family and so on. The cost is enormous in many directions. We ought to be regarding it as one of the aspects of social life which requires restraint and curtailment. If used excessively it can become dangerous.
If I may humbly say so, this point of view can be held and is held by a large number of people. The Minister probably told us—and I apologise to him if he did but I did not hear him—who is asking for this change. Is it the tourist trade? We hear about the grumbles of tourists who say what a miserable lot we are because they cannot get a drink in the middle of the afternoon. I ask, who are tourists? They are visitors; not an army of occupation. They have to put up with some of our little habits, queer as they may be. We have to do that when we visit them. I do not think that we should allow tourism to govern our actions in this regard.
Who is barking for the afternoon rest to be abolished? What do people want to do with it? Are those who are urging it telling us that it will not lead to greater consumption and that consumption will merely be more widely spread? Where is the proof of all that? Why open for a longer period if it is not for greater consumption? Have the economics of the industry gone barmy with pubs intending to open for no reward and no better trade? I cannot understand that for a moment.

813
Before I become too worked up with my opinion I think I shall let my point of view rest with your Lordships. If there is an answer to what I have been saying I hope to hear it in the rest of the debate. Meanwhile, my reservations remain very strong and I hope that we shall examine the Bill closely in Committee to see whether it is worth while going on with it.
7.5 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl the Minister for his kind words about my committee and report. Alcohol abuse is a universal human problem. Alcoholism seems to be the biggest factor in family break-up. I have received many letters of concern about the Licensing Bill, mainly from women. We have seen that under-age drinking has become a major problem. The press has highlighted some of the wild parties and uncontrolled drinking of young people under 18. I witnessed young people under the age of 16 who were let into York racecourse free. They took over a bar and had a glorified cocktail party.
Scotland has endlessly been given as a success story in discussing the Bill; it has had more liberal opening hours for some time. There is also tougher policing. Not being able to drink on the way to, and back home from football matches has paid off. As mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, many people were greatly shocked recently by appalling behaviour at a boxing match in Stafford. It was noticeable, watching on television, that a great deal of drinking was going one. Should these places allow alcohol? Why is it that British people cannot handle sport and alcohol? Those who lose control of themselves spoil an event for those who want to enjoy it.
Scotland has problems, too, At a recent meeting I was told by a consultant psychiatrist that 80 per cent. of people admitted to hospital through casualty departments in Scotland were over the safe alcohol limit. Among them were women and children. I received a letter from a consultant psychiatrist at the Royal Edinburgh Hospital congratulating my committee. He told me that many of its recommendations were similar to those in a report produced by the College of Psychiatrists in 1986. A recent consensus of medical colleges came to similar conclusions.
I live in a rural area of North Yorkshire. A recently appointed young psychiatrist from a local hospital told me that most of the problems he had had to treat since taking up his post were alcohol-related. A few weeks ago I was talking to a young reporter from York. He told me that the city of York, one of the tourist attractions of Britain, was becoming a dangerous place after 10.30 at night and that he had had to leave a pub where he had been enjoying a drink with two friends as young drunk teenagers were becoming violent. What about children coming out of school? Will they not be popping into the pub on their way home?
I was talking this morning to a member of a team who came to Yorkshire to survey drug treatment facilities for the Department of Health and Social Security. He told me that while in Yorkshire he learnt that the police often did not check pubs for under-age
814
drinkers in case there was a riot. This is a very serious state of affairs. If the police are frightened of controlling young people, what hope have their parents? I ask the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to do something about this. I can think of no better person to tackle the controlling of young people and underage drinking than the noble Earl in his position as Minister with responsibility for the police. In the past the noble Earl and I have debated the appalling situation of rape and violence. Alcohol is one of the causes of the terrible problems which put fear into the community and spoil people's enjoyment of life.
I understand the attitude of the tourist industry which maintains that present controls are an irritation to tourists wishing to purchase alcohol throughout the afternoon. But in the Licensing Bill, we desperately need strong, clear rules which the police must be able to enforce. The police have said that the present law is difficult to enforce because of the confusion of when and where young people can drink. Our committee's conclusion was to make 18 the clear age under which people should not drink alcohol or be able to buy or sell it in a public place.
I should like to ask the Minister to explain Clause 15 where it says,
"unless the sale has been specifically approved by the holder of the licence".
Is not that provision rather vague? Many young people buy, or have bought for them, large quantities of alcohol which they drink while sitting around a video or in a public place. That is just as much a problem as under-age drinking in pubs.
Should not our direction to the youth of today be clear and straightforward? The biggest problem, often mentioned, is that of identification. Who is under 18? I believe that the country's attitude is changing. So many of us now carry identification cards. In America that is common practice, as it is in many other countries. The Government are taking seriously the fight against illegal drugs. But, for young people, alcohol is also a dangerous drug.
The tightening up of the drink-driving regulations has made drivers think and take notice of the law. However, that does not apply to the young who just go on drinking and breaking the law without having any incentive to stop. In the Bill, some of the recommendations of the Young People and Alcohol Committee have been incorporated. Will the Minister say whether he feels that they are clear and strong enough?
The other day I received a letter from a friend telling me of a young mother with two children who is now in hospital in a coma and on a life support system, all due to alcohol poisoning. Alcohol abuse, or misuse, produces a multitude of tragedies. We know that up and down the country there is a serious problem of alcohol misuse. The drinks industry is a powerful money-orientated organisation. I hope that it will take a more responsible attitude to the misery that it is causing and to the crime and road accidents that it is promoting. I hope it will help provide more non-alcoholic drinks which are tasteful, attractively presented and more readily available across the country. I further hope that it will provide more places for young people to congregate and enjoy themselves without the danger of alcohol. My hope is that it will no longer continue to break the existing

815
law by advertising, thereby attracting the young with its tempting advertisements, and that it will clearly mark its alcoholic drinks with a comprehensible indication of their strength.
I should like to conclude on a hopeful note. One of our recommendations was that there should be an inter-agency approach to tackling the problem of under-age drinking. In many parts of the country that approach seems to be working. Police authorities, voluntary organisations, teachers, the Church, the probation service and others are all coming together. There is much to be done. I am convinced, with the Bill before us, that now is the time to tackle the problems. But along with an extension of drinking hours should go clear, firm laws whereby our young people are protected and grow up respecting the need for a responsible approach to drinking, so enabling them to educate future generations.
7.14 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness on her speech and on her excellent report, which we have all read with great interest. I should also like to thank my noble friend the Minister for the way in which he introduced this small, but, to many people, important Bill. We all agree that since 1915, when these restrictions were introduced, conditions in the country have changed out of all recognition. It is 14 years since the Erroll Report advised the Government to change the restrictions, but nothing was done.
However, in 1977 the licensing laws, as we all know, were made more flexible in Scotland. I wondered why. I also wondered why the statistics show that north of the Border more women are drinking than ever before. Unfortunately, the noble Baroness Lady Elliot, has not put her name down to speak; otherwise I am sure she would have told your Lordships why so many women in Scotland are increasing their intake of alcohol. I think that perhaps they are going out with their husbands more than they ever did.
I feel that we should now emulate Scotland and change the laws in this country. I shall not go into Clauses 13, 14 and 15, as other noble Lords have done this evening, because I think they are self-explanatory, urgent and necessary. I am certain that whatever we do in Committee we should try to stengthen them. I should like to reiterate how easy its is for young people to buy alcoholic drinks in supermarkets. That has been mentioned, so I sure that the Minister will have taken that fact on board.
Many people think that the punishments imposed by the courts are not sufficient; I am one of them. The penalty for drinking and driving when caught should be stronger. For instance, if a driver is found drinking with excess alcohol the maximum fine is £2,000 or six months' imprisonment, with a mandatory disqualification for one year. I wonder how many magistrates impose the maximum punishment for this especially dangerous flouting of our laws. I want to see magistrates encourged in every way possible to impose the maximum penalties, even if the maximum fines are not raised.
Those of your Lordships who live in the country may be interested to know that if you drive or ride a
816
bicycle when your are drunk— you can cause a lot of trouble not only to yourself but to other people—the fine is only £400. When I was first a magistrate, which was pre-Barbara Castle—a very long time ago—if on a Saturday or Sunday night some one was found unfit to drive, according to the local doctor, they were automatically kept in the cells until they came before me and my colleagues on Monday morning. They then went to prison forthwith; it was mandatory.
I should like, however, to congratulate the Government on their recent drink and drive advertising. I am sure that more people are aware of the problems which this causes. I have noticed—I expect other noble Lords in the House will also have noticed—that there are now far more people taking coaches to dinners and therefore not having the problem of not being able to drink. There are also more people saying, "No, I don't drink because I am driving home". I am one of them. I live 30 miles away and therefore I do not drink in your Lordships' House.
One problem on which the Minister may be able to help me is this. I have read that local licensing authorities are giving more licences to petrol stations to sell intoxicating liquor. I wonder very much whether that is right. It is well known that the British pub is second to none. It is treated as a drinking place for non-alcoholic as well as alcoholic drinks. It is treated as an eating place, a meeting place and a place for gossip. We are told that tourists take great advantage of country pubs when they are open. I wonder whether the tourists are grumbling at not being able to get a drink or whether it is literally that they have nowhere to go so that they are off the road, perhaps in the middle of a long journey through our lovely countryside. I have a feeling that I am right on the second suggestion.
In 1986, about £7 billion was spent in this country by tourists, by 15 million visitors. We like to welcome them to our country; we like to welcome them to our pubs and to our hotels. We are told that if this Bill goes through and is enacted, many more jobs—probably up to 50,000—will be created. It will also create competition between one pub and another, between one hotel and another. This must also be good.
However, I draw the attention of noble Lords to the word "permitted" in the Bill. That does not mean that any pub-keeper has to be open all those hours. I submit that it is entirely according to what the local people require. With those words, I hope that the Bill will go through.
7.23 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it is a pleasure to rise immediately following the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, because they are both signally successful in representing their beliefs on particular aspects of matters contained in the Bill. I have known the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, for many years. She is acknowledged as being devoted, not least among many other things, to her work for the magistracy. In my community of Enfield she is acknowledged as having played a major part in elevating the stature and standing of magistrates.

