Lords Sitting of 5 July 1990

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

Employees and Union Membership
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they intend to take to ensure that employers comply with the Government's view that the right to belong to a union must be protected, as well as the right not to belong.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the law provides that an employee shall be regarded as having been unfairly dismissed if the reason for the dismissal was that he was, or was not, a member of a trade union. An employee who believes he has been dismissed for such a reason can present a complaint to an industrial tribunal. The Government firmly believe that all individuals should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to belong to a trade union.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, is he aware that it is quite possible for an employer to provoke a dispute by unilaterally changing terms and conditions of employment, and then when a dispute arises he can dismiss all the employees and take on non-union labour? What kind of protection do union members have in such situations? Is the Minister aware that this happens occasionally and has happened recently, according to my information, at a firm called Chloride in Southampton? What protection do employees have in those circumstances?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I cannot comment on any particular case. However, if an employer changes an employee's terms and conditions against the will of the latter, it is open to the employee to sue through the courts for breach of contract. Alternatively, if the employee considers that the contract of employment has been repudiated, he may resign and make a complaint of constructive unfair dismissal to an industrial tribunal.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, would it not be wiser to defer debating this subject until next Tuesday when it will arise in Clause 1 of the Employment Bill, which incidentally the noble Baroness is seeking to strike out?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we shall enjoy a far fuller debate on Tuesday.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that there is now special provision for the kind of case which has been referred to and that the industrial tribunals provide an
2258
interim hearing, and an interim reinstatement if appropriate, at a much earlier stage than is the case with any other form of industrial tribunal hearings? I know that is so because I sat on a case where just such a judgment was reached only about two weeks ago.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the whole House is enriched by the experiences of my noble friend in this matter.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I hope to speak next Tuesday on the Employment Bill. Will the Minister give me an assurance that the Government's attitude will be that if a man wishes to join a trade union he will be allowed to do so?
Lord Strathclyde: Of course, my Lords.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, the position is no doubt as the Minister has stated, but do not actions of employers such as those the noble Baroness has mentioned make a mockery of the first sentence in the Employment Bill that we are to discuss next week; namely, that it is unlawful to refuse employment to a person who is or is not a member of a trade union'?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I must remind the noble Lord that under existing legislation that was enacted by the previous Labour Government an employer is allowed to dismiss all those who have breached their contracts of employment through taking industrial action. Such an employer does not have to face claims of unfair dismissal from those who have been dismissed through taking such action. We are improving the situation under the terms of the new Bill.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, what is the Government's view on the protection that should be afforded to a worker who is being denied membership of a trade union by his employer'?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is precisely the kind of issue that we shall be able to discuss next week.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, would it not be possible, in the view of the House, to pass to the next Question as we shall have certainly one day's and possibly two days' debate on all these questions? They cannot be dealt with on the basis of question and answer.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is this not a new doctrine that is being introduced —that because something is to be discussed next week noble Lords should not be able to ask questions about it? Are our debates not based on the fact that questions should be asked about legislation so that a more reasoned and proper debate can take place?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am more than happy to reply to questions from noble Lords in this House on any subject, but it is normally the case that questions constitute requests for information. I try to supply that information as ably as I can.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for all the responses he has given. However, will he say, without attempting to pre-empt the debate that will take place next week, whether the Government have considered issuing guidance to employers on these issues?
Lord Strathclyde: No, my Lords. That is, after all, a matter to be decided between employers and employees.

Cervical Smear Tests
3.12 p.m.
The Baroness Fisher of Rednal The Baroness Fisher of Rednal asked Her Majesty's Government:
What increase in cervical cancer smear tests they expect to arise from the new GP contract.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the number of cervical smear tests examined in Great Britain has increased by two-thirds to approximately 5 million over the past 10 years. We expect a similar rate of increase to continue in the short term. We also expect the GPs' new contract which came into force at the beginning of April to provide a powerful incentive to GPs to increase the number of women screened.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is she aware that many women's groups are concerned about the undue delay in receiving the results of the tests? The waiting period in some cases can be as long as two to three months. Obviously that causes great concern and anxiety to many women who are awaiting the results. Is the Minister further aware that there is a grave shortage of laboratory technicians which is therefore causing delay in receiving the results?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I fully realise that anxieties have been expressed in that regard. We have asked laboratories to report the results of routine cervical smears within a month. Some laboratories have reported increased difficulties due to GPs making extra efforts to boost coverage, but our information from health authorities shows that around 75 per cent. to 80 per cent. of laboratories achieve that one month target. However, we shall, of course, keep the situation under review, as will the health authorities.
I should add that for cases diagnosed as urgent, as opposed to routine tests, the reporting time is normally much less than one month.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is it possible to tell whether a case is urgent or not until the result of the screening is known? Is the noble Baroness aware that there is a good deal of concern when delays in receiving results from laboratories can be as much as several months?
Does the noble Baroness accept that in many areas where there is a high proportion of people from ethnic minorities it is unlikely that any doctor will
2260
carry out smear tests because it is unlikely that he will reach even the minimum target and therefore under the new contract he will receive no pay? Is that not a very strange way of encouraging doctors to increase smear tests?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, to answer the noble Lord's first question, I believe that there are certain at-risk categories which can be identified as urgent. Obviously in the routine call and recall system one would not know whether a case was urgent until the results were received. However, in those cases presumably the women concerned would not be suffering the same anxiety as somebody for whom a test has been recommended for specific reasons.
A great deal of work is being done to encourage women from ethnic minorities to accept their screening invitations. Money has been identified from the breast screening budget to fund four cancer screening development workers. Those workers will examine primarily the problems faced by districts with multi-ethnic populations and the acceptability of breast screening. There are other funded arrangements: for example, the Department of Health has funded the full cost of a video on screening produced by the London Chinese Health Resource Centre. A number of health authorities have developed or are developing screening literature in ethnic minority languages, including invitations to screening and explanatory leaflets. We hope that there will be considerable progress in that particular area.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the noble Baroness said earlier that, quite rightly, this matter is under review. I am sure that that will be warmly welcomed in all parts of the House. Will that review take into account the possibility that there may be insufficient laboratory scientists coming from the universities to meet what will be required for this and other matters?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper refers specifically to the GP contract. It is very difficult to predict the impact of that contract because the returns for the first quarter since the contract has been in operation are not all in yet. However, we are keeping the situation under review.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say what happens in the case of women patients in practices with only male doctors? Are any provisions made for them to go to another GP or to a hospital for the service? As the noble Baroness will be aware, there are certain groups of women who do not wish to be dealt with by a male doctor.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, there are many possible responses to meet that particular problem. They include the possibility of tests being taken in hospital or arrangements being made with women doctors in other practices.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, does the Minister accept that considerable sensitivity is being expressed by women who are single—not least nuns and sisters, and also women in their early sixties and those caring for those who are mentally ill —about the pressure that is inevitably being brought to bear in certain practices in order to bring the figure for screening up to 80 per cent? Does the Minister therefore agree that the review of the arrangements might include consideration of a graded system of reward instead of that sudden jump from nil at 50 per cent., £760 at 79 per cent. and £2,260 at 80 per cent? Would not a grading be a fairer way of encouraging screening and lessening the pressure on some practices?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we have recognised that women have the right to choose not to accept what s after all only an invitation to be screened. Also, a doctor may exercise his clinical judgment in deciding whether or not to invite a particular woman for screening. That was recognised in not requiring the 100 per cent. target. That is why the target was set at 80 per cent. We believe that the grading that is provided, that is to say the lower target payment between 50 per cent. and 80 per cent. to which the right everend Prelate referred, is helpful in that respect.

Welsh Valleys Initiative
3.20 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to continue the Welsh Valleys Initiative.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales has made clear his full commitment to the programme for the valleys. Last Friday, 29th June, he issued a statement, a copy of which is in the Library, about the excellent progress made in the first two years. He intends to make a further statement in the autumn setting out his proposals for future activities within the programme, which has been extended until March 1993.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for that reply. But can he further assist me by telling me what specific budgets have been assigned by the Welsh Office for the Welsh Valleys Initiative for the coming three years, and whether the number of civil servants specifically assigned to the Welsh Valleys Initiative is planned to rise or fall?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the budget, which was expected to reach £500 million for the first three years, is protected for those years. However, as I indicated in my original Answer, a further statement will be made in the autumn. At that time the spending levels will also be assessed. I believe that the same would apply in respect of the number of people involved.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we shall read the Secretary of State's report with great interest. However, is it not at the same time the case that since the valleys initiative was launched industrial and employment prospects in the valleys have declined? Is it not also the case that in the last 10 years 27,000 workers have lost their jobs in the valleys? Can the noble Viscount give an assurance on behalf of his right honourable friend that there will be a commitment of real resources to revive the valleys?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, since June 1988 there has been a fall in unemployment in the valleys of 11,500. That is a considerably larger percentage fall —5.3 per cent. —than that for Wales, which was 4.2 per cent., and for the United Kingdom as a whole of 3.1 per cent. That indicates the effectiveness of the programme.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the Minister give the figures for depopulation in that period?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords, I could not do so without notice. However, the noble Lord will be aware that the traditional industries of coal-mining and steelworking in that area have become yesterday's industries and obviously newer industries have to arrive.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the existence of the initiative is at least an acknowledgement that the valley communities of South Wales face severe problems. Can the Minister tell the House what part of the £500 million to which he referred is new money which has been channelled to the initiative? Secondly, are we to conclude that at present the department has no specific objectives for the initiative to be achieved by 1993?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it is impossible to be precise about the level of additional money associated with this particular programme. However, the programme itself gives expenditure a new focus and is a vital factor in the significant increase in and direction of activity in a number of key areas. One ought to look to some of the achievements; for example, the 58 inward investment projects which have been secured involving capital investment of over £136 million —one every two weeks—leading to the creation or safeguarding of nearly 8,000 jobs.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the valleys initiative has done a great deal to broaden the base of industry throughout the whole of Wales, and particularly in the valleys, and has provided greater opportunities for growth in Wales than we have seen for a long time?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for what he said. The Welsh Development Agency, for instance, has provided 826,000 square feet of advance factory space during those two years, which is a great increase.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, would the noble Viscount care to reconsider his off-the-cuff comment that steel and coal are industries of yesteryear?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I was indicating that the number of pits that are being worked in South Wales has declined enormously. I apologise to the House if I gave the wrong impression.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that the House will have heard with interest the reply to my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies that it is difficult to say what additional resources have been devoted to this programme? Is he aware that the general opinion in Wales is that the so-called initiative consists of Mr. Peter Walker adding up the total cost of the schemes introduced by his predecessor, now the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, publishing the result and hoping to claim it as a great propaganda victory? Will he agree that it is a publicity gimick that has gone wrong?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, if the initiative obtains the publicity which the noble Lord attributed to it, I believe that that in itself is some achievement. But there is no doubt that there has been economic, housing and environmental benefit. Over 1,100 acres of derelict land have been cleared and there is the prospect of the virtual elimination of dereliction from the valleys by the end of the century. That must be an achievement.
Lord Gibson-Watt: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it does not matter which Secretary of State in this Administration produced the plan. The fact is that in South Wales there has never before been a venture such as this and most people in Wales recognise it for what it is?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for those comments.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is the Minister aware that two years into the Welsh Valleys Initiative the level of unemployment in Merthyr and Rhymney, which are at the centre of the valleys, is still the highest in Wales? In the light of that fact will he congratulate the former Secretary of State for Wales on having in the Welsh Valleys Initiative written the finest work of fiction since the Mabinogion?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord's proposition.

ECU: Rate of Exchange
3.27 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the hard ecu, as recently proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would have a fixed or variable rate of exchange with the pound sterling.
The Paymaster General (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, as my right honourable friend the
2264
Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear in his recent proposal, both sterling and the hard ecu would be in the ERM and subject to the disciplines of that mechanism.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, we welcome the initiative taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in contributing a further dimension to the interesting debate on the future of monetary policy in the European Community. But does the noble Earl agree that there is uncertainty about the long-term objective of this proposition? Does he accept that the Chancellor and the Governor of the Bank of England have given the impression that ultimately this could lead to the creation of a single currency, whereas the Prime Minister in answer to Questions in another place gave the impression that in her view the ecu would remain a parallel currency? If it were to remain a parallel currency, would it not simply be a thirteenth currency within the European Community?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's welcome for what I said. It is true to say that if the system does not evolve into a single currency it will remain a parallel currency.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, to revert to the Question on the Order Paper, is it not the case that the value of the hard ecu will be determined by reference to the highest valued currency? At present will that not mean the deutschmark, which today stands at 2–95 to the pound? Does the Minister agree that the impact upon the United Kingdom of entry into the exchange rate mechanism will largely depend upon whether the United Kingdom chooses to be in the broad band or the narrow band in terms of convergence? Will he please clarify the matter so that the House and the country are not put into too much doubt as a result of the quite obvious divisions of urgency and emphasis between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware, the lower band of the exchange rate mechanism is 2.25 per cent. There could be some fluctuations. It is a matter that is about to be discussed in the inter-governmental conference. It is a matter on which further work needs to be done before the inter-governmental conference. Your Lordships' views are most welcome.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord said that there are two possible and directly opposed interpretations of the policies put forward —one by No. 11 and the other by No. 10. Is it not extremely damaging to our reputation in the Community that we put forward two policies which cannot be reconciled, as the noble Lord has said?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no, it is not two policies; it is one policy. There is the proposal to put forward a hard ecu which could evolve into a single currency if that was what we wished at the time. That decision does not have to be taken now. The great strength of the British proposal is that it is evolutionary.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the case that if the ecu rate is fixed it will tend to become the international rate of exchange, whereas if it is variable great confusion is bound to arise between the ecu and international currencies? What is the Government's position on this matter?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with respect, the noble Lord is not quite aware of the implications of the ERM, in which any currency can trade within a narrow band at present.
Lord Jay: My Lords, in fairness to the present Government, should it not be acknowledged that the Chancellor's hard ecu is probably the least damaging of all these crazy schemes?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it has certainly been accepted as a matter for very serious consideration with our European partners.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, will the Minister comment on the practicalities of carrying a hard ecu, a soft ecu and sterling, and the practicalities of drawing up separate price lists?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there would not be a soft ecu because one would have a hard ecu and the national currencies, as at present. The hard ecu would be in line with the strongest of the European currencies. We believe that it offers good opportunities for tourists and business to begin with. But it may then evolve in its own way as people desire.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, I should like to echo (or should I say ecu?) the welcome given by my noble friend Lord Ezra to the hard ecu scheme. I believe that it represents a serious attempt by government to get back into the mainstream of the debate. It also contains a great deal of good technical work. However, I have great difficulty in following the Government's logic.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, do the Government seriously believe that the full benefits of the single market, which they so fervently support, can be achieved with 12 separate, individual currencies, with 12 separate interest rate differentials, and —if one allows for the union between the Belgian and Luxembourg franc —with 11 balances of payments? It seems to me to be an impossibility.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's welcome for our proposal. I was not aware that he still had difficulty on this matter. I knew that he had difficulty with the previous proposition. If the noble Lord reads the proposal very carefully I am sure that he too will come to such a conclusion.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend encourage the Oxford University Press, or some other appropriate body, to issue a concise dictionary of technical terms in current use by Eurospeak in translatable English?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I understand my noble and learned friend's concern on the matter. If he is concerned and confused, what hope is there for the remainder of us?