817
Thus when I hear what she has to say about the views of magistrates, I take this fully into account and treat it with the same concern as when I listen very often to another magistrate—my wife. She tells me her views on these matters. And then we have conflicting views around the House as to the importance, the significance and the purpose of the Bill. What the Bill is doing is simply to extend the hours of drinking to fill in the "dead afternoon". I think that the Home Secretary used a particularly unfortunate phrase because it will very often turn out to be a dead afternoon for a great many people, not least the children coming home from school and many other people who may well be the victims of some of the drivers who have access to alcohol at that time.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is not in his place because I should have liked to have helped him when he raised the issue in a very friendly way as to why my noble friend Baroness Ewart-Biggs had started her speech by indicating that this was not a whipped matter on this side of the House. In essence it was to be a free vote. As I understand it, the short and simple answer is that if the noble Lord had been here and heard the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, he would have appreciated just how difficult we would have found trying to Whip the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, on an issue of this kind.
There is some quality in the Labour Party which is called either conscience or whatever else you like. Temperance, an attitude to drink, has for many years been a matter which we recognise in our party. We are neither priggish nor libertarian; we recognise that there are very strongly held views and that is right and proper. I read the speech of my right honourable friend Roy Hattersley in another place. The very first words he said, like my noble friend from the Dispatch Box, were, "This is a free vote. I believe that is because of the conscience issue which is involved. I make no comment on any other party which says, "Whether you have a conscience or not, or regardless of your conscience, these are issues on which we would like you to come into the Lobby to support your Minister's Whip." We know all about protocol and privilege.
These are personal views. I take the attitude which has been termed "the sensible drinker" or "the reasonable drinker" or "the moderate drinker". Whatever term one uses, I like a drink but I am also very conscious of my responsibilities. I think one of the difficulties in accepting the imperative of the Government is that I can understand the very good reasons which may well be to cater for the tourists. But I blanch as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said. If that was the prime imperative, I should think it went very much along with their de-regulating nexus; they are a great government for de-regulating as often as they can. I am firmly convinced that the licensing de-regulation is not very far removed from Sunday horseracing, Sunday trading and a great many other things of that kind. It is not accidental.
However, if we examine the purposes of the Bill, I think we must acknowledge that there needs to be not only freedom. I am all for that; I am all for people having the right to drink when they want and how they want. But the Government have an obligation to
818
make sure that excesses and abuses are covered by protections which are needed for young people, for drivers or for pedestrians. I think the Government will find at the Committee stage that that will be tested, to improve the Bill, not necessarily to change the imperative but to improve it. When we look for instance at the appalling consequences of the current situation, the Office of Health Economics has estimated that 700,000 adults in England and Wales—2 per cent. of the adult population—have serious problems related to alcohol. It found that a total of 3 million are heavy drinkers, around 8 per cent. of the total population.
I should like to pay tribute for those statistics and also for others, to the "Keep Alcohol Safeguards" office who did a very good job indeed for Members of this House and others in drawing our attention to this without being too pedantic over what they want to see. They want what my noble friend Baroness Ewart-Biggs said: perhaps a little more caution from the Government in awaiting the findings of the Wakeham Committee. If we have been waiting 10 or 12 years for Erroll, we can wait a little longer for Wakeham. I hope that he is going to say good things since he is a man whom I respect and who has a very powerful committee. If he does, I think we might have been able to wait.
When we look at alcohol and crime we note that alcohol is a factor in 45 per cent. of violent crimes which are committed—one every eight minutes. Drinking plays a part in up to half of all murders and is a factor in over one-fifth of cases of child abuse.
I have one further statistic, and that is that Government research shows that industry loses between 8 and 14 million working days a year because of absenteeism following heavy drinking. That is far more than the 2 million working days lost in 1986 through industrial action. Therefore we have a very real problem in trying to get the balance right.
I am not opposed to the Bill. But I am in the business of trying to improve the Bill and I invite the Minister (who has my respect in these matters) to give serious attention to one or two issues which could be raised in Committee. I speak now after advice from the Retail Consortium. That body represents 90 per cent. of the retail trade. It represents the large departmental stores, the multiple chains and, among others, the National Chamber of Trade and the Co-operative Societies. Therefore it can speak with some authority. The Retail Consortium has drawn my attention to two points to which it would like the Minister to give consideration. He may not be able to make any comment tonight on them, but perhaps he will consider them before Committee.
The first point is the fact that the licences which are held by supermarkets very often commence at 8.30 in the morning. But as one knows if one is about in the mornings many supermarkets are open not at 8.30 but at 8 o'clock. From 8.00 to 8.30 in the morning people who are encouraged by the Minister and his colleagues as well as myself to be good working people will be trying to get their shopping in before they go to work. They go into a supermarket, such as Sainsburys, Tescos, Asda or the Co-Op at 8 o'clock in the morning and they can buy items such as their sausages and their bread but they cannot buy their booze. I think that the request for that to be changed is a reasonable one.

819
I know that a Minister in another place has said that one should simply relate the licensing hours to the times that shops open. But what about the shops that open at 7 o'clock in the morning? In some areas shops open at 6 o'clock in the morning. What about those? I am not talking about the tiny minority here but 90 per cent. of the retail trade. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, paid tribute to the responsibility of supermarkets in ensuring that their operations were correctly balanced. He said that supermarkets had every respect for the law. In fact the noble Lord was searching around for that annexe in a shop which is called a shop within a shop. Many large supermarkets portion off a part of their premises to make an off-licence shop within a store. Our argument is that it is a nonsense to find that that off-licence is closed between 8.00 and 8.30 in the morning while the rest of the store is open.
The second point that I should like the Minister to consider is the cost and the time that is taken up by magistrates. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, will acknowledge that a great deal of time is taken up by Licensing Benches in renewing licences. One of the points that I shall be putting to the Minister in the form of an amendment is to lift the requirement for employees to attend court for the transfer of licences when that employee has held a licence for the past five years and where there is no objection to the licence. That would significantly relieve the administrative burden not only on staff but also on courts' and on police time. I know that Mr. Hogg, the Minister in another place has said two things about this. As regards the matter of off-licences within shops being closed between 8.00 and 8.30 in the morning he said:
"I am basically in favour of allowing shoppers, while buying their general requirements, also to buy alcohol … It is therefore important to her to he able to purchase her 'alcohol requirements' at the time when she purchases her bread. I find that to be a very persuasive argument".
The Minister then approached the question of the transfer of licences. During a meeting with the Retail Consortium he said that:
"He was … concerned not to introduce any changes likely to give him any problems with the Magistrates and Justices' Clerks' Associations or the police. However, he conceded that the formality was cumbersome in the case of multiple licence holders."
I also find that formality irksome.
My time is up, but I very much hope that the Minister will take the views of the magistrates and the police and others in these matters into consideration. I hope that he will agree that it is not necessary when someone is renewing a licence to demand his presence if he is of good repute and is acknowledged to be running his business well. Apart from that I think that there is a good deal of merit in the Bill and I hope that it will be improved in Committee.
7.35 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I have to declare an interest in that I am the chairman of a public relations and marketing company that has as one of its clients Ravenhead Glass which sells two out of every three glasses supplied to the licensing trade. Before my noble friend Lord Falkland spoke, I was quite sure that I would be dead-against everything he had to say. But I was pleasantly surprised to find that in fact I agreed with much of what he said in the same way
820
that I have agreed with many of the points made by many of the noble Lords who have spoken before me.
In particular, I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, when he said that there was never a right time for this Bill. He said that if we did not put this Bill through now the next time it came up there would be another good reason why we should not introduce it. The same argument was used at the beginning of the First World War as regards marriage. People said that it was not a good time to get married and have children. As far as I can see ever since then there has never been a right time to get married and have children. Noble Lords may therefore gather that I am in favour of this Bill.
However, I am only sorry that the Government have not gone as far as I should like them to have gone in respect of Sundays. Tourists have been mentioned in this respect, as have visitors and working people. One of the few afternoons which working people have off are Sunday afternoons. At the moment if they are not working in their offices or in the factories they can go and have a drink. But come Sunday, when presumably they are at home with their families, they cannot go out and have a drink in their local pub. That is a shame.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, spoke of tourists and said that if they come to our country they must obey our little foibles, or words to that effect. I think that the noble Lord forgot that apart from foreign visitors, we have a lot of British tourists who go on holiday to different areas of Britain and who go to visit beauty spots. Those people also are tourists and therefore their wishes should be taken into account.
Where there are tourists there are probably mothers and fathers and their children. As the present law stands, it does not matter that the opening hours have been extended during the afternoon, the family cannot go into a pub if the children are under-age. It is different in the summer and in the country where many public houses have gardens attached. If the weather is fine children can play in the garden while one of their parents goes into the bar and collects the drinks and the soft drinks for the children. In that way people can enjoy their afternoon as a family.
I feel that the Bill is sadly lacking in not allowing children to enter pubs. Much has been said quite rightly about under-age drinking. I agree that the pictures that one sees in the newspapers and on television of football matches and boxing matches which contain drunken people are very disturbing. Certainly when that kind of thing happens abroad it is a very bad smear on this country. But how many of these young people are under 18? I accept that many are, but I am willing to bet that an awful lot of these youngsters are aged anywhere between 17 and 24 or 25. One noble Lord mentioned boxing matches at which one might see young people with whole clusters of cans of beer. I suggest that those cans of beer were not bought at a public house but rather at a supermarket or an off-licence.
It seems to me that the Bill is basically concerned with extending the licensing hours of pubs. However, the emphasis in the Chamber tonight has been quite different. Leaving out certain areas of the country, in how many pubs do we have people getting roaring