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the committee stage of the Environmental Protection Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about an hour and that during this adjournment the Companies (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 1990 and the Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) Scheme 1990 will be taken.
Summer Recess
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may also be for the convenience of the House to know that, progress of business, the House will rise for the Summer Recess on Thursday, 26th July and return on Monday, 8th October. The House will sit at 11 a.m. on Thursday, 26th July.

Environmental Protection Bill
3.35 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee. —(Lord Hesketh.)
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly at this moment to explain why it is not my intention to move three amendments that are on the Marshalled List. I am advised that this is the right moment to make the intervention. If I were to intervene when the amendments were called I should be out of order in giving an explanation and then not moving them. Since there is a Motion before your Lordships' House, I am allowed to speak now.
I refer to Amendments Nos. 376C, 376D and 377CA. I put them on the Marshalled List two days ago. I allowed them to remain there because I thought it proper that noble Lords should see their import. However, since it was agreed at an earlier stage of the Committee that I would have the opportunity to discuss with the Minister another group of amendments relating to freedom of information, and since they fall within that category, I hope that the matter can be determined by discussion before Report stage. Therefore it is not my intention to move those amendments today.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 376A:
Before Clause 133, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of hazardous substances legislation
. Schedule (amendments of hazardous substances legislation) to this Act (which contains miscellaneous amendments to the legislation relating to hazardous substances) shall have effect.")
The noble Lord said: I propose to speak also to Amendments Nos. 379B, 390A and 402A. Government Amendments Nos. 376A and 379B are to rectify shortcomings in the legislation controlling the location of hazardous substances in England, Wales and Scotland. They will enable this important new control system, which is not yet in force, to be introduced on a much more satisfactory basis than would be possible under existing provisions. The new clause to be inserted before Clause 133 gives effect to a new two-part schedule. Part I amends the hazardous substances legislation applying to England and Wales. Part II similarly amends the equivalent legislation applying to Scotland. The repeals to be added to Schedule 14 are linked to these amendments.
The legislation concerns the storage and use of substances which could present major hazards to people in the surrounding area. Hazardous substances consent will be required where named substances are present at or above specified amounts. There are transitional provisions designed to give existing users of hazardous substances an entitlement to a deemed consent in respect of their existing operations. The intention was that these deemed consents would relate to the situation in the 12-month period preceding the introduction of the new controls.
After considering representations from industry, we have concluded that the standard conditions which would attach to all these deemed consents under the existing legislation are effectively unworkable. They would mean that a substance would have to be kept and used in the same place and manner as it was immediately before the new controls came into force. This would contradict the objective of basing deemed consents on activity in the whole of the 12 months prior to the commencement date. Indeed, a substance used regularly during these 12 months may not even be present immediately before the commencment date. Therefore, paragraph 4 of Part I of the new schedule deletes the two offending conditions and enables revised conditions to be prescribed in regulations.
This is the most crucial defect. But there are other shortcomings in the legislation which we should like to remedy. These concern the position of statutory undertakers, arrangements for charging fees for applications, and technical points relating to conditions and compensation. Similar amendments are made in Part II to the equivalent Scottish provisions. Our consequential Amendment No. 402A has been replaced by Amendment No. 403A.I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: I regret to say that I am not fully up to date with town and country planning legislation. After looking at pages 10 and 11 of the Marshalled List can my noble friend say which Act inserted Sections 56B to 56G in the Town and
2268
Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972? When one is carrying out research into the Government's plans it helps to know where legislation comes from.
Lord Hesketh: On this rare occasion I must write to my noble friend to give him a concise and accurate answer.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 376B:
Before Clause 133, insert the following new clause:
("Public registers of land which may be contaminated

—(1) For the purposes of the registers to be maintained under this section, the Secretary of State may by regulations—

(a) specify contaminative uses of land;

(b) prescribe the form of the registers and the particulars to be included in them; and

(c) make such other provision as appears to him to be appropriate in connection with the maintenance of the registers.

(2) It shall be the duty of a local authority, as respects land in its area subject to contamination, to maintain, in accordance with the regulations, a register in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars.

(3) The duty imposed by subsection (2) above on a local authority is a duty to compile and maintain the register from the information available to the authority from time to time.

(4)A local authority shall secure that the register is open to inspection at its principal office by members of the public free of charge at all reasonable hours and shall afford to members of the public reasonable facilities for obtaining, on payment of reasonable charges, copies of entries in the register.

(5) Regulations under subsection (1)(c) above may prescribe the measures to be taken by local authorities for informing persons whose land is the subject of entries in a register about the entries or for enabling them to inform themselves about them.

(6) In this section —

"contaminative use" means any use of land which may cause it to be contaminated with noxious substances;
"land subject to contamination" means land which is being or has been put to a contaminative use;
"local authority" means —

(a) in Greater London. a London borough council or the Common Council of the City of London;

in England and Wales outside Greater London. a district council;

in Scotland, a planning authority; and

the Council of the Isles of Scilly: and

"substance" means any natural or artificial substance, whether in solid or liquid form or in the form of a gas or vapour.").
The noble Lord said: The new clause deals with the serious and difficult problems of contaminated land. Contamination of land can come in a wide range of forms indicative of this country's long industrial history. It cannot be the subject of a single definition but, where it is found to exist, there is a need to make working assessments of the hazards that may be involved and to consider suitable remedial and protective action at specific sites, particularly when changes of land use are proposed.
Such action needs to be based upon the best possible information and knowledge. We provide technical guidance for dealing with contamination. But an essential element in any policies must be to consider ways of gathering information and to see how this might most usefully be supplied for public use. This has been a vexed question for some time. Any attempt to compile information can begin to

2269
involve the compiler in making judgments on the condition of land which might affect its value. This difficulty of blight on prospective sale or development requires careful consideration. Information needs to be available to landowners and to regulating authorities where there are genuine problems concerning safety and environmental hazard. But we have to find a basis for alerting those concerned to the need for further assessment so that the dangers are properly understood and remedied or fears about contamination are refuted on valid grounds.
As a result of our own pilot studies and several pilot registers by local authorities we have concluded that suitable registers can be compiled from desk studies of historic land-uses from which the potential for contamination might be inferred and further investigated where necessary, but without placing onerous responsibilities of judgment on those compiling the registers.
Consequently we have decided to introduce a statutory responsibility upon local authorities to compile and maintain registers of potentially contaminating land uses. We consider that the most appropriate level of local government for doing this is the district council in England and Wales; that is the level at which local environmental monitoring is undertaken and at which local planning decisions are taken. In doing so we are acting in accord with a recently published report by the Association of District Councils which recommended that district councils should have powers to survey and register contaminated land. As regards Scotland, we see planning authorities as the equivalent level.
The particular land uses to be plotted and the form of the register will be specified in subsequent regulations on which there will be the fullest possible consultation. We shall be publishing the report of the Cheshire study later this month to show the kind of methods that are likely to be needed. Some further research and studies might be required to verify the full range of land-uses involved and to produce profiles of suspected contaminants. But we intend to work closely with the local authority associations in deciding on the form and content of the proposed registers.
An important feature of the proposed system will be public accessibility of the registers. We shall also need to consider how far, and in what way, owners of sites on the registers should be specifically informed. The proposed new clause makes provision for free access by members of the public and also provides for regulations to set out measures for informing those whose land is directly affected.
This may sound an extremely onerous set of tasks for local authorities. In fact, it has been our experience from the various studies and pilot local authority exercises that such registers can be set up and maintained with minimal demands on resources, using those staff already engaged in such activities for planning or environmental purposes. So I commend the clause to the House. I beg to move
3.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As a result of the publicity it is no surprise that the Government have recognised the fact that there is a major problem as regards contaminated land in this country. It is sad that the recognition of that contamination has not been matched by an adequate response. The Minister in charge of the Bill on Third Reading in another place gave a commitment that the Government would table the amendments now before us. However, he gave a commitment to stronger amendments. The present amendments are unsatisfactory in a number of ways.
The Minister in another place said that the registers would provide a way of alerting interested parties to the potential for contamination so that where necessary site surveys could be undertaken. In introducing the amendment today the noble Lord did not deal with the problem of alerting interested parties. In response to the problem of blight he merely said that it deserves careful consideration. That is no answer to the problem.
The Minister in another place referred to the need for site surveys. However, the amendment contains no such provision; there is no funding for site surveys. I do not dispute that the correct level of responsibility for registers of contaminated land is the district council. However, if the district councils are to be responsible for registers of contaminated land there must be some consistency of definition but not a single definition, as the noble Lord said. There must be a consistent definition across the country, otherwise those responsible for dealing with contaminated land will not know what to do.
There is no provision for site surveys; there is no provision for adequate verification; and, above all, there is no funding for the clean-up cost. It is not the cost of maintaining the registers that is the problem, as the Minister suggested, but it is the clean-up cost. That provision is missing from the amendment. We have not been able to deal with the matter in a future amendment and shall return to it at a later stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 376C and 376D not moved.]
Clause 133 [Deposits of substances and articles in the sea, etc.]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 376E:
Page 133, line 20, at end insert:
("(1A) Before section 5, the following section shall be inserted—
"Restriction on issue of licences for depositing or incineration at sea.
4.—(1) This Part shall have effect subject to the requirements of this section.

(2)No licence for depositing at sea, or incineration at sea, shall be granted under this Part where in the opinion of the licensing authority such a licence would be for the deposit or incineration of anything which it would, having regard to environmental considerations, be more desirable to dispose of on land.

(3)The Ministers shall for the purposes of this section make, and from time to time modify, regulations specifying those types of waste which appears to them to be desirable to dispose of on land, having regard to environmental considerations" ").

The noble Lord said: It is for the convenience of the Committee that I speak also to Amendment No. 377 standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Again, the Government have woken up to the issue of the disposal of waste at sea. At the North Sea Conference in March 1990 the Government made welcome statements about their long-term intentions in dealing with the major problem. I remind Members of the Committee that the Government stated that we would cease to dump sewage sludge at sea by 1998; we would end the dumping at sea of liquid industrial waste by 1992; and that we would phase out marine incineration of UK waste by the end of 1990.
It is one thing to recognise the problem and I congratulate the Government for doing so. However, what is not clear is the action that they propose to take in the interval between now and the deadlines that they have set, in particular the deadline for the dumping of sewage sludge at sea. If we are to meet the deadline of 1998 there must be a progressive decline in the incidence of dumping at sea. If we are serious about the deadline we must prepare now for the substantial investment which will be involved in developing other means for disposing of sewage sludge. At present we dispose of 10 million tonnes of sewage sludge per year. The equivalent dealt with by land disposal would require 10 incinerators costing possibly £200 million capital with continuing running costs of £50 million per year. Where will those incinerators be sited? How will they receive planning permission? Will it be the responsibility of individual water and sewage authorities to find locations or will the Government help?
What sort of programme do the Government have to ensure that there is progressive movement towards eliminating sewage sludge dumping at sea by 1998? We suggest to the Committee through this amendment that there should be a predisposition in favour of land-based disposal at sea from today's date rather than from 1998. We suggest that unless there is that predisposition in favour of land-based disposal, the Government will not achieve their deadlines.
We do not propose to divide the Committee on this amendment. However, as a result of tabling it we wish to hear the Government's detailed and urgent proposals to achieve the deadlines which they set themselves at the North Sea Conference in March of this year. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and speak also to my Amendment No. 377. This amendment would effectively require the pre-treatment of substances before they are dumped at sea, which would thus minimise their damaging effect upon the environment. I suggest that the Government should give very serious consideration to all the issues raised here as there is little point in trying to clean the beaches if various obnoxious substances are being washed on to them.
Lord Campbell of Croy: The Committee will recall that I have tabled Questions and taken part in
2272
debates over the past two years on the subject of dumping at sea. I was glad to congratulate the Government when they were able to announce at the time of the conference that they were making a great step forward. Whether they can go as far as this amendment and whether it is practical to do so I shall be interested to hear.
I should like to point out that there seems to be a misprint in subsection (3). Surely the word "it" should appear before the word "appears", or else "appears" should not have a "s" on the end.
I should like to mention incineration at sea. I am glad to see that the word "at" is in the amendment because incineration at sea does not necessarily mean that anything goes into the sea. In most good incinerations the residue, which is quite small, can be brought back to land and disposed of entirely safely.
Expert environmentalists have stated that incineration at sea is very often the best and most effective way of dealing with some wastes because if there is incineration on land, the people living in the area may not be subject to any danger but they may be subject to some very bad smells. Provided that what is going into the atmosphere is not polluting it, carrying out that process 100 miles away from land may be the better course.
I have only one question for my noble friend. Today we have started to deal with Part VIII of the Bill and I note that the words "member state" appear. That is in Clause 132. I have looked at the definition. There are many definitions for each clause but I cannot see to what "member state" refers; whether it is automatically a member state of the EC or some other organisation. That does not seem to be mentioned. I do not expect an answer straight away but at some time during the debate on Part VIII today it would be helpful to be told why "member state" appears on its own without any indication of the organisation to which it refers.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): The points raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, are already covered appropriately by the FEPA licensing system, which requires the licensing authority to have regard to the need to protect the marine environment and to the practical availability of alternative ways of dealing with the substances to be disposed of.
Those provisions fulfil our obligations under the relevant international treaties—the London Dumping Convention and the Oslo Convention —and have been proved to be effective in practice. The number of licences issued for dumping at sea has been drastically reduced over the years because suitable land-based alternative means of disposal have been developed.
Furthermore the Government have been able earlier this year to set termination dates for the sea dumping of liquid industrial waste, flyash, sewage sludge and marine incineration because of the considerable efforts which have been put into the development of safe alternative disposal methods.