821
drunk? That is true in the case of some bars. But in the ordinary family pub we do not see people getting really drunk. If they do, the landlord throws them out because they upset the regular customers. We must not judge the Bill in terms of drunken louts who buy their liquor supplies in off-licences and supermarkets.
In any case, if one is a hard drinker and goes into a public house, a bottle of whisky will cost, if one drinks in drams, approximately £27 or £30. One can go into an off-licence and buy a small bottle of whisky for £3. One can take it home and get absolutely sozzled. We are trying to blame public houses for something which is not their fault. We have to accept that our licensing laws as they stand at the moment are not only the laughing-stock of most of the world but also cause needless annoyance and frustration.
Before turning to more important matters, I should like to mention Clause 13 and the removal of the word "knowingly". I have spoken with my local publican who runs a nice family establishment. He is very worried about that particular word. I showed him a copy of the new Bill and said to him: "If you read subsections 4A and 4B, you will see that you are protected". However, as I said that to him, I said to myself: "What is the harm of the word 'knowingly'?". It has been suggested that, provided the landlord has not asked someone how old he is, he could claim that he did not "knowingly" know that he was under age. In my experience of ordinary pubs, landlords do not want to serve under-age children. If they do so and they get caught, they are in trouble. Also, if the under-18s get too much to drink, they tend to make aggressive nuisances of themselves.
Perhaps I may now turn to what I believe is a rather serious omission in the Bill. In the old days, one bought beer by the pint or half pint. I believe that it is now bought by measures of 30 or 60 centilitres. In the old days the law stated that if one ordered a pint of beer, one had to receive a pint of beer, except when the drink was Guinness and the head was allowed for. If one bought a half pint of beer, the same law applied. But if one buys wine by the glass, unless the licensee is abiding by the trade's code of conduct—and not many seem to—one does not know the price or the quantity of the wine one receives.
Without going into the question of quantities, I shall put the matter in language which I can understand. As regards a standard bottle of wine, we talk about the number "out". "Five-out" would mean that we would get five glasses out of a bottle. As a generous licensee, one would give a full measure and one would be lucky to get five glasses out of a bottle. Getting six glasses out of a bottle would be very good. However, there are cases where licensees are not getting just seven or eight glasses out of a bottle of wine but nine or 10. We legislate for beer and spirits. Why do we not also legislate for wine by the glass?
The same considerations apply to sherry. If one goes into some of the establishments which sell steaks and also advertise a large schooner of sherry, one will find that the schooner looks quite large. But if one takes a small wineglass and pours the contents of the schooner into it, one will be shocked at how little wine one actually gets.
822
Finally, perhaps I may quote some statistics. Much has been said about the effects of advertising on drinking. The statistics come from the Morning Advertiser, which is the trade's national daily newspaper. They were published in January of this year. They cover the years from 1980 to 1986. In those years the consumption of beer went down by 9·5 per cent.; advertising increased by 27·6 per cent. The consumption of spirits went down by 5·8 per cent.; advertising went up by 5·8 per cent. If we put those figures together, we find that the consumption of beer and spirits in this country in that period went down by 15·3 per cent., although advertising went up by 32·5 per cent.
Those figures help to show that advertising, whether on television or in the newspapers, does not increase the volume of alchohol consumed. It changes brand loyalties and, as one noble Lord mentioned, possibly it is getting youngsters to drink stronger lager than they used to.
Your Lordships may find one final statistic interesting, especially if you remember what I said when I mentioned drinking wine by the glass. During the same period, wine sales increased by 36·3 per cent., although advertising went down by 5·2 per cent. Therefore, we should not try to make advertising the whipping boy of the Bill.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I have one reservation about the Bill; it does not go far enough. Otherwise, I welcome it wholeheartedly. It is an interesting coincidence that exactly 100 years ago, in February 1888, the Daily Telegraph was deploring what it termed "grandmotherly legislation". It was referring to the first moves to restrict shop opening hours. Worse was to come in 1915 with the licensing laws, as the Minister has pointed out.
From that grandmotherly legislation which reared its head 100 years ago has evolved our present-day nanny state. However, not before time, despite such deplorable backsliding as the seatbelt laws, and despite their sometimes inept handling of the Shops Bill, this Government have at last made a start in rolling back the frontiers of the nanny state. In so doing, they are starting to treat the electors as adults, capable of making up their own minds, rather than as retarded children—although I was sorry to hear the Minister use that dreadful paternalistic phrase, "protecting people from themselves".
The way was well paved for the Government by certain Members of your Lordships' House who initiated the excellent licensing laws which now apply in Scotland and which have worked so well over the past decade or more. Another trailblazer was the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, who we look forward to hearing and whose commendable success in reducing the restrictions on selling drink with restaurant meals has already made this country a more civilized place.
Perhaps I may make two points to those who worry about young people. Young people have aways enjoyed and will always enjoy doing that which is forbidden or disapproved of by their elders. The sooner the word "alcohol" ceases to be hedged around with sanctimonious disapproval, the quicker young people will start to regard it as boring,

823
conventional, and bourgeois, and therefore decidedly unsmart. Helping this process along will be a transformation in both the cachet and palatability of soft drinks and low-alcohol drinks, whether sold in unlicensed or licensed premises. A few years ago the only choice was between sickly-sweet soft drinks, most of them allegedly containing fruit, which reeked of sulphur dioxide, fizzy over-priced French mineral waters and almost undrinkable alcohol-free beers. Now one can buy a large range of pure fruit drinks which are cheaper— albeit not as cheap as they ought to be— a much wider and cheaper range of mineral waters, many of them emanating from the United Kingdom, and some really quite drinkable low-alcohol lager and low-alcohol beer. I can think of two excellent brands in particular, one a German lager and one an English beer.
For the warmer months all that is needed to complete the choice is the widespread provision of that excellent transatlantic institution — iced tea with mint and a slice of lemon, sweetened, slightly sweetened or unsweetened according to choice. Perhaps owners of licensed and unlicensed premises will take the hint. The potential profit margins from the sale of iced tea are not to be sneezed at.
I think that it is now generally recognised that the long-term future of public houses depends on their providing a wide range of food and drink, both hard and soft, hot and cold, for the whole family, rather than the traditional beer and spirits padded out with onion- flavoured crisps for a mainly male clientele.
It is significant that a survey which was published yesterday, and which might comfort my noble friend Lady Masham, revealed that,
"tens of thousands of people every year are kicking the alcohol habit altogether or cutting down the amount they drink. People want to be fitter, to be good-looking and to live longer".
That confirms what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, suggested. The report went on to say that the decline of the British drinker will continue because:
"hedonism and self-indulgence are now unfashionable in this social climate while self-control and discipline are admired … The trend is most marked among the young. This trend will become more pronounced in the future".
Incidentally, the report also pointed out that Britain, far from being a nation of heavy drinkers, is 20th in the world drink league. The French, Spanish and Portuguese drink a great deal more, although one rarely sees a drunken person in any of those countries— other than perhaps the occasional British yob on the Spanish coast.
I started by saying that the Bill did not go far enough. I have to agree totally with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. Will the Government not reconsider their position with regard to Sunday opening? The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, made a most pertinent point in that respect. One is not necessarily asking them to adopt the liberal Scottish Sunday opening hours, although the latter certainly have not caused any problems in Scotland; but surely an extra hour or even half an hour at lunchtime on Sunday plus an extra hour on Sunday evenings would do no harm and would give a great deal of pleasure to millions of people. I urge the Government to think again about this point.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, to avoid any misunderstanding I should like to say at the outset that it is my view that alcohol should not be drunk when one is about to drive a car or pilot an aircraft, vehicle or vessel of any kind. The views I am about to offer on drinking and licensing are qualified by that.
The Bill before the House applies to England and Wales only. It may help the House if I say something about what has already happened in Scotland. A Bill on the same subject was enacted and entered into force in Scotland in 1976. It was different in many respects from this Bill but similar in direction. I was the Secretary of State for Scotland who initiated those changes, appointing the Clayson Committee in 1971. It reported to me and I started the process of consultation and preparation of the legislation.
Naturally I have followed closely what has since happened in Scotland. My home is in Scotland and I have lived there for the past 30 years. My business occupations take me to different parts of Scotland. The situation in Scotland before 1976 was not the same as now exists in England and Wales. I must make that clear. Nonetheless, I suggest that the consequences of the relaxation of licensing hours in Scotland are of interest and of some relevance when considering this Bill. Furthermore, it is important to correct one or two myths which have already been aired—though not today in this House but elsewhere—about what has happened in Scotland.
It is possible to register with confidence trends in Scotland since 1976 because the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) has reported after two surveys. The first was carried out in 1976–77 immediately before the changes took place and the second took place in 1984. That report helpfully provides figures from samples in the population. In addition, in 1985 a specialist unit reported on the effects on health during eight years of the new licensing legislation. I shall come to the figures and conclusions in a minute.
First, your Lordships may ask the reason for making those changes in Scotland. The principal objective, certainly so far as I was concerned, was to reduce drunkenness and alcoholism. That concern was uppermost in my mind as Secretary of State. I and many others whom I consulted were of the opinion that the very resricted hours that were then in force in Scotland might be causing some of the excessive drinking. There was much drinking against the clock.
We thought also that the situation would be improved if drinking became more social and an accompaniment to gatherings of friends and families. Many bars and pubs in Scotland at that time were drab premises where men assembled without their womenfolk and some of them drank as hard as they could before closing time, which was an early hour. Dr. Clayson and the committee which I had appointed came to the same conclusion. Incidentally, one of its members Mr. Menzies Campbell, an advocate and an international athlete, is now a Liberal Member of Parliament in another place.
Of course there were risks involved. More time in which to drink might have led to more drunkenness. In the event, that did not happen. The reform was successful in achieving its principal aims, and that is

825
clear to most of us who live in Scotland from our own observations. The OPCS report records that 73 per cent. of its sample thought that the new licensing laws were an improvement on the old ones.
The relaxations in the 1976 Act went further than the proposals in this Bill for England and Wales. Besides weekday extensions in the afternoons and evenings, pubs were opened for the first time on Sundays. There is no change of course in the present Bill regarding Sundays for England and Wales, where the pubs are open but the hours are restricted.
Scotland was in a different state concerning Sunday trading. It has for years been legal in Scotland for shops to open on Sundays. The restrictions applying in England and Wales have simply not existed in Scotland. Indeed, the late Sunday trading Bill of recent memory would have produced in England and Wales the Sunday shopping conditions that now exist in Scotland. That Bill did not apply to Scotland—there was no need for it. In the mid-1970s it was therefore easier in Scotland to open pubs on Sundays.
I turn to the findings of those who have reported on the years after 1976. The main conclusions reached by the OPCS are these. The results, the report states, seem,
"to reflect the development of a more relaxed attitude towards drinking in general in Scotland and in particular towards women's drinking".
Those are the closing lines of the conclusions. The report finds also that after reform in 1976 drinking has been a slower and more social pastime. Drunkenness has not increased and the statistics for offences confirm that, while the equivalent figures for England have increased during the same period.
On alcohol consumption, the OPCS records, from samples, an increase of 13 per cent. over eight years. It adds on page 43 that because of the limited accuracy of random sampling it is possible that no increase occurred. For myself, I should have expected some increase over an eight-year period with or without a change in licensing laws; an increase seemed to me to be likely in any case.
The sample showed there was no increase in consumption among men. The increase was in women's drinking, but that was not unexpected in Scotland, where, as I have described, men had previously drunk in pubs and bars without women, leading to unsocial excesses. The reform was designed to change those habits. Drinking in moderation and in social or family groups would be a move towards greater sobriety—or so we hoped.
The OPCS report states that women are still drinking much less than men in Scotland. Even among the most affected—the younger age group—women are drinking three times less than men. For more information on offences relating to drink in Scotland, the annual figures for criminal convictions for drunkenness among persons aged under 18 from 1972 to 1976—four years before reform—are most interesting when compared with the statistics relating to four more recent years.
The four years between 1972 and 1975 showed about twice the number of such offences than in the
826
four years from 1983 to 1986. As I pointed out in the debate in your Lordships' House on 25th November, in 1980 there was a change in prosecution procedure in Scotland, so that figures for drink-related offences are not precisely comparable before and after that year. Nonetheless, the picture is a reassuring one.
There is another factor affecting young people in Scotland. Six years ago, a ban was introduced, in Scotland only, on alcohol at football matches and in connection with football matches, and in respect of other sports grounds as well. That has had a noticeable effect on behaviour and hooliganism, I am glad to report.
Has health suffered in Scotland from the extension of licensing hours? It has been reported that there was a greater increase in cirrhosis of the liver in Scotland than in England. However, a comprehensive judgment has been supplied from a detailed study undertaken in 1985 by the specialist alcohol unit at Edinburgh University. It concluded that changes in the licensing hours had been neutral in effect, causing neither a net benefit nor net damage to health. That is the most reliable and expert opinion yet available.
There have been tangible benefits, some of which I shall mention in passing. The Scottish tourist industry, including hotels, has benefited greatly, as has the Edinburgh Festival and similar events. Foreign visitors failed to understand why they could not get a drink at 10 p.m. Also, 20,000 additional jobs have been created in Scotland as a result of these changes.
I have described events in this field since 1970 in Scotland but I am not suggesting that there are direct comparisons with England and Wales that would be valid. The situation in Scotland in the early 1970s was very different from that in England and Wales now. In Scotland, there seemed a clear need for some reform. For example, there were anachronisms in the law that I will not spend time now describing. The results, however, of substantially extending licensing hours are of interest. Having taken a considered risk on that point, the effects have been as good as I had reason to hope in 1971.
It has been pointed out to me that I am in a unique position to share my reflections on these matters with your Lordships. The verdict of the public in Scotland has confirmed these too. The OPCS, in reporting that 73 per cent. of its sample thought that the reform was an improvement, found that only 15 per cent. took a different view. The nature of the changes was not a party political issue; my successors in the Labour Government continued the preparations that I had started and introduced the Bill into Parliament.
While I hope that what I have said is helpful in relation to the Bill now before us relating to England and Wales, I emphasise again that the situation in Scotland was different, could not be left as it was, and needed changes. A large majority among informed and unbiased people living in Scotland regard the new licensing laws there as an improvement. About that, there can be no argument.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, it is natural that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, should defend the action he took in 1971. He has given the House some very interesting figures. I too have some

827
interesting figures about Scotland provided by Keep Alcohol Safeguards. I should like the noble Lord to interrupt me if necessary if he contests these figures. Keep Alcohol Safeguards state that,
"contrary to popular belief, alcoholic consumption in Scotland did go up as a result of the changes by 13 per cent. between 1976 and 1984".
Lord Campbell of Croy: That is what I said, my Lords.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, the report goes on to say that the figure would have increased even more but for rising unemployment. Women's drinking went up by 35 per cent., retired men's by 56 per cent. and that by employed men by 9 per cent. Only the fall in drinking by the unemployed of 28 per cent. halted an otherwise rapid increase in consumption.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, and I can say to him that what he has said so far is exactly what I have said. The OPCS reported a 13 per cent. increase in consumption but qualified that by saying that because of sampling there might not have been any increase at all. That is on page 43 of its report.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, that is not very convincing. The noble Lord did not make it very clear to the House that actually there was an increase in consumption despite the enormous number of unemployed.
There have been a number of horrifying things said in this debate, but nothing shocked me more than the plea of my noble friend for an increase in the number of hours during which supermarkets are able to sell alcohol. He is not content that they already sell it from the appallingly early hour of 8.30 a.m. My noble friend wants the time moved back to 8 a.m. I presume that his inspiration for this plea comes from the desire of the Co-operative stores to share this with other supermarkets. If so, I am again appalled at the idea. The Co-operative movement in my youth—a great movement — was a teetotal movement. In no store was any alcohol sold. At all the events, parties or gatherings there was no alcohol. We can see how things have changed.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend not only for giving way but for advising me that he would say what he has said. If he had listened carefully, I did not make the plea on behalf of any one element. I said that I made my point against advice from the Retail Consortium. I said that the Retail Consortium represented 90 per cent. of the retail sales in this country. I then instanced the organisations— certainly the Co-op and Tesco's, Asda, Marks and Spencer and all the others.
My noble friend is absolutely right. Principles that were laid down in the Co-operative movement in 1844 included temperance, the abstinence from alcohol. He would be the first to agree that in the past 140 years things have changed. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, in general supermarkets are most punctilious in observing the law.
828
I made a simple point. Licences are available from 8.30 a.m., and the fashion in trade in 1988 is that stores are open at 8 a.m. It seems reasonable to rationalise matters.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, noble Lords have heard my noble friend. I know well his connection with the Co-operative movement. I can only repeat that, although this change is wanted by the whole retail trade, nevertheless his inspiration is to please the Co-op—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: As well as others.
Lord Ardwick: And the rest — and do not let us bother too much about the social consequences.
One or two noble Lords raised an eyebrow when I said that I would take part in this debate and speak sceptically about the Bill. They know me as a man who enjoys a drink as much as anyone; indeed more than some. Was it a joke? Was it an hypocrisy? It was neither. I come from a hard-drinking profession, and I have known many good journalists ruined by drink. A few of them, women as well as men, went to an early death caused by alcoholism. The old Fleet Street floated on drink. Although its historic pubs were rich in friendship, they were too seductive for some of us. Far worse were the afternoon clubs, or a far away press club which was open from 10 a.m. until 4 a.m. the next day. Perhaps now the changes in Fleet Street— the newspaper diaspora, and the new digital skills required of journalists—will demand healthy habits of them.
As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, noted, there is a fashion for temperance developing, of drinking sparkling waters fortified only by lemon slices rich in vitamins. There is also a new fashion for nonalcoholic drinks. I should like here to be specific for once. I thank the firm of Guinness, which have made a social contribution by brewing a lager that looks like beer, tastes like beer, but contains only a trace of alcohol. Moreveover, it contains only half the number of calories of a normal alcoholic lager. Several of us in this House are proselytising addicts to this most innocent brew whose name is Kaliber.
I married into the licensed trade. My parents had two objections to the girl who became my wife: first, she was Church and not Chapel; secondly, she was the daughter of an innkeeper. From him I learnt of the evils of the past, of inns that were open early in the morning to provide tots of cheap spirits to men on their way to work and remained open until midnight.
The conditions, as the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, pointed out, were revolutionised in the First World War, notably by Lloyd George. Drink was not his problem. Hours were curtailed, spirits were more heavily taxed and an effort was made to change the custom which had been the cause of so much alcoholic abuse—the custom of round drinking. It was such a powerful part of public house culture that when it was forbidden the person whose round it was would distribute the price of the drink to each member of the group. This was the one war-time practice which survived and is still strong today—disastrously strong sometimes. However, the shorter hours had a salutary effect. There was less drinking, less drunkenness and men spent less time in the pub and more at home.

829
Backing it up there were useful institutions such as the YMCA—a splendid creation—the tea shops, teetotal taverns and the temperance billiard halls, which one still sees surviving although I believe that they are no longer halls of temperance. Drinking was still an individual problem for many but it was a diminishing, declining social problem. Had it remained that way, and had it not threatened to become a social problem again, I should be less unhappy about this Bill. I should not be completely happy, if only for the sake of the landlords and landladies who will lose their few precious hours of leisure and who will have to increase their costs or diminish their profitability by obtaining extra help.
I became aware of the change in drinking habits a year or two ago through modest domestic hospitality. There was a time when, if one had a few neighbours in for drinks, they would drink about half the amount of a gathering of journalists. Now they drink just as much and perhaps more. In Britain most of us have more spending money unless we are out of work. Spirits are very cheap. A bottle of whisky cost 12s.6d. before the war. In the diminished currency of today the price should be more than £ 12. It is only £7 or £8.
It is the official figures, however, not personal experience, which make one pause before consenting to any legislation which will facilitate sales for a nation that is spending on drink half as much as it is spending on food or rent; for a nation that in a decade doubled the number of off-licences and increased the number of licensed houses by over one-quarter; and in a country in which nearly three times as much spirits are being drunk as in 1954, eight times as much wine and rather more beer.
Many people will have seen the horrifying picture in the tabloids yesterday of the jeunesse dorée apparently abandoned in alcoholic lust. It is not merely the gilded youth who abuse alcohol. People of all classes under 25 drink more than people of all other age groups. As my noble friend says, each year a thousand children are admitted to hospital with acute alcholic intoxication. We as a nation have a developing drink problem. We should be looking for ways of reducing the problem and not for changes in the law which will, if only marginally, increase it and give the impression that the Government think drinking is fine provided you are not driving a car. In other words, the law should be going the other way, in the direction of more restraint, particularly as regards random breath tests for motorists. It should be going in the direction of more restraint and not of less.
8.20 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, the hour is late and I can claim no special expertise on the subject. I should like to deal with three areas that have not yet been covered. I should first like to fill in a few lacunae in the statistics adduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and other noble Lords. They are of some interest. Statistics show that in Britain 62 per cent. of serious head injuries involve alcohol as do 66 per cent. of suicide attempts and deaths. Out of an annual admission figure of approximately 180,000 to psychiatric hospitals, 17,000 are connected with
830
alcohol abuse. Drinking is a contributory factor in 45 per cent. of fatal road accidents involving young people.
As already stated, the World Health Organisation recognises that alcohol abuse is a major problem that is spreading with devasting effects in the third world. I shall say a little about that matter later. An interesting and staggering statistic shows that each year in Europe those dying from alcohol-related causes corresponds with the number of deaths that would be caused by between four and five Hiroshima-type bombs. In real terms, alcohol is cheaper than 40 years ago, as the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, said. In 1945, about 30 minutes' work was required to buy one pint of beer; today, it takes approximately only eight-and-a-half minutes.
The next matter that I should like to deal with has been mentioned only briefly in reference to France: it is the overseas pattern. It is important that the Government examine carefully the experiences of overseas countries. They suggest that tough controls are one of the reasons why the British drink less—however much that is—and that we have fewer alcohol problems than most western countries. That can be shown by comparing consumption in eight major beer-consuming countries in Western Europe between 1950 and 1979. In four countries which maintained high levels of taxation and restricted opening hours—that is to say, Sweden, Norway, Ireland and Great Britain—the increase in consumption averaged 90 per cent. In Belgium and Denmark, with a relatively high level of taxation but no restriction on hours, the average increase was 137 per cent. In the Netherlands and West Germany, where taxation has been low and hours permissive, the average increase has been as much as 300 per cent. Those are telling statistics.
Cirrhosis of the liver has been mentioned several times. It may interest your Lordships to know that France has an even higher rate of cirrhosis than does Scotland, mentioned by several noble Lords. In high-consumption countries—of which France is one—the level of cirrhosis deaths is no less than eight times the level of those in Britain and five times as many drink-driving fatalities occur in that country. Those noble Lords who have travelled in France have seen that Frenchmen going to work will stop for a nip of brandy even at six o'clock in the morning. Over the years that pattern produces serious health deterioration.
It is important to note that where opening hours have been reduced—as in Finland in 1977, in Mexico in 1981 and in Sweden in 1982—there has been a corresponding reduction in alcohol-related problems. I believe that those statistics are worth careful study; I could produce more if the noble Earl wished. However, I hope that the Government will take such statistics into consideration.
I should like to conclude on a personal note. As many noble Lords will know, for a number of years I have been involved with overseas students and refugees. I remember one tragic occurrence which stemmed completely from alcohol consumption. It concerned a young refugee who had lost both parents. Five years ago he came to Britain as a quiet, well-behaved, decent, orderly, law-respecting man. He was only too delighted to escape from the horrors