2273
In answer to the query of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about the deadline of 1998, water companies are drawing up programmes to be ready by the end of 1990. Planning requirements will take time; for example, as regards the location of incinerators. Amounts of sludge dumped will be reduced before 1998 as and when environmentally sound land-based alternatives can be put in place. Our achievements in respect of finding safe alternative disposal methods were endorsed by the North Sea Conference in March of this year and at last month's meeting of the Oslo Commission. Other countries made a point of congratulating the UK on those achievements.
As regards the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, the Government see two problems with it. First, by referring to the reduction of polluting effects it implies that a licence might be given where harm might be caused to the marine environment. I should like to make it quite clear that we will not permit the dumping of waste at sea if there is a risk of this causing pollution. We would not wish to water down chat position by agreeing to issue a licence if best available technology not entailing excessive cost (BATNEEC) had been used because pollution might still be caused.
Secondly, the amendment implies that BATNEEC can be generally used on the types of waste licensed. The Government are terminating licences for industrial wastes, sewage sludge and incineration at sea. The main category of dumping which we expect to continue to licence will be spoil dredged from harbours and navigation channels. There is no treatment which could practically be applied to the huge quantities of spoil which must be removed to keep open our ports.
The Government consider BATNEEC to be a powerful tool in the control of waste disposal. However in the particular context of dumping at sea it is not practicable to require it and it would weaken rather than strengthen our control system. I would therefore hope that both noble Lords will withdraw their amendments.
Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy that my noble friend Lord Hesketh is in charge of this Bill and I should hate to interfere with him.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I know that the noble Baroness achieved a friendly response with that last remark, However, government is a seamless robe. Whoever is the spokesman on the Front Bench is responsible for answering for the Government and the noble Lord raised an important constitutional point which should not be ignored. If an answer is required, as I believe it is, it should come from whichever Minister is standing at the Dispatch Box.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I said that I expected an answer at some time during today's Committee stage because it was rather a fast ball. However, it is a rather important point.
Baroness Trumpington: Perhaps I may reply not only to my noble friend but also to the rather terse remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. The phrase "member state" is not defined
2274
in Clause 132 as it is defined elsewhere. I believe that it is defined in the European Communities Act 1972. Clause 132 has already been discussed since Clauses 130 and 132 were tacked on to the debate on Part II.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I thank my noble friend for producing that answer so quickly, particularly as she is dealing only with a specific section of the Bill. It makes clear what I guessed might be the case, "member state" refers to EC membership, and other member states of the EC. However, that is not stated in the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful that my terse intervention, in the sense that I prefer to use the word, gave the Minister the chance to reply to the question immediately.
The reply given to the substantive amendment before us was interesting. The Minister congratulates the Government on having received the congratulations of other members of the North Sea Conference. I suspect that those congratulations come from other members not because of anything outstanding that we were doing, but because we were so terrible before that any improvement we make is a matter for congratulation. After all, we are the only country to be dumping waste into the North Sea on a significant scale, and it is only the pressure which led to our commitments at the North Sea Conference which led to these improvements. It does not mean that we are doing well; it means that we are not doing as badly as we were before.
Some of the answers given by the Minister deserve careful consideration. I shall certainly not pursue the amendment; but I do not think the Minister paid any attention to the issue of the cost of the incinerators that will be required. There will have to be substantial investment in addition to the planning preparation to which she referred. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 377 to 377CA not moved.] Clause 133 agreed to.
4 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington) moved Amendment No. 377D:
After Clause 133, insert the following new clause:
("Public registers relating to deposits in the sea and incineration at sea
In Part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, for section 14 (registers of licences) there shall be substituted the following section —
"Duty of licensing authority to keep public registers of information
14. —(1) It shall be the duty of each licensing authority, as respects licences for which it is the licensing authority, to maintain, in accordance with regulations, a register containing prescribed particulars of or relating to —

(a) applications for licences made to that authority;

(b) the licences issued by that authority;

(c) variations of licences effected by that authority;

(d) revocations of licences effected by that authority;

(e) convictions for any offences under section 9 above;

2275

(f) information obtained or furnished in pursuance of section 8(3), (4) or (5) above; and

(g) such other matters relating to operations for which licences are needed under this Part of this Act as may be prescribed.

(2) No information shall be included in any register which, in the opinion of either of the Ministers, is such that its disclosure on the register—

(a) would be contrary to the interests of national security, or

(b) would prejudice to an unreasonable degree some person's commercial interests.

(3) Information excluded from a register by virtue of subsection (2)(b) above shall be treated as ceasing to prejudice a person's commercial interests at the expiry of the period of four years beginning with the date on which the Minister made his decision under that subsection; but, on the application of any person to whom it relates, the Minister shall decide whether the information should be included or continue to be excluded from the register.

(4) Where information of any description is excluded from a register by virtue of subsection (2)(b) above, a statement shall be entered in the register indicating the existence of information of that description.

(5) It shall be the duty of each licensing authority —

(a) to secure that the register maintained by the authority under this section is available, at all reasonable times, for inspection by the public free of charge; and

(b) to afford to member of the public facilities for obtaining copies of entries, on payment of reasonable charges.

(6) Registers under this section may be kept in any form.

(7) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed in regulations.

(8) Either of the Ministers may exercise any power to make regulations under this section and any such power shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament." ").

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 377D, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 383BA, 398A and 402ZA. Amendment No. 377D is a technical amendment. Its purpose is to keep the provisions for public registers of information on the dumping of waste at sea, already in existence under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, in line with similar provisions for registers contained in Part I of the Bill. I apologise to your Lordships for its late arrival.
Amendments Nos. 383BA, 398A and 402ZA are consequential amendments following the introduction of the new clause. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 378 not moved.]
Clause 134 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 379 not moved.]
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 379A:
After Clause 134, insert the following new clause:
("Dog Registration
. —(1) For the purpose of protecting the environment, the Secretary of State shall by order, in accordance with subsections (5) and (6) below, make provision for a scheme for the registration, identification and control of dogs.
(2) In making an order the Secretary of State shall provide, inter alia, for the scheme to be administered by local authorities, and for the fixing of registration fees, including such variations as may be prescribed, to be paid by the owners, or keepers of dogs to the relevant authorities.
An owner or keeper of a dog who fails to register it or to ensure that it can be identified in accordance with regulations made under a scheme in accordance with this section shall be
2276
guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.
(4) In performing their duties under this section, local authorities may enter such agreements with any person as may in their opinion facilitate the registration and identification of dogs.
(5) The Secretary of State shall not later than 12 months from the passing of this Act lay an order under this section before Parliament for approval in accordance with subsection (6) below.
(6) Any order made under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and no order shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
(7) In this section "local authority", means in England and Wales a District Council, a London Borough Council or the Common Council, and in Scotland means a District or Island Council.").
The noble Lord said: I should like to thank all noble Lords and the usual channels for ensuring that the debate on this amendment takes place at a reasonable hour of the day instead of the usual time of one o'clock in the morning.
I am sure that no Member of the Committee will be misled by the media which suggest that this amendment is a great constitutional or party matter. It is not. It deals with the method of controlling our dogs. As for being a party matter, a similar amendment was defeated in another place by only 12 votes. Moreover, the Government are very anxious about the problem. Accordingly, last week they issued a consultative paper describing their preferred method. I say "preferred" because my honourable friend Mr. Heathcote-Amory indicated on Sunday that if the Committee decides that this amendment is a better way forward, then the Government will accept the Committee's decision.
Once again it is open to your Lordships to decide, without any political pressure, which way to vote. Should the Committee approve the amendment, it would be up to the Commons to give it its blessing. If it did so, there would be a period of one year before the Secretary of State would have to lay before Parliament an affirmative order giving precise details of the dog scheme. I purposely say "dog scheme" because although registration is an essential part of it, it is only a means to an end. That end is sound dog management.
During the year the Secretary of State will have to discuss the details of the scheme with all interested parties. However, I would be more than usually naive if I thought that the Chamber would let me get away without saying how some of the detailed problems concerning dogs could be tackled if the amendment were accepted.
The scheme could, and almost certainly would, provide compulsory third party insurance. The Government scheme does not do so. There would be opportunities for the private sector to operate the scheme by agreement with the local authority. It could provide for reduced fees for deserving cases; for instance, a reduction could be given for neutered or spayed dogs, guide dogs for the blind and indeed block registration for groups of dogs. Perhaps I may refer to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Mancroft on this matter. I hope I can put his mind at rest on this point by saying that I shall certainly

2277
not oppose his amendment to my amendment if he chooses to move it.
The Government scheme does not tackle those problems, particularly neutering. The proposed scheme would remind the purchaser of the puppy that dogs cost money; that they take time, effort and care to keep. The Government scheme does not do that. The scheme will only create one new offence —that of failing to register. The Government scheme suggests creating many new offences, including having a dog out of control or persistently at large. I wonder how many of your Lordships' dogs —I think particularly of my terrier or somebody else's hound —might fall foul of that offence. As a field sportsman I am anxious about that Government proposal.
Because all dogs would have to be registered it would be possible to identify the dog with the owner. It is not the dog that is at fault; it is always the owner. If a dog, particularly a dangerous one, was not registered, that fact would be easily obtained from the central registration computer. The owner then has two or three courses open to him. If he takes the risk of going out in the street with the dog, there is a good chance that he will be apprehended by a dog warden for having an unregistered dog. He would then be guilty of the offence of not registering. I shall be more than happy to explain in more detail later if I am cross-examined.
The Government believe that our registration scheme could not be enforced. I totally disagree. Other countries have very successful schemes. Are the Government suggesting that we in this country are more undisciplined, unruly and fail to obey the law than, say, Australia, America or Sweden? If that is what the Government say, it is a bad admission. In any case, I do not believe that that is the case.
The Association of District Councils is happy to work this scheme, but not the Government's scheme. The association is happy to do so because neither the association, local councils, your Lordships nor the poll tax payer will have to finance it. The scheme will be adequately self-financing through the registration fee. Therefore, there will be enough money to police the scheme. The Government scheme, —they want dog wardens and dogs wearing collars—will rely on local authority funding. With all the burdens that local authorities have to shoulder today —care in the community, new litter regulations in Part IV of the Bill, and so on —what chance will they have to fund the Government scheme, particularly if they are poll tax capped? If the Committee accept this amendment there will be no need for the Government scheme. I suggest that we might find a suitable place in Part IV of the Bill for the pamphlet.
There is one other important point. Noble Lords are often accused of tabling amendments that cost money. The scheme in my amendment does not cost money. It actually saves the Government money. Therefore, for once we cannot be accused of introducing an amendment that costs money.
The Daily Telegraph—a paper that cannot in any way be described as Left-wing—last week published a survey in which 91 per cent. of the people interviewed (one-third were dog owners) supported my amendment and, in particular, dog registration. I repeat, 91 per cent. We put down 350,000 unwanted stray dogs each year. We allow unwanted and uncontrolled dogs to bite our children and our policemen, to abort and kill my sheep, and to foul the pavements. As a dog owner, and indeed a dog lover as my ancestors have always been before me, as a farmer and shepherd involved with animals all my life, and as a member of this Chamber, I hope that the Committee will support the amendment. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Mancroft Lord Mancroft moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 379A, Amendment No. 379AA:
After Clause 134, line 8, after ("variations") insert ("or exemptions").
The noble Lord said: It has been mooted that my amendment to my noble friend's amendment may be in some way a wrecking amendment. I suggest that it is no such thing. I support, as I believe many noble Lords do, the principles behind my noble friend's amendment and, indeed, the Government's proposals in their pamphlet The Control of Dogs The principle on which I believe we now all agree is that in this country there is a problem in two specific areas of dog ownership. First, the enormous numbers of strays, as my noble friend pointed out and, secondly, large and rather unpleasant dogs biting small and almost as unpleasant children.
Everyone in this country agrees that those are not the good aspects of dogs. Therefore, much as we dislike the idea of more controls, rules and regulations we must face the fact that they must apply eventually to dog ownership. I do not want to debate the merits of my noble friend's amendment or the proposals put forward by the Government. However, I do want to show to the Committee that if it decides that my noble friend's amendment is the right route there is one problem; that is, there are no exemptions from payment. One of the principles we have established during the course of this Bill is that those who pollute pay to repair the pollution, so to speak. Taking that concept a little further, it seems to me unfair that those owners who have responsibly looked after and controlled their dogs for many years should have to pay for policing dogs whose owners have not done so.
Obviously the millions of dog owners in this country would all stand up and say that they are good owners and should not pay. Therefore, in my amendment I suggest not that certain groups should not register—I believe that all should register—but that certain selected groups should not have to pay. The most obvious of those come under the loose heading of working dogs. By that I mean police drug and bomb sniffer dogs, sheepdogs and, obviously, guide dogs for the blind. There is also the important area, often forgotten, of those places where large groups of dogs are kept together. The most obvious are training establishments where guide dogs for the blind are trained and 50 or 100 dogs are kept in one