831
of Uganda and find asylum in Britain. In his home country he had drunk no alcohol, not even the local waraqi made from palm. Here, his friends introduced him to beer, which totally changed his personality. perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, can reinforce the point, based on her committee's experience. I have never known anyone whose personality has been changed so completely. He became wild; he beat up another man in the house; he got into trouble with the police; he started lying and cheating; he became a totally different person.
I endorse everything that has been said in this House against the Bill by a wide range of speakers. I believe that licensing hours must be strictly controlled. I am strongly opposed to the extended hours proposed in the Bill.
8.27 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, it will come as no surprise to noble Lords to hear that I warmly welcome the Bill. I am therefore profoundly in disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and by extension with the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, and the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster. It remains to be seen whether we are able to convince the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who has listened to the debate with devotion.
Last November the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, introduced an interesting and wide-ranging debate on alcohol abuse. The noble Baronesses, Lady Ewart-Biggs and Lady Masham, also spoke on the subject. At the present time alcohol abuse is a most serious issue. All noble Lords in the House, and everyone in the nation, are concerned about the matter. However, it is important to try to separate alcohol abuse from licensing controls because they are quite separate subjects. The fact is that the control of licensing is not an impediment to the problem drinker. We have heard examples of the fact that people who wish to drink can obtain supplies of alcohol from an enormous variety of different sources. It can be obtained from supermarkets, off-licences and all kinds of places at all times of the day. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, has suggested that that should be extended even further.
We must try to revise our views about the matter and look at it more objectively. I suggest that reform and revision of the licensing laws is an improvement in social conditions. It is the provision of serious and better social circumstances in which alcoholic refreshment can be taken. In that connection the experiences in Scotland outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, are exceedingly valid and are worth reading again and again.
Several noble Lords have referred to timing. I should like to remind the House that the Erroll Report was published in 1971/72 and it is therefore 16 years since this report was published and not a lesser time as has been mentioned by several speakers. We have been waiting a very long time for reform. The Erroll Report proposed far more wide-ranging reform than in fact has been introduced. The fact that this Bill now coincides with the Wakeham Committee and the suggestions which have been put to it by the Masham Report I think is coincidental. The fact that they are able to go forward together shows that these
832
questions are not mutually exclusive. They are both worthy of very serious consideration. The considerations of the Wakeham Committee on alcohol abuse are of vital importance to the fabric of our social life and by the same token so is this long overdue licensing Bill.
Last year noble Lords were kind enough to give passage to a modest reform that I introduced, the Licensing (Restaurant Meals) Bill. As I remain the honorary president of the Restaurateurs' Association it might be helpful if I mention this measure has now been in force since last May. It has been very widely welcomed; but not all restaurants have taken advantage of it because, as many restaurants find, the kind of trade with which they are dealing is not suited to this set of circumstances. They do not require it. What is important about this Bill is that they have the choice to do so if they feel it is necessary. In areas where there is high demand, for example, areas of high tourist attraction, airports and such like, it has proved an enormous advantage and a great stimulus to that industry.
I always listen with great interest to the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. He said that he thought this Government were a deregulating government. I disagree with him because this Government are a reforming government. It is the reform we are considering today which is so long overdue and which is so important. I hope it will reach the statute book with great rapidity.
In the extremely lucid opening remarks made by my noble friend Lord Ferrers I wish to refer specifically to Clause 1, which is the main substance of the reform of the licensing laws. He mentioned the arguments in favour of this measure. They are: flexibility; the provision of choice; the provision of additional facilities for choice, both domestic and foreign. I believe he also mentioned (if he did not then other noble Lords did; namely, Lord Attlee and Lord Monson) the importance of the changing habits in our leisure. Leisure has had an immense impact on society in the past 30 years. There is a different approach to it and different facilities are needed.
All these are vital and cogent arguments, but if these arguments apply from Monday to Saturday they apply even more on Sunday, which is indeed a day of leisure and when the family go out and seek recreation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, said, it is the families who want to be able to go together to pubs. It is in Scotland that the reduction in drunkenness has occurred because wives have accompanied their husbands to public houses and bars. It is getting the family together in this way which is so important.
When he comes to reply, I hope that my noble friend will be a little more reasonable about Sunday. At the moment, the Bill makes no provision for it. In another place some amendments were moved and I believe they were rejected. I believe it is very important that we extend this Bill in exactly the same way as it is at the moment—to Sunday—fully and comprehensively. If the Minister is unable to do that, I hope he will be able to give some comfort to the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth that there should be some partial extension. If he is not able to do that, it will be

833
necessary to come back to this problem at Committee stage and then try to move forward on the Sunday front.
This is a splendid Bill so far as it goes. It just does not go far enough, and I hope we can go the whole course as soon as possible.
8.35 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for the welcome in whole and in part, and in some cases in no part, which you have given the Bill this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, was kind enough to apologise for not having been in his seat when I made my opening remarks. He was not alone in that. I was not in my seat at the appropriate time either, because regrettably the previous business went more quickly than I anticipated. I apologise to the House again for that omission of substance in which I take no pride. The noble Lord was not alone.
On the whole I believe that we have had a measure, and only a measure, of agreement about the Bill. Various noble Lords would prefer it not to take place, and they are the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, and the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick. The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, gave us a fearsome insight into what happened in Fleet Street and into the dire effects of alcohol. I believe that he was quite right in that. He took issue with his noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton, who I thought was going to have the happy experience of making two Second Reading speeches so long was his intervention in the speech of the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, wanted premises to be able to sell drink at eight o'clock in the morning and not at eight-thirty. That horrified the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick. It was an interesting debate between the noble Lords opposite, but it had nothing to do with the Bill because the Bill is concerned with licensing hours. It is a very modest Bill too.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, asked why the provisions could not apply on Sunday afternoons and why it should be only on weekdays. In that she had the support of my noble friend Lord Lucas, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and my noble friend Lord Montgomery. They are the very reasons that we put forward for increasing the licensing hours, and the reasons for increasing them on weekdays can perfectly reasonably be put forward to extend the licensing hours on Sunday. This is supposed to be an uncontroversial and modest measure. If we were to extend the provisions to Sundays we would be running into a whole realm of controversy, and I doubt whether the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ely would have found himself as keen to support the Bill as he was generous enough to do this evening.
In his speech the right reverend Prelate said that the Government required to educate people's social conscience about the dangers of alcohol. He is quite right about this and that is why we have set up the ministerial group under my right honourable friend the Lord President of the Council. It is not simply a group that is going to report periodically; it is a group
834
that is intended to co-ordinate the whole of the Government's efforts on the dangers relating to alcohol and the best ways to overcome it.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked why we excluded the word "knowingly" from the provisions relating to Clause 13 and people being under the age of 18, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. By omitting the word "knowingly" we put the onus on the publican not to sell to anyone under 18; but if you put no qualification on that and make it an absolute offence, it would be too difficult to administer and would be unfair to the publican.
Very often, as I explained in my opening remarks, it is difficult these days to assess a person's age. Some licensees go to considerable trouble. But how do you assess a person's age unless you ask for his birth certificate? Not many people go into a pub taking their birth certificates with them. Indeed, it is perfectly possible for a person to show his brother's birth certificate. Therefore, I suggest that it is reasonable to qualify the fact that the publican must be able to show that he took all reasonable precautions to make sure that a person is not under the age of 18, but it is not right to make it an absolute offence.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked why we could not legislate in regard to wine measures. Measures are not part of licensing law, but they form part of the law relating to trading standards.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said that it was too early for the Bill and that we should have Waited until my right honourable friend's ministerial working group had reported. This is a small Bill concerning the licensing laws. It is not a Bill on alcohol abuse. In saying that, I do not mean to minimise the importance we attach to the problem of alcohol abuse. It is of a terrifying nature and we have had many examples given this evening. The Government are wholly concerned to do what they can to curtail alcohol abuse and its effects. However, to say that one should not permit the opening of pubs for an extra two-and-a-half hours in the middle of the afternoon as a social convenience because a working group is sitting is mixing the two aspects—that of social convenience and of the difficulties arising from alcohol abuse.
My noble friend Lord Lucas expressed concern about the extension of 20 minutes drinking-up time. He thought that it should return to 10 minutes. I am not absolutely certain of his logic in that respect other than the fact that, because you have 20 minutes to drink up, perhaps he considers that his friends in the pub would all purchase about six drinks each before closing time so that they could use the next 20 minutes tanking themselves up. That is an extreme view and I hope that he will see that the logic of the 20-minute rule is to make drinking up a more orderly process than might otherwise be the case.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, paid me the greatest compliment I think I have ever received. She said that she could imagine no better person than myself to control under-age drinking. That is an enormous compliment. I cannot see what on earth made the noble Baroness come to that conclusion or consider that I would be an appropriate person. I am not at all qualified to undertake such a responsible

835
job and nor do I believe that anyone would take the slightest notice if I did! However, I appreciate her saying that.
The noble Baroness specifically referred to Clause 15 and asked what it meant. The point is that no one under the age of 18 can sell alcoholic drink in a supermarket unless supervised by an authorised person. That means that a girl of, say, 16 can be on the till collecting money but when drink is produced by the purchaser she must then go to her superior or make sure that the superior who supervises her is there. A young girl of 16 must not take money for drink purchased by someone else.
My noble friend Lady Macleod asked about petrol stations. There is nothing to prevent a garage making an application for an off-licence, except at a motorway service area. The justices will obviously want to consider carefully such an application and will have due regard to any objections by the police. In fact I understand that there are few licensed garages—only about 150 in 1986—and there is no evidence that the number is increasing. Nor is there any evidence that licensed garages would add to the incidence of drunk driving. I do not think that my noble friend Lady Macleod actually believes that someone will go into a garage, buy a bottle of whisky, neck it and then get into the car and drive on. That would be an extreme view. Some small village shops sell petrol as well as other goods and it is reasonable in those cases for them to be able to sell liquor.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for having said, quite self-critically, that he is neither priggish nor puritanical, and that drives a very gentle course between two difficult stances. I am grateful to him too for giving notice of the type of amendments which he intends to table in Committee.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy was helpful, as he always is, in explaining that the reforms which were undertaken during his time as Secretary of State for Scotland have proved successful. They prevent the business of drinking against time. We hope that those reforms in Scotland when reflected in England will have the same effect.
I sympathise a certain amount with the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick. He said with great seriousness and conviction that he was appalled by the effects of alcohol, and he was right to do so. He referred to the pictures in the tabloid press yesterday depicting what he called alcohol lust. I also saw those pictures but it did not seem to me that alcohol was necessarily the prerequisite in them. One young lady who had been to the dance in question was quoted as saying that within 15 minutes she had done the three things that daddy told her not to do. I doubt whether she could have been tight by that time. However, I am not defending that in the slightest. I merely say that alcohol as such was not necessarily the cause of the drama which rightly concerned the noble Lord.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, the reports indicated that there was very heavy drinking.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that may well be so and I do not defend it in the slightest, but I am merely referring to the pictures to which the noble Lord drew attention. I do not think that the connection with alcohol was necessarily there. However, even if it
836
were, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, it has nothing to do with the Bill. This Bill is merely to deal with opening hours being modestly extended.
My noble friend Lord Montgomery said that he wanted to see the Bill extended and the provisions used for Sundays. I have told him why I believe that that would be most unsuitable. It would put the Bill into the realm of high controversy. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, for the statistics he gave and I will certainly study them with care. This is a modest Bill. It was never expected to be anything other than a gentle alteration in the laws covering licensing hours to bring them up to present day requirements.
It is a fact that the Government are concerned about alcohol abuse. I should like to allay the fears of your Lordships by saying that we have taken a certain number of steps. We have examined the position in Scotland. We find no evidence to suggest that the relaxation of the licensing laws there has led to any increase in alcohol misuse. We have set up a ministerial group to examine the problems of misuse so that we can co-ordinate action by all departments to counter the problem. We have introduced specific provisions in the Bill to strengthen the law against under-age drinking. We have made clear during the passage of the Bill in another place that we see alcohol misuse as a grave social problem and one to which we shall continue to direct attention across the spectrum of the administration.
We have deliberately avoided radical changes in view of the widespread concern that we share about alcohol misuse. I therefore hope that your Lordships will approve the Bill and give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NATO: Study Proposal
8.51 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, at the forthcoming NATO summit meeting, they will propose a new study like that of Mr. Harmel in 1967, of the "Future tasks of the alliance in order to strengthen it as a factor for durable peace".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the NATO summit which takes place the week after next will be the first for six years. It comes at a time of new opportunities and new pitfalls for the alliance. At last there is agreement on European Community finance, the end of the Reagan Administration is at hand and in the INF agreement the Soviet Union has finally accepted comprehensive on-site inspection and thus removed the main obstacle to disarmament of all kinds.
On the debit side, NATO has not in recent years managed to put together any overall political or economic strategy, otherwise known as burden sharing, nor a policy towards the weapons systems whose costs escalate without end and effectively disarm us, let alone any overall arms control plan or any complementary verification plan.
NATO has always been most at risk from failure to reconcile the interests and perceptions of the United States with those of Europe, and vice versa. There is