2279
place. Such places spend much time raising money to buy the dogs and it is extremely expensive to train them. It would be unfair to put a further toll on those establishments when the dogs are being kept for the purpose of training them; which is why we are introducing a registration scheme in the first place.
My amendment establishes only the principle of exemption from paying. That is all. The detail would be decided in the affirmative order which the Secretary of State brings forward during the course of the next year. That is when a decision would be made about these groups and individual dog owners. The joy of my noble friend's amendment is its simplicity and we can perhaps assume that simple things work the best, but it is very much blanket coverage over an enormous area. My amendment would give us the ability to raise a corner of the blanket and provide an escape route whereby those who we feel should be excepted can be, but without in any way destroying the principle of registration. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: I support —
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I should like
Lord Stanley of Alderley: The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, has her name down to the amendment.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I want to speak against both of the amendments. I should like to say a word in favour of dogs and dog owners and against both the amendments, of which that spoken to by my noble friend Lord Mancroft is marginally less offensive.
Dogs are the friends of man. No one doubts the necessity for legislation on dogs. They must be prevented from straying; they must be protected from abandonment or cruelty; they must be discouraged from defecating in inappropriate places; and they must also be kept under proper control. However, I speak partly from my own experience. Dogs are companions to the lonely, the old, the frail and, I am sorry to say, also those who could not pay my noble friend's proposed registration fee which I understand could be as high as £25. It is all very well to say that the amendment costs no money but a more preposterously untrue statement has rarely been made in this Chamber.
The scheme will not cost the Government a penny. It will not cost the local authority much, but it will cost the individual dog owner a high amount. I do not know how much, nor did my noble friend or my other noble friends who proposed the amendment to the amendment tell us what scale of costs it would involve. My guess is that £25 per year would not be a large mis-statement of fact. I should like to hear what the Government Front Bench think about it.
To stop the old, the lonely and poor from owning dogs is preposterously cruel to human beings. Would it be kind to dogs? We hear that 350,000 dogs are put down every year. I believe that if the amendment were passed, 700,000 dogs might well be put down
2280
every year. More dogs would be abandoned, or left to stray because it would be precisely those who either could not or did not wish to pay the registration fee who would abandon dogs and leave them to stray. There would be no means in the hands of the Government of enforcing the legislation because, by definition, the dogs would never have been registered at all. This is a preposterous piece of proposed legislation.
I speak a word from personal experience. When my wife died, I was left with her little dog. I cannot tell noble Lords what that little dog meant to me. Of course I was able to pay the then dog licence fee without the smallest difficulty. I have no doubt that I could scrape together £25 a year to keep my present dog who has taken her place. But there are plenty of people who could not. This proposal is ill thought out, and I hope that the Committee will not pass it.
Baroness Nicol: I support Amendment No. 379A, together with the amendment to it proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, has told us of the Government's latest consultation paper. I welcome much of what has been proposed in that paper, particularly with regard to the tightening of legislation already on the statute books. However, there is still no satisfactory way of enforcing measures to deal with the serious problems associated with dogs. The amendment proposes a scheme that will help to solve the problem. It will not solve it completely, but it will help.
Only a comprehensive national dog registration scheme can form the soundest way of ensuring the proper control and welfare of dogs in our society. When we consider the issue before us, several factors must be taken into account. First, there is the need to identify a dog with its owner. We heard the horrific figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and I understand from the Battersea Dogs Home that, of the large number of dogs put down by them every year, many are not strays, they are simply dogs who have become separated from their owners. There is no way of identifying them because dogs will stray a long way from home. Only by this registration—
Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone: I do not wish to interrupt the noble Baroness's excellent speech, but surely dogs ought to wear collars with the name and address of their owners stamped upon them. There is a method of tattooing dogs with an identification mark. These actions are desirable, and it does not necessarily support the amendment to ignore them.
Baroness Nicol: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord will feel differently when we have reached the end of the debate because there are many more points to make. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, told us that registration would be a self-financing scheme. That is a great attraction. It would not call on government funds, the local authorities would administer the scheme, and they believe that it is practicable. Many have written to us to say so.
The Government have indicated that they wish to transfer responsibility for strays from the police

2281
and the county councils to the district councils. I welcome that measure. A registration scheme would provide funds for up to 1,000 dog wardens. The noble and learned Lord is anxious about the level of the possible registration fee, and I shall come to that in a moment. These wardens would not only be responsible for the enforcement of by-laws, the scheme's policemen, if you like, but they would also be the scheme's teachers. The development of a comprehensive network of dog wardens would do more than anything else to promote responsible dog ownership. That in turn will do more to prevent the neglect and cruelty that leads to straying or dangerous dogs. It will lead to a reduction in the incidence of dog fouling.
The Government have said on other occasions that the dog licensing system in Northern Ireland —part of the Dogs Order 1983 —does little to contribute to dog control. They say that it appears to have had no significant impact on the number of strays. However, the director of the environmental health service of Belfast City Council, Mr. Brian Hanna, has said on many occasions that there has been a real reduction in the number of strays and a consequent reduction in the number of dogs destroyed. That view is shared by the Ulster Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
The Royal Ulster Constabulary also supports the licensing system, saying that there have been fewer accidents in the Province since the measure was introduced. There are other reasons why a registration scheme is necessary. Introducing the need to register would reduce the impulse purchasing of puppies, especially at Christmas. Registration would provide a national database on dogs which could be used to encourage spaying, worming and vaccination. In the event of an outbreak of rabies —more likely with the advent of the Channel Tunnel and the increasing incidence of rabies in Europe —registration would be vital. The Minister —having been a Member of the Kennel Club ℄will be interested to know that the scheme would help to ensure the reliable registration of pedigree dogs.
The Joint Advisory Committee On Pets In Society, known as JACOPIS, which represents a wide range of organisations involved with dogs —dog wardens, local authorities, vets, environmental health officers, welfare groups and pet food manufacturers —all support dog registration and have jointly produced a scheme which meets all the Government's worries on the grounds of costs, practicality and purchase. It must be stressed that it is not a panacea, but it would assist greatly in the problems relating to dogs. The Minister's officials have been supplied with details of the scheme, and we look forward to hearing his comments in due course.
The self-financing scheme requires dogs to be registered at a cost of £15 initially and £10 annually thereafter. This would generate about £50 million in the first year of operation, assuming that half Britain's dog population were registered. That in turn would provide the capital injection needed to ensure the success of the scheme in future years, relying, as it would, on reduced income as more
2282
owners renewed their registration at the lower fee rate. Once capital expenditure had taken place in the first year of the scheme's operation —on, for example, computer terminals, equipment for kennel wardens, and training staff—the recurrent proportion of the registration fee spent on administration would be about 20 per cent. of the total income raised.
The noble and learned Lord was concerned about people who could not afford to pay for dogs. The amendment which we have put forward already allows the Secretary of State to make variations in the scheme. That aspect has been strengthened by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. There is no reason at all why the Secretary of State should not include relief for those who are unable to pay the fee or, for example, in the case of guide dogs for the blind or other such cases.
Questions have been raised in the past about the technology used to record information about a dog and its owner. Wood Green Animal Shelters—a member of JACOPIS —is an organisation which currently operates the voluntary National Pet Register that is held on a computer system designed and programmed for 80 million entries. We estimate that there are about 7 million dogs in the country at present. Even if all of them were to be registered, that computer system could easily take the extra work. The system provides for 1,000 remote terminals and 100 telephone lines. It is a system which is accessible 24 hours a day and 365 days a year. The scheme proposed by JACOPIS would fund between 600 and 1,000 wardens which would be sufficient to make a substantial impact on the enforcement problem.
The Government cannot wash their hands of the problems associated with dogs. They cannot expect local authorities to foot the bill from their already over-stretched resources, as the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, said so eloquently. Hundreds of thousands of dogs are destroyed annually. The majority of owners love and value the ownership and good service of dogs. Every year these potential friends and allies of man are rejected, starved, maltreated or literally thrown into the ditch by those who have too thoughtlessly acquired them. Some owners acquire their dogs without the means or the intention of developing the mutual care and trust that dogs can and do give, if properly treated and trained. If people want them and value them, they will willingly pay a modest registration fee.
I urge noble Lords to support the amendment. It is eminently sensible, cost-effective and practicable. The Government must be persuaded that registration is needed, for it underpins the measures, many of which are welcome and necessary, which were outlined last week. Ultimately, it is registration which will make those measures work for the good of dog owners and non-owners alike.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: I strongly support the amendment. Initially I was very open-minded on the matter. However, I have been approached by both sides and I now come down very firmly on the side of those who wish to have a dog registration scheme.

2283
I should like to point out first that the dogs we normally think of are pets. Of course, we all know the arguments about people wanting dogs: that they can be man's best friend, and so on. It is only natural that people should want dogs. Nevertheless, it costs a person between £150 and £200 a year to keep a dog. Therefore, if they cannot supply the sum of £15, or whatever it may be, for the registration fee, then they probably should not have a dog. I believe, as does the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, that older people should probably be among those who would be exempt from paying this fee.
One only has to read the reports from the RSPCA to realise how many pets are totally neglected. Many of them end up as skin and bone and have to be rescued. In fact, only last week in Wimbledon, one saw officers of the RSPCA inspecting the parked cars and breaking the windows of some of them because dogs had been left inside. There was even a baby left in a car last year. I understand that it only takes half an hour in the heat of an enclosed car to cause the death of a dog. That is all I have to say about pets, but I must take the matter a little further. We must also consider the position of the guide dog and other such dogs which should be exempt from the fee.
However, there is now a much more sinister angle on dogs. Criminals are now training Rottweilers to counter the police dogs. They are trained to help the criminal carry out his crime. There are also many long dogs all over the country which are used on a large scale for deer hunting. These gangs roam throughout the countryside running down deer at all hours of the day and night. The owners of these dogs are virtually free from prosecution because no one can catch them. Even if they are caught, there is an extensive exchange system in operation. If someone is caught with a greyhound, the dog changes hands the next day so that there is no way of ascertaining to whom it belongs. The only way to deal with the situation is by introducing some form of registration.
I was very interested —and I do not think I have heard this mentioned —in the small capsule which can be inserted underneath the scruff of the neck of a dog which becomes a permanent means of identification. It does away with the need for the collar which, in any event, is never used. Indeed, how many dogs have collars? In my view, very few of them. However, once the little chip is put into the neck of the dog that is the end of the matter.
I live very close to the Cleveland dog pound where many dogs are put down every day. I have heard that as many as 1,000 dogs are destroyed every day. It is true that if the registration scheme came into being that number would increase to perhaps 5,000 per day. However, once the situation had settled down one would hope that the number of destructions would drop dramatically. Indeed, this has actually happened in other countries where the scheme has been introduced.
I asked my young son who is a computer expert about the number of computers needed to run such a scheme to cover —and I think I am right in this
2284
figure—about 15 million dogs. He said that any ordinary medium-sized computer could run it with the greatest of ease; it was no great problem and no enormous computer would be required.
The Government's scheme mentions the dangerous breeds of dogs. However, it is very difficult to ascertain which breeds are dangerous. Are we to muzzle all dangerous dogs? In my view, that in itself would be cruelty. Moreover, what is a dangerous breed? Is it a dog which is part Rottweiler and Alsatian, one which is two parts Rottweiler and one part Alsatian or one which is one part terrier and two parts Rottweiler? Where does one draw the line as regards a dangerous breed? I know that we may not have any postmen in the Chamber, but those who have spoken to them will be aware that very often the terrier is probably the worst offender in this respect. Therefore, presumably, they would also be muzzled under the Government's scheme.
I believe that the system of registration is working well in Ireland. It is very much supported by the NFU, the RSPCA and various other groups. I very much hope that either the amendment will be carried in its present form or that another of similar effect will be accepted.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I deeply regret that this matter has been brought before the Committee in these circumstances. It does not really belong to this monumental Environmental Protection Bill on which we are now on the seventh day of the Committee stage. If this was the Second Reading of a Bill for the care and control of dogs, I think that we could all feel relaxed and go into considerable detail on the complexities of the proposal for a registration scheme, the need for it, its cost and other matters which are relevant to any support or objection to such a scheme.
However, the constraints of time on the Committee stage of a Bill of this kind at this late date, and after the late hour we reached last night. is not fair either to those who are interested in the matter or to those who are waiting to deal with other matters which are more relevant to the content of the Bill before us. I regret the pretentious form of words of introduction to this proposed new clause. They have been contrived to make it relevant to the Bill rather than to express the main purpose of the amendment: the protection of the environment. That is the purpose behind the new clause.
We all know —do we not? —that there are environmental problems related to dogs in society. However, to propose the establishment of a registration scheme of such dimensions, together with the instructions to the Secretary of State about them, seems to me to be out of proportion to the relationship between the dog problem and our environmental problems generally.
Nevertheless, I am bound to say that this occasion arises, like others similar to it, from the failure of the Government to give a reasonably favourable response to proposals which have come from many quarters, and especially from the animal protection societies, about the future administration of the control and care of the dog population. That results

2285
in deadlock. I hope that the Minister will say something this afternoon to resolve that deadlock. The registration scheme is put at the forefront of the proposals for change in the minds of many of the reformers in respect of the dog control laws and the powers of local authorities, the police and so forth. It was said in another place that registration is a prerequisite for all other dog reforms. It is not. It will, or may, accompany other dog reforms, but it is not a prerequisite and so it does not justify being put at the forefront of the debate on dog problems.
I regret also the way in which the campaign for the dog registration scheme in the media and by certain of the animal societies has created an atmosphere of hostility towards dogs. I underline the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, who spoke about the importance of dogs in human affairs. Perhaps I may modestly say that I produced the first comprehensive report on dogs in society. I was then chairman of the Joint Advisory Committee for Pets in Society. I took a great deal of evidence and had a great deal fo help in producing that report from everyone concerned, including the local authorities and the police.
The debate is about the most popular animal companion in Britain. It is about the consolation and comfort of 3 million pensioners. Out of our 7.25 million dogs there is no doubt that well over a third are in the homes of lonely people. We must take that fact into account. It is deplorable that to achieve reforms for the better care and control of dogs we have had to generate a feeling of hostility, when every bite of a child's arm, every attack and everything else connected with dangerous dogs appear on the front pages of newspapers, which creates the ethos that dogs are a menace to society.
I blame all governments since I produced my report in 1974. All have been indifferent to the importance of the matter, or, what is more likely perhaps, they believe that it is so politically sensitive that to touch it is to ask for trouble. We all know that over the years successive governments have regarded some questions as being outwith the scope of government legislation and they have been left to the Private Member's Bill procedure. This is one of them. Abortion was another. We have had plenty of examples of all those moral issues —marriage, divorce and so on. But it is that divide between issues that deserve government attention and those which are to be left to the hazards and frustrations of the Private Member's Bill procedure which leads to the problem that now exists with this matter.
The Government have not introduced a dog Bill. They have produced new proposals. They hurried them along in order to get them out. The proposals have an important bearing on this afternoon's discussion. That is something to which I shall come to in a moment. I shall not deal in detail with the proposed registration scheme. In my report I recommended the continuation of the licensing arrangements and an increase in the licence fee. That was followed by an interdepartmental committee of the various departments connected with the issue which made recommendations similar to mine; but nothing was done. We tried to get something done,
2286
but nothing was done. The Government said that the dog licence fee was dynamite. That was the clue as to why they did not wish to touch the matter.
We are discussing a registration scheme which, so it is said, is to be self-supporting. It will cost dog owners much more than was ever contemplated in my scheme, even allowing for inflation. We apparently feel that we can send such a proposal on its way.
There has been a scheme along the lines of mine operating in Northern Ireland for some time. Again, we asked the Government to let us have the Northern Ireland scheme in Britain. They said that circumstances in Northern Ireland were exceptional. All the dogs wander about in packs because bombs go off and houses are blown up. Some are Protestants and some are Catholics. They say that the situation is very different there. However, they have a registration scheme there, they have a licence and they have dog wardens. We have many local authority dog wardens in England. Many schemes have been improvised in the absence of any change in the law.
I want to devote myself for a few minutes to the likely consequences of what we may do this afternoon for the progress of future discussions and reforms of the dog problem. That is important. Whether the amendment is passed or defeated today, it will begin to close doors on future progress on animal care and control. Is that what we want? I shall explain why. The Government are backing this horse both ways. They appear to resist but are willing to lie down and let it go over them if this place so desires. That is not the spirit in which a government should come here to deal with such a proposition. Yet the Minister in a television interview on Sunday gave the impression that, if Parliament wants the scheme and if this place passes the new clause, it will not be resisted when it goes back to the other place. He implied, "We shall take it, and we shall try to do something with it". That is not the spirit. If there were a little more spirit behind the proposal, business could have been done, but it was not so.
If the Committee passes this new clause this afternoon it will give the Government one year's respite from further agitation and campaigning on the subject. They will like that because the new clause provides that the Secretary of State will have 12 months in which to produce a scheme and lay it before both Houses of Parliament. The Committee should then notice that what the Secretary of State produces and lays before Parliament at the end of his 12 months in purdah is the requirement that it be implemented by statutory instrument. Have you ever heard anything so preposterous in your life? A set of proposals of this kind, involves money, obligatory registration, enforced payment of a licence, levy, tax or fee, whatever one likes to call it and further proceedings and heavy fines if one fails to register or refuses to pay. Such people will join the poll tax defaulters' queue and flood the courts. The idea is preposterous.
I leave that point aside now because we have not yet reached that stage. But if we pass the amendment this afternoon we shall have transferred the debate to Whitehall. It has a job to do under the new clause.

2287
It will get on with it, and in the meantime the campaign for registration will cease. The press will lose interest in dogs—except the bad ones —because the reform will be under the consideration of the Secretary of State for the Environment. If there is to be silence on the registration scheme for up to a year, the Government will presumably have a smoother run for a Bill based on the proposals in the pamphlet. If we are to have a Bill in the next Session to implement those proposals the clause will to some extent undoubtedly forestall ideas that would otherwise be left over to be considered in connection with a registration scheme. Indeed, it would give the Government an opportunity of getting these reforms in place while the registration scheme is being cooked up by the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Passing this amendment today will postpone further progress on this matter as part of the dog problem for up to 12 months. But it may do more damage than that if it is rejected. This is the dilemma. If it is rejected this afternoon, there is a shut-down. It is a setback. It is a dismissal of the registration scheme as a prerequisite, or perhaps any part whatever, of dog control. Therefore, either way there is likely to be impeded progress with the work now going on and under discussion between the animal societies and Ministers to get something going more rapidly and more comprehensively than we have so far.
Let us take the timetable just a little further. Twelve months from the passing of this Bill will take us to October 1991. October 1991 will see the beginning of the last and shortened Session of this Parliament, because the general election must be held by June 1992. Therefore, this report and laying before Parliament and the grandiose scheme for registration, etc., may come at a time when Parliament has already gone into a state of election jitters and when there will be no time to pursue the matter this side of the general election. Therefore, if you pass this new clause this afternoon you defer further progress on registration until after the general election.
Suppose a Labour Government come in. I said "suppose". They are committed to sweeping away the poll tax and reinstating the rating system, or something of that kind. They are going to be up to their necks in the problems of the poll tax when they come in, and I think they will have little time to devote to a dog registration scheme with all its little troubles and fees.
This led me to make overtures to the supporters of this clause to withdraw it after a reasonable time for discussion. Why withdraw it? The reason —this is where the timetable comes in again —is that allowing for the time between now and the Report stage means that we have between now and October, because the Report stage and the Third Reading will now come in the overspill. It seems to me that we have these weeks in between to establish relations with Ministers to see whether the expressed wishes of so many Members of both Houses, and the desires of many people outside, can come a little closer to their own thinking. Can something be done to bring
2288
in a little more comprehension and a little more purpose, and a less piecemeal approach to dog reform?
I advise that this new clause should be withdrawn to allow those discussions to take place. But the sponsors of the new clause say that they are under such pressure that they cannot withdraw it and that it must go on. I cannot help that. I am sorry if that is the position. I inquired this morning of the Clerk of the House whether it was possible for me to move this afternoon that the debate on this amendment be postponed. He said that he had never heard of that. Well, fancy —all these years in your Lordships' House and nobody has thought of a useful little device like that. He could not recall such a case. He said that they would probably say, "Postpone to when?" I said, "Well, that is easy. It shall be postponed until the Report stage of this Bill. We then come back to see whether we have any suitable product of the discussions that have taken place in the meantime".
But are we then going to be restrained from exercising a commonsense approach to this situation by imaginary difficulties in postponing the debate, or adjourning the debate, or the possible intransigence of my noble friends and noble Lords opposite, for whom I have the greatest respect but who I do not believe have understood fully and measured fully the political and procedural consequences of what we are asked to do this afternoon? If we pass this amendment it will be at least three years before we see any comprehensive scheme of reform for the care and control of animals. I think that that would be a great shame.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: The real trouble with dogs in this country is that we are an urban population. We are about 85 per cent. urban, and of course the problem is that so many dog owners, especially in our big cities, do not understand dogs. The noble Lord who has just sat down said that this amendment should not come up in a Bill about the environment. I do not agree with him at all. After all, the fouling in our big cities touches on the environment. That is not the dogs' fault; it is the human beings' fault.
I have trained dogs. I have had dogs all my life, and so have my family. My ancestors had dogs. One ancester of mine had a favourite dog and he arranged a wonderful funeral for it. He had 60 dogs —or it may have been 50 —come to the funeral dressed appropriately. That is quite true. That was the sixth Viscount and second Earl.
I support this amendment. As has been mentioned, we have had it tried out in Northern Ireland. I agree that it has not paid the expenses. I understand that it has paid for about half the expenses of the wardens and organisers. However, I understand that the Government do not really want this amendment because they think that it will lose money, and of course it may lose money. You would have to have a large organisation running it and then you would have to have the wardens. It would probably lose money, but personally I think that if the charge was £10 a dog it would certainly pay for half of the scheme.

2289
Of course, old-age pensioners are another matter. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, mentioned that. Dogs give 3 million old people tremendous pleasure. That is a great point in favour of the clause —that the pensioners should not be charged. They should have the scheme free for their dogs. I think that the dogs ought to have discs rather than be tattooed.
The other question that the press is now rather playing up is the matter of dangerous dogs. Human beings are dangerous, and much more dangerous than dogs. We have heard about alsatians, Staffordshire and pit bull terriers and all these other dogs, but they are not dangerous if they have the right owner. To a great extent dogs take after their owners in their behaviour. I do not mean that they get drunk or anything of that kind! I have trained many dogs for all kinds of purposes, especially sheepdogs and shooting dogs (of which some people may not approve) and dogs like alsatians and bull terriers. My daughter's two babies were always guarded by alsatians; yet those dogs come under the class of dangerous dogs. It is the person who makes them dangerous.
I know of many bad-tempered men. However one tries to persuade them not to be bad tempered, they cannot help it because it is in their nature. One can take bad temper out of the nature of a dog but not the nature of a man. I do not want to hold up the Committee. I support the clause, which would have a tremendous advantage. Dog wardens would be able to prevent fouling in our cities, which in our big cities is not at all
desirable.
5 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby questioned the relevance of the Bill to the environment. There is one aspect of the environment to which the amendments are highly relevant, and that is the working environment of many thousands of people, who, because of their occupations, have to approach houses which are strange to them and where very often there are dogs that find them even stranger. I am talking about postmen, meter readers, policemen and milkmen. Last year 8,000 cases of savaging of postmen by dogs were reported.
In so far as the amendments are directed at increasing the sense of responsibility of dog owners, surely one can expect that, as a consequence, there will be more care in training and controlling dogs and a greater possibility of identifying miscreant dogs. Very often it is not possible to identify the owner and bring home the consequences of the action of his or her dog. I hope that noble Lords will bear that aspect in mind in reaching a conclusion.
I am most sympathetic to the view expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. There is no monopoly of affection for dogs in any part of the House. There is no monopoly of concern that people who need dogs to comfort them should have that opportunity. If I were not satisfied that the amendment and the amendments to the amendment could not produce the possibility of old people
2290
keeping their pets, I would vote against it. I believe that the amendments will make that situation possible.
The Earl of Balfour: I declare an interest, being the proud owner of a large black standard poodle. As the proposed new clause is worded, anybody who arranges for another person to look after his dog while he is away from home is liable to pay a double registration fee because the clause speaks of the, "owner or keeper of a dog". Accordingly, the first of my amendments proposes to leave out the words "or keeper".
The clause commences with the words,
"For the purpose of protecting the environment".
Thereafter it has nothing to do with the environment. As the clause is worded, the owner of a registered dog could take —perhaps on a lead —the mangiest, flea-ridden creature, rotten with worms, for walks around a fishing harbour and over the rocks where children love to play. It is only by the insertion of the words "his dog" at the end of subsection (4), as proposed in Amendment No. 379AD, that there can be any co-operation between the local authority and responsible dog owners. Otherwise, I wonder what kinds of persons the local authorities will dream up in order to facilitate the registration and identification of dogs.
In regard to identification, are dogs to be branded or to have metal tags put in their ears, as is the case with horses and cattle in some countries? Dogs scratch themselves and I do not want to see my animal with a bloody ear. My dog was tattooed when he was a puppy, but due to his thick black coat I now cannot read a single letter.
From a general point of view the proposed clause is far more draconian than the old licensing laws because there is no distinction between the different classes of dog. I wholeheartedly support the amendment that was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. The old dog licence was not required until the dog was six months old. It excluded certain working dogs —for example, sheepdogs. The clause appears to be a catch-all and makes no distinction between a chihuahua and a great dane, a dog for the blind and a sheepdog, a highly skilled hound or gundog and the mongrel that is pushed out of the house when the family go off to work, or the pet belonging to an old age pensioner and a police dog. If the police dog belongs to a particular force, his keeper will also require a registration certificate.
The new clause falls down in that it makes no distinction between the responsible and irresponsible owner.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I should like to say that we have no Whip on the Labour Benches. I am not giving a lead. We are not even on a leash. Members on this side of the Committee are free to listen to the arguments and come to their own conclusion as to whether the main new clause or the amendments are to their satisfaction.
Lord Tordoff: I think that the noble Lord may have misunderstood the situation when he stated that