837
now an opportunity before the next President takes over, for European NATO to get its act together. If burden sharing between the two sides of the Atlantic is to improve, we must first make up our minds what burdens ought to be shouldered at all, and what is to be done to lighten them. Only then will it make sense to resume the discussion that has gone on for the last 40 years about how to share them.
The recent semi-official US report, Discriminate Deterrence, which is intended to influence the next administration, is unlikely to do so. It pays attention neither to the cost of what it proposes nor to any possible Soviet reaction. In fact, it virtually ignores the existence of Europe altogether. It is only one report of several which have been arguing the same thing; namely, the speedy acquisition and world-wide deployment of a new generation of "smart" non-nuclear weapons, including intercontinental ones, whose use would be more credible than the use of nuclear weapons.
For Europe this is a bad idea, and surely, we may suppose, for the United States. First, these weapons would hardly be less menacing than today's nuclear weapons. You do not now need nuclear weapons to conduct nuclear warfare, nor chemical ones for chemical warfare. An accurate conventional weapon on a nuclear power station or a chemical works will do just as well. Secondly, being non-nuclear, these weapons would seem to be more useable and would make it easier to think of war as once again fightable, especially limited war in Europe. This has to be unacceptable to NATO. Thirdly, they are expensive and complex and would run us straight into the trap that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has warned against, a new kind of unilateral disarmament by way of unmeetable weapons costs. Even Aviation Week, the respected organ of the US aerospace industry, has editorially dismissed the report as "high-tech delusion".
When we talk of the economic burden of armaments, we always take a narrow view of it. It is not just a budget entry; it is forgone economic opportunities on the most enormous scale. The arms and drug industries are the only ones in the world which create negative value. Every weapon made is lost value, every weapon manned is lost value and every weapon used actively destroys value. It is also the lost value of research. Half of government-funded research in this country, I believe, is still military. Compare Japan. It is also the lost value of real estate. There is not even any published estimate of the value of land in military occupation. It is secret whether we, the allied countries, charge one another for it, or, if we do, how the charge is calculated.
It would be shortsighted to try to compensate for the forthcoming INF reductions by new deployments, and it is good that Sir Geoffrey Howe has been so definite on Moscow television in saying that we do not intend to circumvent the treaty. It is also good that he spoke against any breach of the ABM treaty. With the INF agreement in the bag, it is of course right to rearrange and update the weapons that we keep, but to wipe out the intended effects of the agreement by a new weapons build-up would be idiotic, whichever side did it.
As a matter of fact, I have for years been asking the Government to make sure that Soviet submarine-launched cruise missiles should be taken into account
838
in INF or elsewhere. Well, they did nothing about it and now the Soviet Union has apparently gone and armed submarines with the cruise missile called SSN. 21. The Minister of State was kind enough to mention this to me in a letter. These submarines are to be seen sculling round the Norwegian Sea. What a pity! Let us not follow suit; let us get on with another treaty which will preclude any more of that sort of nonsense. I do not know whether the Minister will be able to say a word at the end of the debate about the Soviet contention that it is the United States which is preventing the inclusion of submarine-launched cruise missiles in the START talks. Now that they have been left out of INF we must at least hope that they will be in the START talks.
In the wise words of General Galvin, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, we can choose to seek durable stability by building ourselves up, which we cannot afford, or by building our adversary down. Our adversary of course is just as capable as we are of building himself up through loopholes or circumventions.
The INF agreement was necessary, indeed overdue. It built the stronger Soviet side down. That West Germany has been left in an uncomfortably exposed position should help to keep the process moving. Germany is singularised, in the new word, by geography and history, and we shall forget it at our peril. From now on it will matter very much that our arms control policy is properly thought out. The secret will be, as it always was, not to attempt bit by bit progress without an agreed map of the territory to be covered. Progress anywhere depends on balance everywhere.
There are other lessons to be learnt from the INF agreement. It leaves verification exclusively in the hands of the superpowers. NATO must see to it that the next agreements—strategic and short-range nuclear, chemical, and conventional—do not contain this flaw. Europe it is which is at risk from the SS.20s and so on, not the United States, except for Alaska. To look forward, Europe is more at risk from the intercontinental systems than the United States is.
If for 40 years our supreme national interest has required us to have an independent deterrent, it now requires us independently to verify the destruction of the weapons that our deterrent exists to deter. We are a sovereign state in armament, and we must be the same in disarmament.
The Government have said that the question of compliance is one for the United States and Soviet Union alone. That comes from a Written Answer given recently by the noble Lord. That is how the agreement, unamended, is to operate. Briefly put, I contend that a government who accept that do not understand what national interest is. There must be NATO inspectors going into the Soviet Union along with the national US inspectors. Fortunately the agreement contains full provision for its own amendment. There must also be a NATO satellite verification capability, as distinct from the American national one. The American space programme, as we all know and regret, is in difficulty at the moment. We have Senator Boren's word for it—he is chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee—that the present US satellites are going to need updating if they are to be able to verify a strategic arms reduction agreement.
For many years I have been urging the Government to join France in getting a European satellite verification capacity. France has today offered to put up a couple of NATO satellites on Ariane. My urging has been to no avail. The Government have gone in the opposite direction and have more or less cancelled our own space programme, which would have enabled us to have a hand in this.
As well as on-site inspection and satellite verification, a third layer is necessary; just simple old-fashioned intelligence, meaning people who sit at desks and collate all the evidence for whether or not something is the case. That could be done, and done now, on a NATO basis. Perhaps the Government will tell us that it will be done. But it will not be enough. NATO is an alliance of sovereign states, not a collection of clients. We need on-site inspection and satellites too.
Britain's role at the summit will be important for the usual reasons. We are the only member apart from the United States that has assigned nuclear warheads to NATO, and we are operationally independent from the United States. In economic matters, the Prime Minister has long since learnt to stand up to President Reagan. In military matters, she still knuckles under. That should change now that our security interests are so bound up with our economic possibilities.
In 1967, the former Belgian prime Minister Harmel produced the report that bears his name. It spoke out for,
"a lasting peaceful order in Europe, accompanied by appropriate security guarantees".
That was true then, and it is true now. That should be the aim. The NATO summit should now commission a new Harmel report, to be published this autumn. This time, it should pay explicit attention to our economic interests—which means some concertation with the Community—as well as to our political and military ones. It should also make specific proposals for arms control verification machinery. Increasingly, our security will now depend on just that.
9.3 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I certainly feel that in calling for a new Harmel-type report the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is on the right track. Whether such a review would have the priorities that he gave, I am not so sure. I can think of things still more important than the economic problems to which he referred with which this report would deal. Nor am I convinced yet that his views that the INF treaty should be verified by NATO and not just by the super powers is really practicable. In principle we have to agree with him that the interests of Europe are bound up with verification of the treaty. But when we think of the problems of getting the INF treaty ratified and executed, I think it is asking a lot to inject at this stage the idea of verification in the Soviet Union by NATO and verification of American weapons by the Warsaw Pact. That might complicate matters a great deal. However, the noble Lord's concept of a new review is certainly right because existing NATO strategy is in a considerable mess.
The INF treaty has shot a great hole in the concept of flexible response. It has removed a whole tier from
840
the ladder of escalation which this policy requires. In addition, we have the problem of modernisation thrust at us. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was not too optimistic when he referred favourably to the statement of the Foreign Secretary that Her Majesty's Government do not intend to circumvent the INF treaty. Nobody ever circumvents a treaty, not at all; all they do is to modernise weapons in such a way as to compensate for what they have given away in the treaty. That is what the British Government are at present doing.
They are proposing to examine carefully the concept of an Anglo-French airborne cruise missile; the same type of cruise missile as we had at Greenham Common and at Molesworth. They are seeking to modernise also by seeking to increase the number of F1–11s in this country. This is called modernisation but it is escalation. In the same way the Soviet Union, when it produced and deployed the SS.20s was not escalating. Heaven forbid! It was modernising its SS.4s and SS.5s. I am afraid that I am not reassured, as the noble Lord seems to be, by the statement of the Foreign Secretary.
What should this review do? First, it should deal with overall strategy which depends on assumptions about Soviet intentions. What are the intentions of the Soviet Union? What is the Soviet strategy? There must be some assumptions about this first. Nowadays we cannot rule out the possibility of very radical changes in Soviet intentions and strategy; and we need to be prepared for them. I was a little distressed to hear the Prime Minister say yesterday that she does not expect change of any kind. She said, while asserting the need for modernising western nuclear weapons:
"There is a continuing serious military threat from the Soviet Union".
That is, the Soviet Union continues to have aggressive military designs on Western Europe. It cannot mean anything else. Perhaps when the Minister replies, he can give the Government's evidence for these statements. Of course no one doubts that in Stalin's day the Soviet Union presented a real military threat to Western Europe. But how true is that fact today? I doubt whether it is still true. I doubt whether the Soviet Union any longer has aggressive military designs against Western Europe. It is more likely that it maintains its huge forces in Europe, partly to maintain physical control over the satellites and partly from illusory but real fears of exposing itself to American pressure to liberate Eastern Europe. That idea may seem ridiculous to us, but it is taken seriously by the Russians. They can quote many American statements, made by representative American people, in favour of liberating the world from Communism. Only the other day I saw a statement from one of the would-be presidential candidates in which he said that he stood for the liberation of Lithuania. No doubt he was speaking to voters of Lithuanian origin. That is a more reasonable explanation for the presence of large Soviet forces in Europe.
As I see it, the review would also consider the threat of Soviet subversion in Western Europe. Is that threat greater or smaller than it was in 1967, the date of the last review, or in 1948? Everyone will agree, and I am sure the review will come to the conclusion, that it is much less than it was then.