2291
there is no Whip, because I understand the Labour Party has a new Chief Whip in this House, and I should like to congratulate him.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: We will take that as read. The debate has demonstrated that there are arguments and views that are passionately held on all sides of the Committee. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, rose to his feet, his first words were:
"I want to speak in favour of dogs and dog owners".
I too should like to speak in favour of dogs and dog owners. There is nothing in the registration scheme which is anti-dogs or dog owners. "You pays your money and you takes your choice".
If people want to pick holes in the registration scheme, they are entitled to do so and they are probably right. There is no way out of this national problem which cannot be negatived by looking at it in detail. I have listened to the various arguments. The Bill presents us with an opportunity which some people see fit to use. We can either use and support that opportunity or we can reject it. If you reject it, what do you do then? You wait until the next opportunity when someone else comes along and you say that this is not the right time. There is a mood in the country. Something positive and big must be done. That may be right or wrong. I do not envy the Government, who must be seen to take the mood of the country, whether it is right or wrong, and to legislate or assist in the legislation.
The new clause is in order and it is perfectly proper for it to be debated. I hope that the Committee will support the principles and the details as far as they are able to be included in the scheme. It is not perfect. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, introduces a whole raft of possibilities affecting the ultimate shape of the legislation, but the Committee must decide on the principle; namely, whether we want a dog registration scheme.
Some of the statistics are horrendous. I shall not go over them. The Committee has been well served by those who are passionate advocates or passionate opponents of a scheme. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and to my noble friend Lady Nicol, for their speeches. My noble friend said that the registration scheme was sensible, cost-effective and practical. There may be reasons why people reject it. I live in Enfield where there are rottweilers and children have been savaged by dogs. We all have our own ideas and experience of how dogs should be controlled. None of us can be positive and dogmatic about what is right or wrong. We must have a feel about the matter.
Some emotive language has been used. It has been said that the registration scheme might be detrimental to the lonely, the old, the frail and the poor. Those words ring hollow. That is not the intended effect. However, if those people are disadvantaged by the scheme, it is capable of looking after them, thanks to the exemptions clause.
The lobby encompasses the RSPCA, the ADC, the NFU, the AMA and many others. All have experience and expertise in these matters and allow
2292
owe responsibility to their members. When a range of bodies across such a spectrum says that a registration scheme is the answer, the Committee would do well to take note.
The Earl of Selkirk: The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has put the case extremely well. The purpose of the measure is to treat a dog not as a toy but as a privilege. In other words, the status of the dog in this country should be raised.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, finds the Bill so undesirable. There is a simple course open to him: he can table an amendment at the next stage of the Bill. He criticised the structure of the Bill and said that the proposal was in the wrong place. I have recently been involved in the Scottish legal services Bill which is about as mixed a measure as you could possibly find. We got through that somehow, for good or bad. I have often said in this place that I wished Bills were better drafted. The noble Lord always agrees with me on that point.
The question of price was raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. People have to pay for many things in this world. For example, our great toy today is television. I am told that 97 per cent. of people have a television in their home. The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, will correct me if I am wrong, but the number is very high. The RAC says that about 80 per cent. of people have the use of a car. I do not know how they do it, but they do. Perhaps some of them steal cars; I do not know. Many people in this place own guns and they must pay a gun tax.
That argument is not in itself an objection to the course that my noble friend Lord Stanley has in mind. Everything costs a price. We should force the Government to take action. As my noble friend said, it is urgently desired in this country. I believe that the RSPCA desires such action. We should accept the amendment to show that we want something to be
done.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: I wish to intervene briefly to follow my noble friend Lord Murray and to reply in some measure to my noble friend Lord Houghton. I do not understand how he can say that the measure does not fit into an environmental Bill. Last week we spent some time on an amendment dealing with the state of the streets. The state of the streets was attributed to dogs. As I recall, we could not do anything about the dogs which perpetrated the mess; it had to be the person involved who was charged.
If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, lived in the borough where I live, he would be delighted because, when Cruft's comes and all the owners bring out their dogs, it is practically impossible to walk round the streets. There are thousands of dogs. This is definitely an environmental matter in every sense of the word and it fits well into the Bill.
I should like to support the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. We have heard a great deal about the poor and old-age pensioners. Quite a number of people in this place are old-age pensioners. Perhaps the

2293
noble Earl cannot afford the £20. I shall be happy to help him with it so that he can keep his dog. I did not notice so much talk about old-age pensioners, the poor, the lonely and the frail when we debated the community charge. If the Government are willing to let these people off paying the community charge, I am sure that they will not object to paying a simple sum to keep a dog. That is not an argument for the registration scheme. As we have heard, people pay their television licence fees and other such fees. Anyone who cares for his dog will be only too delighted to have it registered. We are after those dogs.
I am a little shocked that my noble friend Lord Houghton did not think that the media should report the horrific attacks on children by those dogs. What a strange atmosphere we sometimes find in this place! Some people compare animals with human beings. There is no animal living that can be put on the same scale as a human being. The noble Lord said that human beings are unpleasant. What does he suggest? Perhaps we should round up some of those human beings, register them and make sure that they are held under control.
We in this country are schizophrenic about dogs. We are supposed to be great dog lovers, yet we have all those unfortunate dogs. If you talk to any vet —I have one in the family —they do not like having to destroy those dogs which are bought on a whim and turned out. A registration scheme will stop that kind of thing In reply to my noble friend Lord Houghton, I should say that we all know that it is the oldest device in the world: if you want to get something done, you fit it into a Bill that is about to come before this place. For heaven's sake, let us get something on the statute book. That is all we want. I plead with the Committee to support the amendment.
Lord Gibson-Watt: We all have a different view on this subject. I should like to say briefly why I have some doubts about the necessity of bringing in legislation.
As the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said, there is no doubt that this matter at present engages much national interest and national anxiety. It is doing so for three reasons; first, because of dangerous dogs; secondly, because of fouling; and thirdly because of strays. I doubt whether registration in itself, even if it is a prerequisite as some have said, will solve the problem. A registration scheme as large as this would be extremely difficult to administer. People often move house with their dogs and therefore the computer record would become out of date very quickly.
Such a scheme would also increase bureaucracy. This new body of people would cost a considerable amount of money. The London School of Economics carried out a survey for the RSPCA. It found that the scheme itself might cost £20 million and that a proper warden scheme might cost another £25 million. Those are considerable amounts of money. Who will pay? Whatever we may say, the baddies will get away with it. The people who will pay are those who keep decent homes and decent training kennels. I fail to see why they should sustain all the
2294
costs of the scheme. The Minister has already said that the Government are not prepared to find the money for it.
Reference has been made to the success of licensing in Northern Ireland, but one-third of dog owners there have not taken out dog licences. Vehicle excise evasion here amounts to £113 million. Television licence evasion amounts to more than £1.5 million. Evasion is easy and a scheme of this kind would be difficult to carry through and to administer.
Reference has also been made to exemptions. We are told that guide dogs would be exempt. Sheep dogs —I wonder. My noble friend Lord Stanley told us that he was once a shepherd. I too was a shepherd once. Why should they receive special treatment? What about packs of hounds? What about the man who lives only a mile away from me who keeps 25 dogs in clean kennels and sells them as sporting dogs —spaniels and retrievers? What about him? Is he to pay £25 multiplied by 25? That would not be very fair. What about old age pensioners? After all, the lady of the house, at 60 rather than 65, will register the dog. I urge my noble friends to think carefully about what is not an easy matter. To do something for the sake of doing something is not necessarily right.
The Government have produced what I consider to be a good consultative paper. I urge them to do just one thing. They should give local authorities right of entry to unlicensed dog breeding centres—what we call puppy farms. Those are a disgrace. Local authorities cannot easily get into them at the present time. That loophole should be closed. I ask the Committee to hesitate before supporting the amendment.
Lord Molloy: What is remarkable about the debate so far is that some Members of the Committee who love dogs are completely opposed to any form of registration and others who also love dogs fervently believe in registration. Arguments have been exchanged with good humour.
The problem has been brought upon us because the Government have quite blatantly done away with the dog licence. They have done so despite the fact that 8,000 people are bitten every year, 10,000 head of livestock are killed or maimed and thousands of strays cause hundreds of thousands of accidents. Something must be put in place of the dog licence. This proposal has been supported not only by Members on both sides of the Committee but also by many national organisations. They have done so for a variety of reasons. The National Farmers Union supports the principle of registration. Many dog owners support registration, as do postmen and many other groups who suffer because dogs are not properly controlled.
In another place the Minister agreed that more had to be done to resolve dog problems. He was quite correct. However, the general public wants action on dogs creating health hazards, on stray dogs, on dangerous dogs and on bad owners. The Minister cannot say on one occasion that something must be

2295
done and then, when something is proposed to do what he wants done, say that he opposes it. That is absurd.
I listened carefully to the moving speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. It did not completely destroy the argument for registration but it put on the agenda a point that must be seriously considered. The noble and learned Lord referred to old people living alone —but one can be rich and lonely or poor and lonely. If the amendment is accepted I hope that the noble and learned Lord's point will be taken fully into consideration.
I shall vote for the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and so ably supported by my noble friend, Lady Nicol. I shall do so not because I agree with everything that they said and not because I agree with everything that has been said during the debate. I shall do so because now is the time to deal with the problems relating to dogs. We are genuinely a dog and horse loving nation. It is because of our great love for animals that we have these important debates. However, the time has come for us to create an official link between the dog and his owner. Registration will do that. I am firmly of the opinion that that is precisely what the public requires.
Lord Boardman: I have a special and perhaps unique interest to declare, in that I was once bound over, and remain bound over, for keeping a dog in unsafe custody. I had a most lovable terrier, one of which my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham would approve, which happened to bite the relief postman. Having said that, I entirely support the intention of the amendment —it is right —but I cannot support the amendment in its present form. I share the reservations expressed by my noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt. I shall not weary the Committee by repeating them. The amendment is not perfect in achieving the objectives which are set for it. The questions proposed in the Green Paper are valid. I hope that the Government will press ahead, gather responses to those questions and in the light of those responses bring in such further measures as should be appropriate.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: I wish to praise the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, for bringing this point before the Committee. He put everything across superbly well, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. I do not wish to speak for any length of time at all, but I should point out that I have had the good fortune to speak to Dame Janet Fookes from another place, as well as to other people who are professionally involved with dogs and to representatives of societies concerned with the care of dogs.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, like many of the good Members of this Chamber, is old. I know a lot of good old people who keep goldfish and cats as pets rather than dogs. We hope that registration will be introduced. Old people who keep dogs will also have to pay a fee. However, that should be a much reduced sum. Those are all details which will have to be worked out later, after registration is introduced.
2296
One thing that should be mentioned is the fact that in 1992 we shall enter the Common Market proper. All of the countries in the EC have a dog tax or a registration scheme of sorts. Owners of dogs within those countries pay a sum of between £5 and £15. Some EC countries have legislation which requires dogs to wear tags.
We should reflect on the idea of a microchip or a tattoo in the dog's ear as opposed to a tag. I talked to a vet the other day who was a little worried that such a measure may become law. On the question of tattooing dogs, he said he would need a microscope if he were to tattoo a chihuahua's ear and a Churchillian nerve to tattoo a Rottweiler's ear.
Farmers are going through a rough period and have been for some years. That position is likely to continue for some years to come. Farmers across the water are sometimes not very helpful to us in this regard. Let us not try to undercut farmers any further. Last year 400 hippies invaded the area where I live in Devonshire. Some of my neighbouring farmers had their sheep attacked by the dogs of the hippies. Those dogs were unregistered and completely uncared for. They killed 56 sheep in two months. That is, after all, a dog's instinct. They killed a £300 ram which had been bought two weeks previously. The farmer who owned the ram had not had a chance to insure it. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, made a brilliant point as regards insurance. Insurance is an absolute must.
Further, our materialistic society now indulges in puppy breeding. I could show the Committee a photograph of little puppies in a dumping pit which were bred for sale. The Kennel Club says that such pedigree dogs are already registered. However, these dogs are bred specifically for shows. We should consider registration as a means of avoiding this disgusting practice of breeding dogs for money rather than through a sense of love for the animal concerned.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and other Members of the Committee have said that we in this country love our dogs. If that is the case, we shall not mind paying to register them. Children who are bitten by dogs are often bitten because they have teased the dog. Some children think it is fun to tease dogs. When they tease dogs some of them get bitten. Some children have been badly injured and others have died. We obviously feel terribly sorry for the families of those children. We must consider this Bill carefully and accept this amendment.
5.35 p.m.
Baroness Strange: I should like to say a few words in favour of this amendment, and particularly of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Mancroft. I speak in favour of those amendments on behalf of the dogs themselves. Everyone who has spoken has done so from a human point of view. Dogs cannot speak for themselves. It is not fair that we are all registered at birth, while dogs are not. Dogs are important and we all love them. Therefore it is only fair that dogs should be registered. However, we should make exceptions so that the old, the lonely and those who cannot afford to register their dogs should not have to pay a registration fee. A fee