841
Indeed, it is not inconceivable that the next challenge from the Soviet Union might be in the opposite direction, a challenge, which would get widespread popular support, to end the political and military confrontation in Europe. Taking advantage of the differences between Germany and her allies, based on real and profound differences of interest, the Russians might call for German unity and neutrality and the disengagement of NATO and Warsaw Pact forces in Europe. They put that idea forward in the 1950s, and it is not inconceivable that they might do so again. The review that I have in mind would consider how NATO should react. I do not believe that it would be impossible to formulate that idea in such a way as to increase rather than decrease Western Europe's security.
Such a reveiw would inevitably come to the conclusion that the best way forward is the achievement of a conventional balance in Europe. I hope that the review will study that problem about which there is a great deal of controversy. I further hope that the review will use its own intelligence and analysis, and here I agree with the thrust of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. We do not want to rely wholly on information from the United States in this field. It should be said frankly that a good deal of the information that NATO has had from the United States Government about, for example, the conventional balance has been shown, with the passage of years, to be inaccurate. One suspects that that was politically motivated. I have in mind the old days, and the American estimate of the number of Soviet divisions in Europe; the proportion of the Soviet income devoted to defence; the Soviet Union's chemical warfare capacity, and of Soviet progress in space defence. All those estimates, which were put out by NATO, no doubt in good faith, have subsequently, for one reason or another, been discredited. I trust that the review, with its own intelligence and information gathering facilities, will study especially the question of the conventional balance.
Just how big is the imbalance, if it exists? We know that independent reviewers, especially the Institute of Strategic Studies, have concluded that the conventional forces of the Soviet Union and of NATO are a great deal more balanced than is generally believed.
Nevertheless, I hope that the review will conclude by giving priority to achieving a conventional balance, if it does not already exist; partly by strengthening NATO's conventional forces—where a great deal can still be done without any undue increase in expenditure—and partly by giving a much greater priority to conventional disarmament, following the success of the INF negotiations. The prospects here are a good deal better than they have been in past years. We had Mr. Gorbachev's references to asymmetrical reductions. It is an important concession and an important admission that in certain fields Soviet conventional forces are more powerful than NATO's. Also, the concession of on-site inspection could make all the difference to the prospects of successful conventional disarmament. New ideas have been put forward which should be carefully explored: for instance, the idea of exclusion zones for certain types of agressive weapons, and the
842
whole series of new suggestions put forward to which I drew the Government's attention recently in a report called Common Security.
This achievement of a conventional balance would vastly help to solve these other problems. It is the lack of a conventional balance that presents NATO with the problem of maintaining the option of first use, of excessive dependence on nuclear weapons. It would enable NATO to push nuclear weapons into the background, relegating them to the role of threatened retaliation against nuclear attack. Above all, it might pave the way for a more radical proposal for ending the confrontation in Europe, which deserves increasing attention on both sides of the Iron Curtain.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has said that the Harmel exercise was a study undertaken as a result of the proposal of the Belgian Government and its Prime Minister, Mr. Harmel, in 1967. It was a broad analysis of international developments since the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949 so as to determine the influence of such developments on the alliance and to identify the tasks which lay before it: to strengthen the alliance as a factor for durable peace. From the point of view of the future of the alliance, the political decisions taken at the December 1967 meeting were of the highest importance. The 15 governments agreed on a document outlining certain basic principles and listing the tasks which the alliance should undertake in the future.
The report laid emphasis on the continuing relevance of the twin political and military functions of the alliance and the latter's ability to adapt itself to changing conditions. It set the alliance a general goal, the establishment of a more stable relationship, an essential requirement for a just and lasting peaceful order in Europe. It also described the method to be adopted, namely a common approach to problems through consultation.
According to Eugene Rostow, one time Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs in the United States Government, the recommendations of the Harmel report, like those of the NATO wise men, were ahead of their time and they defined the direction in which the allied nations should move if they wished not only to survive but to flourish.
The question tonight is whether we need another inquiry of this kind. I am bound to say from my party's point of view that we have for some time been saying that there has not been a fundamental review of the defence of Europe for 20 years and one should be undertaken. Shortly after the Reykjavik summit I made a speech in this House in which I said that one of the consequences of that summit was that it would make us all face up to whether we were in favour of disarmament. Mrs. Thatcher's dismay was clearly apparent as she rushed off to the United States to persuade President Reagan not to do what he was proposing to do, because he had asserted then, and he has asserted since, that he wants total nuclear disarmament throughout the world. But Mrs. Thatcher later gave way and came round to supporting the INF Treaty.
However, as Peter Jenkins said in his article in the Independent on Monday, 15th February:

843
"The spectacle of the leaders of the two superpowers meeting at Reykjavik and mooting there a world free of nuclear weapons was for their peoples, a hopeful moment."
People have welcomed the INF Treaty as a step, however small, towards disarmament; their leaders have welcomed it officially but militarily they rue the day. For generations grown up in the shadow of the nuclear age, de-nuclearisation by mutual agreement is an inspiring goal, but for governments it is a spectre hovering over Europe. This is because, first, it destroys the basis of an alliance founded on a grouping of democratic states firmly joined together in defence against an authoritarian empire, what Mr. Reagan called "the evil empire". It has destroyed the idea that in the long run peace can be maintained by nuclear weapons and challenges the view that these are still necessary to keep a balance between nuclear and conventional forces in Europe.
According to Rostow, a new phase in East-West relations has begun and prospects for reduced tension are once again promising. The prospect of the removal of intermediate nuclear weapons has had several effects which have disturbed governments, including that of Britain, and also General Galvin, the new supreme commander, who have called for compensatory adjustments, as has been mentioned tonight, to make good the loss to be caused by the removal of the cruise and Pershing missiles. Whether this can be said to be in the spirit of the treaty is questionable. I doubt whether, if the Warsaw Pact countries sought to make similar compensatory adjustments, we would think that they were acting in the spirit of the treaty either.
The Germans are increasingly worried about the short-range nuclear weapons stored close to their Eastern frontier which would have to he used or abandoned at an early stage in any advance made by Russia. Their use would cause thousands of deaths both of British soldiers and of German civilians. It would lead inevitably to the escalation to larger nuclear weapons and to world catastrophe.
The removal of nuclear weapons will need a greater attention to conventional forces, as has been said tonight, and a need for a higher contribution from each country. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has drawn attention frequently to the lack of a positive political strategy for dealing with the Soviet Union.
I have drawn attention myself to changes in the view of some prominent Americans. Senator Dole, a presidential candidate, has urged that one of the most important needs is for a stocktaking review to ensure that we are agreed on such questions as how to deal with Russian arms control and addressing the conventional arms imbalance. Achieving significant reductions to an equal level of conventional arms must be the highest priority goal of the alliance. A major step in meeting potentially higher alliance costs must be the development of a NATO resources strategy.
Senator Dole urges us not to forget the enormous advantage we have over the Russians and their allies. We can compete successfully, he says, with the Russians in any area: military, political or economic. This can only be done, according to the Senator, if we remain strong and united. We would all agree with that. That is from a man who is one of the main contenders in the presidential election.
844
Another prominent American, Senator Nunn, who is chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has been speaking of the alliance. He draws attention to the conventional imbalance and urges the need for a credible conventional defence. We have been much preoccupied with the risk of uncoupling from America in the past couple of years, but the Senator says emphatically that the link will continue as long as it is wanted. He says that it will continue:
"unless the Europeans want us out. I think we will continue as long as they want us".
The Senator points to a matter which I raised in 1986; that is the difficulty of America reinforcing her troops in Europe in the event of a conflict. The neglect of our merchant marine is serious in this respect.
He also points to the need for Europe to pay more of the cost of defending itself. But he says that the problem is not so much one of money but rather of inefficiency. He said that NATO's procurement policies were the ultimate in protectionism and that everything was done on a national basis. As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has said, the only thing that the NATO countries have in common is the air in the tyres of its vehicles.
Again, like Senator Dole, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was not saying that NATO could or should ever match the Warsaw Pact tank for tank or artillery for artillery. He said that in an age of technology that was not necessary if the forces were in the right places, which they were not, and if there was enough communication, which there is not; NATO's job was not to fight the Second World War again but to be able to convince the Soviets that it can fight and fight well. To go back to massive nuclear retaliation, Senator Nunn said—in this connection I am sure he includes the French and British— so-called independent nuclear weapons would be a massive mistake.
This view in tone and substance contrasts most strongly with the views of the Prime Minister and the Government as they have been made known over the past few weeks. The Senator continued that, if one told the people of Europe that in the first few days of a war NATO, because of not having sufficient conventional forces in the right places, would have to use nuclear weapons before the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries used them—in other words, we are going to have to initiate a nuclear war in order to defend ourselves—one would probably get something like a four to one rejection. NATO is at the crossroads not because of INF, other things that have happened recently and other proposals but because it has caused us to focus on many things which should have been focussed on in any case a long time ago. We certainly need to take a new look at the alliance and at our defences, as nowhere is there greater need for clarity and new thinking.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I got the impression from the noble Lord's speech that Labour policy was that a conventional build-up by the West would be preferable to a conventional reduction to agreed lower levels, both East and West together. Is that correct?
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, what we argue is that if we are to rely on small nuclear weapons which can lead to escalation, the emphasis ought to be on conventional forces. We accept that the

845
proposals put forward by the Russians for an asymmetry are the important ways of dealing with the matter, and they should be given proper attention.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has raised an important matter and one in which I know he has a great deal of interest. I must say that I was somewhat astonished by his claim that defence research and development, defence land, and so on, in some way represent negative value, which was the term he used. I find that astonishing when one considers the important part that this country has played as a member of NATO in securing the peace which has existed in Europe for the last 40 or more years. I do not think that it is a valid claim in any sense to say that all the research that has been done can represent lost value. I would have thought that it was probably the best possible value that could be bought.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. He is seeking to turn my argument into a unilateralist one, as though I were saying that there had been no necessity for that. My argument is that it represents lost value both in the West and in the East.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, certainly from this point of view, if we had not been able to match, as far as we can, that which has been done elsewhere, then we should be in a much more difficult position than any of the scenarios which have been suggested by the noble Lord tonight.
If I may, I should like to reply in two ways to the noble Lord's Question; first, by explaining what the Government's objectives are for the NATO Summit on 2nd and 3rd March to which the noble Lord referred, and secondly, why we believe that no successor to the Harmel Report is needed. Perhaps in that regard I shall disappoint every noble Lord who has spoken this evening.
The NATO Summit is likely to fall roughly halfway between the meeting in Washington last December between President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev, and another meeting between them in Moscow this summer. At the December meeting they signed an agreement on intermediate nuclear forces. In Moscow they may be able to reach an agreement to reduce strategic nuclear forces. It seemed to us right that the alliance should have an opportunity, in these encouraging times, to consider together at the highest level—and to be seen to do so—the implications for the alliance's strategy of these developments, and of developments also in control of conventional and chemical weapons. Her Majesty's Government have enthusiastically endorsed the suggestion of a summit now.
It will give us an opportunity, first of all, to show that, as an alliance, we stand firmly behind the Americans in their pursuit of agreements with the Russians, first on intermediate and now on strategic nuclear forces. Your Lordships have already discussed those issues a number of times and there is no need for me to set out again tonight why Her Majesty's Government support the American effort, as we certainly do.
846
I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Irving, that there is no suggestion that the INF Treaty disturbed the Government. We fully support it. That support runs throughout the alliance. The Russians may like to imagine that some allies have their doubts about one element or another of those agreements. But the summit will show that there is no scope for wedge-driving.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, the point I was making was that if acceptance of INF requires compensatory adjustments, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has said, to offset the surrenders under INF, that can hardly be a wholehearted acceptance of a very sincere kind.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it is a matter for the Soviet Union, just as it is for the United States and NATO, to be free to adjust and modernise in the non-treaty-limited areas. The Soviet SSN.21, which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, referred to, is of course a submarine-launched cruise missile and has been deployed fairly recently.
We shall also be able to consider together the way ahead on conventional arms control. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked about the conventional imbalance and suggested, with reference to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, that perhaps that imbalance was exaggerated. With respect, I have to tell him that that is not the case. NATO is outgunned and outmanned in every sphere of conventional capability: 4 million to 3 million in manpower, three to one in tanks, over three to one in artillery, and almost two to one in tactical aircraft.
It is not the case that the IISS figures tell a different story, because the IISS use different counting rules for personnel. For example, they exclude Soviet command and general support troops, security forces and border guards. NATO equivalents in Europe are included and if those Soviet forces were added it would increase the Warsaw Pact total by between 500,000 to 600,000. When that is taken into account, the personnel figures tally very closely; and the figures for tank, artillery and aircraft are very close to the figures in the Statement on the Defence Estimates which the noble Lord will have seen.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I am sure that we shall all agree that such statistics are very difficult to handle. Perhaps the noble Lord will say whether the 4 million manpower figure for the Warsaw Pact includes the Rumanians and, if so, which side the Rumanians are on.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I cannot give a specific answer about the Rumanians at short notice. I dare say that I may be able to tell him in a moment or two.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves the question of the conventional imbalance, perhaps I may say that he will of course have studied the IISS report, as will my noble friend Lord Mayhew, and know that the point of the report was not to say that the numbers were in balance but that, though the numbers were out of balance in favour of the Russians, yet the modernity of the forces was in our favour. Although we had fewer deployed, they were on the whole a great deal more modern than

847
those deployed by the Soviet Union. Is the noble Lord also aware that he is contradicting Senator Levine, the chairman of the Conventional Forces Sub-Committee of the U.S. Senate Armed Forces Committee, who says that the conventional balance between NATO and the Warsaw Pact is, if properly viewed, about equal. There is almost a balance.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am not sure, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, himself suggested, that it does much good to bandy around a comparison of statistics, particularly when those who use them sometimes do so to make specific points to defend a particular theory, and when, as has been made quite clear in the Statement on the Defence Estimates, we have a number of figures which, using the IISS figures, match pretty closely the real numbers that we know to exist. As for the Rumanians, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that all Warsaw Pact forces are included, and that encompasses the Rumanians.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, can the noble Lord answer the second part of my question as to whether he considers the Rumanian forces loyal to the Warsaw Pact?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I shall not speak for the Rumanians. The noble Lord can address that question to them if he wishes to find out whether or not they are loyal to the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. However, I think that we must get on to the meat of this debate.
We are moving slowly towards agreeing mandates for the two sets of negotiations: on conventional stability and on confidence-building measures, which should, we hope, not only redress the current imbalance of forces but also reduce the risk to peace posed by the Warsaw Pact's ability to initiate offensive action without warning; and on chemical weapons, where our objective remains a global and verifiable ban. It is also healthy for the members of an organisation such as NATO to come together from time to time to check that all is well with it. We must take advantage of the occasion to discuss some longer-term issues confronting the Alliance.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has voiced some of his concerns, but I should like to concentrate on three issues in particular which go to the nub of this debate.
First, there is the continued validity of the strategy of flexible response that NATO first adopted more than 20 years ago. Some, such as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, if I heard him aright, argue that flexible response (because of the INF treaty, I believe the noble Lord said) no longer offers a credible deterrent to aggression by the Soviet Union, or that the INF agreement has deprived the alliance of elements in the nuclear ladder that are essential if the response is to retain its flexibility.
We hope that the NATO summit can firmly demolish those myths. The INF agreement will abolish a class of nuclear weapons and is welcome for that. I do not see any disagreement among any of us on that point. It sets helpful precedents for future agreements in the stringency of its verification provision and the asymmetry of its reductions. But flexible response was valid before the weapons now being removed started to be deployed at the end of the 1970s and it remains valid now. NATO still has
848
a sufficient range of weapons of different capacities to retain flexibility in their use.
But that capacity will not last for ever without future attention. Both conventional and nuclear weapons must be modernised if they are to maintain effective deterrence. That requires difficult decisions of principle and allocation of resources, which are easier to take collectively. I would not suggest, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has done, that there is a gap created by flexible response. There is therefore no weakening of what I have described as NATO's deterrent capability, which depends on totality rather than on one or more specific systems. Major nuclear forces are still available.
As to the question of compensating additions to US nuclear forces in the United Kingdon post-INF—a theme that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, addressed—there is no question of circumventing the INF agreement. NATO is not in the business of building up nuclear weapons, and that is amply demonstrated by the reductions agreed at Montebello and elsewhere. The fact that there are now 4,600 warheads in Europe now whereas there were 7,000 a decade ago is surely evidence of NATO's determination to maintain the minimum nuclear stockpile necessary for credible and effective deterrence. We are currently considering the implications of the agreement so far as that is concerned.
The third issue that we hope the summit will examine is less specific, although it goes very much to the heart of the noble Lord's concerns. It is the important question of the relationship within the alliance of its members on both sides of the Atlantic; the American and the European pillars and the connecting arch between them. The shared ideas and objectives that form the foundation of our alliance are not under threat. Some would argue that our unity is being worn away, but we believe the balance by which the Europen allies contribute most of the in-place forces for the forward defence of Europe, which is also the forward defence of the United States, while the United States nuclear and conventional forces on our continent underline its commitment to the common defence, remains an essential and irreplaceable element of the security of both pillars. We hope that the summit will confront those concerns and reaffirm that nothing should upset that balance.
We recognise that the Europeans must shoulder their fair share of the burden and we shall be able to continue discussions on how best to do so. We are already involved in moves (for example, within the WEU and the IEPG) intended to increase the cohesion of the European allies and to produce more cost-effective equipment in much the same way that I believe the noble Lord, Lord Irving, would have us do. I suggest to the noble Lord that the more we can do, the more attractive we shall be to the Americans as allies.
Those are our objectives for the summit. They may not sound radical but the course set out by Harmel in 1967 remains as valid for the alliance today as it was then. The twin pursuit of, on the one hand, a strong defence and, on the other, a stable political relationship between East and West. remains the best way of achieving as Harmel put it, "a just and lasting peaceful order in Europe accompanied by appropriate security guarantees". The noble Lord,

849
Lord Kennet, has quoted various Americans this evening. He may be aware—perhaps he is not—that General Galvin the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, said in London last week at the Royal United Services Institute that he saw no need for the alliance to seek a replacement for the Harmel Report; and who could be more up to date than he? I go further. I find it remarkable to read a blueprint for alliance activity written so long ago and to find so much in it that could have been written yesterday.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has raised a number of specific questions. One was whether or not submarine-launched cruise missiles would be included in START. The answer is that the two sides have agreed to find a mutually acceptable solution to the question of limiting the deployment of long-range nuclear armed SLCMs. That was in the Washington summit statement. On the question of NATO inspectors going to the Soviet Union, the noble Lord will be aware that the INF and the START agreements are bilateral and our own weapons are not involved.
On the suggestion that a new Harmel Report could make proposals on verification, the answer to the noble Lord is that individual agreements must contain effective verification arrangements. I do not think that one blueprint can necessarily be the answer to every single individual agreement.
It is also important that the noble Lord bears in mind—in connection with his concerns about no arms control plan existing within NATO, or being promoted by NATO—that at the Reykjavik NAC we joined our NATO partners in setting the direction of future arms control activity after an agreement on long-range intermediate nuclear forces and short-range intermediate nuclear forces. This should be towards agreements on, first, 50 per cent. cuts in strategic offensive weapons; secondly, global elimination of chemical weapons; and, thirdly, the elimination of imbalance in conventional forces in Europe, which we have just mentioned.
In connection with the elimination of conventional imbalance, and chemical weapons, NATO is ready to contemplate reductions in the US and land-based missiles of shorter range. I cannot see how the noble Lord can make the charge that somehow there is no
850
arms control planned within NATO, because those are the very elements of it.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I was only quoting the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who has often lamented the absence of arms control thinking in NATO's general plan for the future, and the absence of all structured thinking in NATO's general plan for the future.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that may be a view. On the other hand, what was achieved at Reykjavik nevertheless are important elements in the very concern that the noble Lord has addressed.
A number of other questions have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, suggested that perhaps another report would conclude that we should have a conventional balance. But that is already a NATO arms control priority. I cannot see that a new report to decide that would in any way add to what has already been considered.
Of course we should consider how the precepts of the Harmel Report should be applied to defence and arms control today. As I said, that is why at Reykjavik in June 1987, the Alliance Foreign Ministers instructed the NATO Council in permanent session to consider the further development of a comprehensive concept of arms control and disarmament. The Foreign Ministers recognised that the arms control problems faced by the Alliance raised complex and inter-related issues which need to be evaluated together. Bearing in mind the requirement of Alliance security and its strategy of deterrence, much work has since been done by permanent representatives in Brussels, and a report is likely to be presented to NATO Foreign Ministers at their meeting in Madrid in June.
Although Her Majesty's Government see no need for a new Harmel, we do not take the complacent view that no further consideration of our policies is required in the East-West situation in which we now find ourselves. Much consideration is needed; and I am glad to say that it is being undertaken.
House adjourned at 14 minutes before ten o'clock.