2297
should also not have to be paid for working dogs, as in the case of my friend Shogun, the police dog, who was in the Chamber earlier this afternoon before the Committee sat. I support the amendment.
Earl Attlee: I apologise for not having been present at the beginning of the discussion on the amendment. Unfortunately my wife is in the Cambridge military hospital in Aldershot. I had to visit her and then drive to the Chamber from there. I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, to inform him that I would support his amendment. However, as I was nor present at the beginning of the discussion on the amendment, I may inadvertently repeat some of the arguments which have already been made.
Speaking personally, I cannot see any reason why Rottweilers and pit bull terriers are allowed into this country. They are vicious animals and they serve no useful purpose. A terrible case was reported in the newspapers the other day of a police constable who was attacked by a Rottweiler. He had not done anything to the dog but he had to strangle it to get free. Even when the dog was dead, its jaws remained clamped tight on the policeman's hand.
The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, mentioned the former dog licence. He said that we should have something in its place. I should have thought the obvious thing for the Government to have done rather than having abolished the licence —I believe that it cost seven shillings and six pence —was to have increased it to a reasonable sum of money at current prices.
I am in favour of a microchip implanted in the ear. That seems to be logical and an easy thing to undertake.
I read some statistics somewhere —I suppose statistics are always suspect —which asserted that more people were attacked by Alsatians than by Rottweilers and pit bull terriers. That is not surprisiig when one considers how many thousands of Alsatians there are in this country compared with the comparatively small number of Rottweilers and pit bull terriers. I support this amendment.
The Earl of Buchan: I wish to address the Committee on behalf of a group of friends who cannot address your Lordships themselves in any circumstances. However, if the Committee listens carefully from a westerly direction, their voices can be heard. They should be listened to carefully because they are calling for help. I refer to the inhabitants of the dogs' home at Battersea.
There are at present 500 dogs in the cages at the Battersea Dogs Home. Anything that can be done to reduce that appalling total must be done. Dog registration is a blindingly obvious solution to the problem. Therefore I was very much taken aback by the intemperate remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. He may rest assured that should his dog by any mischance stray and end up in Battersea Dogs Home, it will be at least as well treated as any other common dog.
The preferred solution of the people who run Battersea Dogs Home is the implant that has been referred to by a number of speakers. This simple,
2298
glass-encased, minute device is placed in a dog's ear. The process is painless. The number is registered on a central computer and the microchip can be read by a hand-held scanner. The scanner can remain in the possession of a vet or be held in a police station or on any other convenient premises.
Battersea Dogs Home has just completed one year's successful trial of this device. Some 4,000 of the devices have been implanted. The dogs' home is entirely happy with the device and recommends it to other charities that are concerned with the care of dogs. The technology involved is well tried and comes from America, where over 1 million animals have received this implant. I should add that a carp can also receive such an implant. The device is capable of being placed in fishes. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
The Earl of Radnor: I hope that I may be able to make my point within one minute. It has been suggested by the Government and by noble Lords today that the June 1990 consultative document offers an alternative to registration. I cannot see that. There are already plenty of laws in place to deal with dogs and dog handling. Perhaps they are not as comprehensive as they should be, but we are dealing not with the laws to control dogs but with the enforcement of those laws. Before there can be enforcement I believe that there must be registration. Otherwise one can make more and more laws about Rottweilers or any other breed which Members of the Committee might care to mention, but, without registration and the ability to enforce those laws, the whole thing becomes a waste of time. Therefore I am in complete agreement with my noble friend and shall vote for the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: I make no apology for the fact that I shall take some time to set out the Government's response to the amendment and what they propose to do of their own accord. The Government have a responsibility to explain this so that no one can say that we did not make it absolutely clear why we believe that the amendment will not achieve what it sets out to do.
I have been closely connected with the subject of dogs ever since I first came to the Front Bench in your Lordships' House. The first amendment that I lost was in the 1988 Bill on this very subject. I was somewhat surprised last autumn when the Bill was about to begin its passage through Parliament and I asked whether there was any possibility that dogs could in some way become attached to it to be confidently assured that that was in no way possible. I had a feeling that I should be in this position on this very day.
The basis of the Government's objection to the idea of a national registration scheme is a simple one—we do not believe that it would work. Not only would it not work, but in failing to do so it would cost a considerable amount of money that would better be spent in dealing directly with the problems of fouling, straying and dog attacks, which have so eloquently been described by Members of the Committee this afternoon. It is direct measures that

2299
are the answer and it is direct measures that the Government propose.
Some noble Lords have already referred to the consultation paper The Control of Dogs which was issued jointly by the Home Office, the Scottish and Welsh Offices and my own department last week. It sets out for discussion a number of proposals both on the control of dangerous dogs and, more importantly, on dog control generally.
Extensive coverage by the media has given particular prominence recently to the increase in reported attacks by dangerous dogs. Those attacks have involved dogs from a wide variety of breeds, although it is attacks by a small number of breeds that have attracted attention, notably the Rottweiler, the Pit Bull Terrier and others that I shall not name. The Government have already supported measures to strengthen and update existing legislation on dangerous dogs. They gave support to the measures contained in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989, introduced in another place, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is now seeking views on further powers for the police, local authorities and the courts.
First, last week's consultation paper suggests that we should create a new offence of allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control. This would be easier to enforce than the existing offence set out in the 1847 Act which is unclear. Secondly, the paper suggests that the powers that a court already has to order a dog to be kept under proper control should be made more flexible. That might include a power for the court to require a dog to be kept on a lead or muzzled in advance of a court hearing.
Secondly, the paper seeks views on the very difficult issue of whether particular controls should be extended to specific breeds of dog. There have been calls to ban the ownership of specific breeds which are widely seen as dangerous or to impose particular controls, such as a muzzling requirement, on such breeds. Although we await with interest the response from consultees on this issue, the paper points out that there would be serious problems in deciding upon the list of breeds that should be included. There would also be technical difficulties in identifying the breed of any individual dog, and particularly cross-breeds, in order to make any such controls effective.
Although media attention has focused on the problem of attacks by dangerous dogs, most people's everyday experience is that the greater damage to the quality of the local environment is caused by those owners who allow their dogs to stray and to foul public areas indiscriminately. Those problems were addressed in the Action on Dogs consultation papers which my department and the Scottish Office issued last summer.
The Action on Dogs papers proposed to transfer from the police to local authorities the duty to deal with strays and to clarify the power of local authorities to enforce the existing requirement for dogs to wear a collar and identification tag when in public. The papers also suggested that there should be a specific power for local authorities to charge
2300
owners seeking to collect their dogs from detention a sum, probably of about £20, over and above the costs of kennelling the dog.
On the problem of dog fouling, the two consultation papers drew attention to the proposal, now incorporated in Part IV of the Bill, that the Secretary of State should have powers to include dog faeces within the duty on local authorities to keep their land clear of litter and refuse. In order to ensure that local authorities have the right tools to back up that new duty, the papers also sought comments on the operation of the present dog control by-laws in England and Wales and invited comments on the scope for by-laws in dealing with dog control problems in Scotland. The responses received are being carefully considered by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, who plans to make an announcement of his conclusions shortly.
The proposals in the Action on Dogs papers were generally welcomed, but we were interested in a number of suggestions on how the proposals, on straying and identification in particular, might be strengthened. We have been discussing those ideas with the Joint Advisory Committee on Pets in Society, which includes among others representatives from the RSPCA, the NFU, the Association of District Councils and the British Veterinary Association.
The Control of Dogs consultation paper which was issued last week discusses two ideas in particular: first, that there should be a specific offence of allowing a dog persistently to stray, and, secondly, that there should be a fixed penalty scheme for the enforcement of the collar and tag provisions. Both of those ideas form part of the package of dog control measures in force in Northern Ireland for the past six years. Members of the Committee have argued that the Northern Irish example, including compulsory dog licensing, is one that we should follow in the rest of the United Kingdom. Officials from my department have visited the Province to discuss with all the interested parties the strengths and weaknesses of the scheme.
It is abundantly clear that its strengths cannot derive from the system of licensing itself since it is estimated that little more than one-third of the dogs in the Province are licensed, despite the low level of the £5 licence fee and considerable enforcement efforts. The scheme also gives the lie to the argument that registration would reduce the number of stray dogs which have to be destroyed. The number of strays being put down in the Province has increased, not decreased, since the introduction of licensing six years ago.
However, the scheme illustrates that direct measures —for example, enforcement of identification requirements —can be effective. This is particularly true in the case of the reduction in the number of livestock worrying incidents in the Province. The reduction results from the fact that the 1984 order brought Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom in giving farmers the right to shoot dogs that were worrying livestock or looked likely to do so.
It is the best elements of the Northern Irish scheme that we wish to look at more closely. It is not

2301
currently, in the rest of the United Kingdom, an offence to allow one's dog to stray. It is possible for owners, to allow their dogs persistently to stray, with no penalty other than the effort of collecting it from the police or local authority and paying reasonable kennelling costs. Owners do of course risk the threat that the dog may be destroyed if it is not collected within seven days.
The Action on Dogs paper suggested that in addition there should be a specific power for local authorities to charge owners an additional sum. Respondents to the paper suggested that, as an additional incentive to owners to exert proper control over their animals, it should be made an offence to allow a dog to stray, as it is in Northern Ireland. We have to be careful, of course, not to increase the disincentives to collect a dog from detention, which would be counterproductive. But the idea seems worth exploring further, and we shall be interested to see the response.
On the question of identification of dogs, we remain convinced that the most effective way of identifying a dog with its owner is effective enforcement of the existing requirement for dogs to wear a collar and identification tag. An identification tag is easy for any passer-by to read —the quickest way to ensure that a stray is reunited with its owner. Unlike a microchip implant or tattoo, it does not require any elaborate scanning equipment or reference to a central register. Any dog not wearing its tag can be rounded up as a stray. The idea that a fixed penalty scheme might operate in enforcing the requirement (as is also currently the case in Northern Ireland) is one that we think worthy of further exploration.
Those are the measures that the Government have in mind. What part would a national registration scheme have to play? Support for a national registration scheme is cross-party —as the list of movers of this amendment illustrate. Noble Lords have reminded us of how many bodies and individuals in the animal welfare field are in favour of dog registration. But with all due respect to the wide range of support expressed, in the Government's view the arguments in favour of registration do not stand up to closer examination.
One of the key arguments put forward has been that only with a national registration scheme can a link be made between dog and owner for the purposes of enforcing existing or proposed dog control provisions. In an ideal world, filled with ideal dog owners, that might be true. But in an ideal world, there would be no problems caused by dogs in the first place. Our problem is with the far from ideal owner: the irresponsible owner who allows his dog to foul public places, stray and even attack passers.by.
In our view it is wholly unrealistic to argue that that group of owners will comply with a registration requirement. It will be yet another of the many dog control provisions that such owners evade or ignore. The example of the Northern Ireland licensing scheme is not encouraging, with little more than a third of dogs licensed. If a registration scheme does not get at the irresponsible owners who cause all
2302
the problems, then the argument that registration provides the link between dog and owner is a weak one.
Registration for that scheme costs £5 less than that proposed in the new scheme. "Ah," say the supporters of registration, "but all that is needed to ensure a high level of compliance is to put a high level of effort into enforcement". But surely we have to consider whether the effort would justify the end.
Enforcement of a registration requirement, by its very nature, would be expensive and labour intensive and would detract from the effort that could be put into what should be the key tasks of the dog warden. Which is better: for the dog warden to concentrate his or her efforts on dealing with strays and dog fouling or to pursue non-payment of the registration fee?
Noble Lords have argued that enforcement of dog control measures is only possible in the first place if the legal ownership of the dog can be established by registration. In the first place, it is far from clear that the identification of the owner is the solution to the problem. The key problem is that owners do not exert proper control over their dogs. Whether or not the dog had been registered would, we believe, be immaterial.
It is also notable that identification of the owners of the dogs concerned has not been in practice a problem in any of the recently reported cases of attacks. Yet registration is the only solution to the problem of dangerous dogs which has so far been put forward by the RSPCA. The absence of any more constructive proposals from them on this key issue seems to us a glaring omission.
Nonetheless, the supporters of registration cite cases where someone out with a dog has been approached about an offence and has responded by saying that the dog is not his but belongs to his mother-in-law, next door neighbour, teenage son or whoever, and that he cannot therefore be prosecuted for the offence. The fact is, however, that the legal ownership of the animal is increasingly irrelevant so far as enforcement is concerned. Recent legislation on attacks by dangerous dogs is framed in terms of the person having custody of the dog at the time of the incident. The same would be true of the proposals on which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is currently consulting.
The various by-laws for the control of dog fouling, requiring dogs to be kept on leads or banned from certain areas also relate not to the legal owner of the dog, but to the person in charge of the dog at the time. So the argument that the dog is not yours is no way of evading responsibility.
A second line of argument which has been put forward is that registration would deal with the problem of the resources needed by local authorities to provide dog control services. It has also been argued that that would meet the principle that the polluter should pay. On the latter point, as I hope I have illustrated, however, it is not the polluter who would pay, but the responsible owner who would pay for the problems caused by the irresponsible owner.
If a registration scheme is seen as a means of raising revenue for dog control services, I have to

2303
say that it must be one of the most inefficient means of doing so that one could devise. Research carried out for the RSPCA by the London School of Economics suggests that at least half the registration fee would be spent on the bureaucracy needed to deal with registrations, renewals, changes of address and deletions—at an annual cost of just over £20 million. Only when that had been paid for would there be funds available to finance the work of dog wardens on the streets.
The finances of the scheme would be even more uneconomic if, as we believe would be the case, there was a high level of evasion. It seems from the same research carried out for the RSPCA that the annual registration fee of £7, which has been cited, assumes a high level of compliance, not to mention a higher first year fee of around £23. To expect 100 per cent. compliance would be wholly unrealistic in the light of the Northern Irish experience and of the old dog licence. At a 40 per cent. level of compliance, which is much closer to the Northern Irish experience, we should be talking about a first year fee of £37 followed by an annual fee of £13 if costs were to be covered. It would seem inevitable that some burden would fall, despite the intention of the scheme, on the local authority. The exemptions for which there will no doubt be pressure—for example, for guide dogs, dogs owned by pensioners and others on a low income—would reduce the tax base still further.
It is these inefficiences that lead to the obvious conclusion that the most simple and efficient way to finance a dog control service locally is through the community charge. More than 200 authorities already have dog warden schemes financed in this way. The proposal that they should be able to make a supplementary charge for the collection of strays might provide some additional income. We are not talking about a service which costs an immense sum. The LSE report concludes that it costs about £30,000 a year to employ a dog warden (together with associated kennelling costs). It also concludes that one dog warden is needed per 100,000 population. That means that even in the major cities, the cost of the service is no more than £150,000 a year, which is a very small figure by comparison with other local environmental services.
Finally, I must turn to Amendments Nos. 379AA and 379AD proposed by my noble friends Lord Mancroft and Lord Balfour. As I said, by their association with the central amendment, the Government could not support them. However I have considerable sympathy with the intention behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. Any registration scheme would need to provide for certain generally agreed exemptions —guide dogs for the blind, dogs for the deaf and dogs owned by pensioners and others on low incomes. These exemptions would add to the complexity of the scheme and reduce the tax base.
There would also be strong arguments for exempting some categories of working dogs—for example, police and service dogs, foxhounds, gundogs and greyhounds—from the registration requirement; but there would be no practical argument for excluding working or sporting dogs in
2304
general from a registration requirement —sheepdogs, gundogs, packs of hounds and so on —even though those dogs for obvious safety reasons are kept exempt from the collar and tag requirement when they are at work. Any such exemption would present considerable enforcement difficulties. When is a border collie a working dog and when is it a pet? The fact of the matter is that the Government's objections to the scheme are based not on hostility but on an understanding that it will not remove the problems.
I do not want to delay the Committee in what has already been an extremely lengthy debate and I finish with three conclusions. We do not believe that registration will address the irresponsible dog owner who is the problem. Always in this debate I have used the RSPCA figures. I shall use one given by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol: if one assumes a 50 per cent. take up it means that of every 1 million dogs 500,000 would still be unregistered.
Secondly, the Government are doing something about this problem. Three departments of state have produced a consultation document dedicated to finding a solution. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, does not consider that the right solution has been presented before the Committee today, but it is a problem that needs a more complex answer than I suspect these amendments provide.
Finally, it is important that the Committee should fully understand when deciding on the amendment that the costs will be very high. One must consider the level of evasion. On housing estates all over Britain where I have canvassed, there is the ability to say, "It's not my dog. It's my Mum's dog and she is exempt." We believe that the £25 licence fee quoted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, is at the low end of what will become a heavy tax on those who are responsible dog owners and have done no wrong.
6 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I must congratulate the Minister on his splendid speech. To conclude by saying that three great departments of state have produced a consultation document sums the matter up.
We have an immense problem. The solution will cost money. However, the concern shown from all sides of the Chamber indicates the size of the problem. I shall not repeat the arguments that have been put. Perhaps I may say this to the two senior noble Lords have spoken —the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. In this country we have a puppy trade. Puppies are sold at Christmas; they are treated with great kindness and over-indulged for a week and are then turned loose on the streets. That is the core of the matter that leads to 1,000 dogs a day having to be destroyed. It is an enormous problem. Of course the solution will cost money. But if we care about the dogs in this country, then we have to be prepared to spend some money.
The noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, will understand this point. The great problem at the moment is that the Government will not pay for the measures needed to control dogs. Many measures

2305
are available. Some of them have worked well in other countries. However, what we have said in moving the amendment is that the core of the matter is registration. If one does not have registration, none of the other measures can work. I do not believe that Northern Ireland is necessarily a good example of everything. But its scheme has been a good example. It has improved the conditions there.
The Minister used the argument that the registration fee is only £5 in Northern Ireland. I believe that that is the wrong argument. If the registration fee were higher, it would deter many more people from keeping dogs for trivial reasons. If one has a dog, one should keep it because it is useful, because one loves dogs, or because a dog gives some return for affection and care. It should not be a trivial matter lasting for a day or two.
The Government abolished dog licences some years ago, and put nothing in their place. At the moment the Government argue that they are consulting; and that other measures will work. The Minister put forward some good arguments. It is up to the Committee to decide whether the core of his argument —that registration is not necessary —is right. If noble Lords believe what he says, of course they will vote against the amendment.
However the weight of evidence is quite clear. Without registration, one does not start with a chance. Many noble Lords have spoken of the various schemes for identifying dogs. There is no doubt that with the advance of science dogs could be identified, and their owners with them. The argument that, "It belongs to my Mum," would not work because the possibility for identification would be available.
On the argument of an increase in the slaughtering of dogs, that is true because more dogs would be found. We hope that eventually a far greater sense of responsibility will descend on those people in this country who own dogs or who wish to own dogs. That is the purpose of the amendment. It is backed by bodies which are professionally interested because of their trade, and by bodies such as the RSPCA which are interested in the welfare of dogs.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that, in the light of experience, the argument that this is not the right time to put the proposal forward is weak. We have a chance to give a clear lead to the Government which have no policy, despite issuing consultation documents. The core of this policy on which they can build is registration. I urge noble Lords to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: If I interpret the feelings of the Committee correctly, members would like to conclude the matter. If my procedure is right, I am more than happy to accept the amendment to my amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Mancroft. I understand that my noble friend Lord Balfour is happy not to move his amendments, and, should noble Lords approve this amendment, he will move his amendments at Report stage.
2306
I shall say only two things. First, I believe that if the Committee is in doubt, it should send the issue back to the Commons. They voted very narrowly on it. It will be their decision in the end.
Despite the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, the amendment tackles the problem of our cruelty to our dogs. That is why I support it. It also deals with the other problems of dogs' cruelty to us. It will not cost the taxpayer or poll tax payer any money. It is a comprehensive scheme for which the Secretary of State can work out all the minor details that Members of the Committee have raised. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
On Question, Amendment No. 379AA, as an amendment to Amendment No. 379A, agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 379AB to 379AD not moved.]
6.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 379A) as amended by Amendment No. 379AA, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 155; Not-Contents, 83.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Gisborough, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Gladwyn, L.

Airedale, L.

Glasgow, E.

Alport, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Ardwick, L.

Graham of Edmonton. L.

Attlee, E.

Grey, E.

Aylestone, L.

Halsbury, E.

Barnett, L.

Hampton, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hanworth, V.

Blackstone, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hayter, L.

Bottomley, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Bridges, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Hooson, L.

Buchan, E.

Howie of Troon, L.

Burton, L.

Hughes, L.

Byron, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Caccia, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove,

Jacques, L.

L.

Jay, L.

Carter, L.

Jeger, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Kings Norton, L.

Cockfield, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lawrence, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Leatherland, L.

Colwyn, L.

Lewis of Newnham, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Listowel, E.

Craigavon, V.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe,

Dacre of Glanton, L.

B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Lockwood, B.

David, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Lyell, L.

Diamond, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Donegall, M.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Ellenborough, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Ennals, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Falkland, V.

McNair, L.

Foot, L.

Mais, L.

Gainford, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Gallacher, L.

Mayhew, L.

Galpern, L.

Merrivale, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Mersey, V.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Meston, L.

Seear, B.

Molloy, L.

Selkirk, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Serota, B.

Monkswell, L.

Shackleton, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Shannon, E.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Moyne, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Mulley, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Munster, E.

[Teller.]

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Stedman, B.

Nelson, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Newall, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Strange, B.

Norrie, L.

Suffield, L.

Ogmore, L.

Swansea, L.

Oram, L.

Swinfen, L.

Peston, L.

Teviot, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Phillips, B.

Thurlow, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Tordoff, L.

Quinton, L.

Tryon, L.

Radnor, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Raglan, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Walpole, L.

Rea, L.

Westbury, L.

Richard, L.

Wharton, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

White, B.

Rochester, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Rugby, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham,

Russell, E.

E.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Winstanley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Wynford, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Hives, L.

Ampthill, L.

Holderness, L.

Arran, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Hooper, B.

Auckland, L.

Howe, E.

Balfour, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Joseph, L.

Belstead, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Bessborough, E.

Layton, L.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Blyth, L.

Luke, L.

Boardman, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Bolton, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mountevans, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Caithness, E.

Nathan, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Northesk, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Orkney, E.

Carnarvon, E.

Pender, L.

Carnock, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Pym, L.

Coleraine, L.

Reay, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Renton, L.

Crook, L.

Rochdale, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Rodney, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Romney, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Downshire, M.

Sherfield, L.

Eccles, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior,

Elliot of Harwood, B.

L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne,

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Sudeley, L.

Goold, L.

Swinton, E.

Grantchester, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Trumpington, B.

Marylebone, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hanson, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Henley, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Hesketh, L.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 379B:
Before Schedule 12, insert the following new schedule:
("Amendments of Hazardous Substances Legislation

England and Wales
1. The Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 shall be amended as provided in this Part of this Schedule.
2.—(1) Section 2 (appropriate Minister to be hazardous substances authority for land used or to be used by statutory undertakers) shall be omitted.
(2) In section 7(3), for the words from "means" to "with" in the third place it occurs there shall be substituted the words "means consultations with the Health and Safety Executive and with".
(3) In section 10(2), for the words from the beginning to "3" there shall be substituted the words "A hazardous substances authority".
(4) In section 28(1)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for the words following the word "consent" there shall be substituted the words "made to that authority;

(aa) to applications under section 17(1) made to that authority;"; and

(b) after paragraph (d), there shall be inserted the following words—

"; and every such register shall also contain such information as may be prescribed as to the manner in which applications for hazardous substances consent have been dealt with."
(5) In section 29, in subsection (3) and (4), for the words "appropriate body" there shall be substituted the words "Health and Safety Executive".
(6) In section 38(5) for the words "1 to 3" there shall be substituted "1, 3".
(7) In section 39(1), in the definition of "hazardous substances authority", for the word "to", in the second place it occurs, there shall be inserted the word "and".
3. In section 7(1)(a) (applications for consent), after the word "applications" there shall be inserted the words "under this Act".
4. In section 11 (deemed hazardous substances consent in transitional cases)—

in subsection (2) for the words "immediately before the relevant date" there shall be substituted the words "while it was so present"; and

(b)in subsection (7), in paragraph (a), at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "to the condition that" and, for paragraphs (b) and (c), there shall be substituted the words ". and

(b) to such other conditions (if any) as are prescribed for the purposes of this section and are applicable in the case of that consent."

5. In section 12 (deemed consent: government authorisation), at the end there shall be added the following subsection —
"(6) A government department or the Secretary of State shall, as respects any hazardous substances consent deemed to be granted by virtue of directions under this section, send to the hazardous substances authority concerned any such information as appears to be required by them for the purposes of a register under section 28."
6. In section 13 (applications for hazardous substances consent in place of subsisting consent subject to conditions), subsection (7) shall be omitted.
7. In section 22 (validity of decisions as to applications), in subsection (4), for the words "1971 Act" there shall be substituted the words "principal Act".
8. In section 25(1)(c) (provisions of principal Act capable of application to hazardous substances contravention notices). after "184," there shall be inserted "186,".
9. Before section 27 there shall be inserted the following section
"Fees for consent applications.
26A.—(l) Provision may be made by regulations for the pay vent of a fee of the prescribed amount to a hazardous substances authority in respect of an application for, or for the continuation of, hazardous substances consent.
(2)Regulations under this section may provide for the payment to the Secretary of State of a fee of the prescribed amount in respect of any application which is, by virtue of regulations under section 25, deemed to have been made for hazardous substances consent.
(3)Regulations under this section may provide —

(a) for the transfer of prescribed fees received by a hazardous substances authority in respect of any application which is referred to the Secretary of State under section 20;

(b) for the remission or refunding of a prescribed fee (in whole or in part) in prescribed circumstances or in pursuance of a direction given by the Secretary of State:

and the regulations may make different provision for different areas or for different cases or descriptions of cases."
10. In section 303(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1090 (meaning of "Planning Acts" for purposes of fees chargeable under that section), at the end there shall be inserted the words "or the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 19902').

PART II

  SCOTLAND
  11.—(1) The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 shall be amended as provided in this paragraph.
  (2) Section 56B (appropriate Minister to be planning authority in respect of hazardous substances in relation to land used or to be used by statutory undertakers) shall he omitted.
  (3) In section 56D(I)(a) (applications for consent), after the word "applications" there shall be inserted the words "under this Act".
  (4) In section 56D(5) for the words from "means" to "with" in the third place it occurs there shall be substituted the words "means consultations with the Health and Safety Executive and with".
  (5) After section 56D there shall be inserted the following sectior —
  "Fees.
  56DA. —(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for fees of the prescribed amount in respect of applications for, or for the continuation of, hazardous substances consent

  (a) made to an urban development corporation under section 56A(2) above to be paid to the corporation:

  (b) referred to him under section 32 above as having effect by virtue of section 56F below to be paid to him;

  (c) deemed to have been made to him under section 85(7) below by virtue of regulations made under section 97B(10) below to be paid to him.

  (2) Regulations made under this section may provide for—

  (a) the transfer to the Secretary of State of any fee received by a planning authority in respect of an application referred to in paragraph (b) or (c) of subsection (1) above;

  (b) the remission or refunding of a prescribed fee (in whole Dr in part) in prescribed circumstances or in pursuance of a direction given by him;

  and the regulations may make different provision for different areas or for different cases or descriptions of cases.".
  (6) In section 56E(5) for the words "a planning authority other than the appropriate Minister" there shall be substituted the word "they".
  (7) In section 56G (deemed consent: government author sation), at the end there shall be added the following subsection —
  "(5) A government department or the Secretary of State shall, as respects any hazardous substances consent deemed to be granted by virtue of directions under this section, send
  2310
  to the planning authority concerned any such information as appears to be required by them for the purposes of a register under section 56N."
  (8) In section 56H (applications for hazardous substances consent in place of subsisting consent subject to conditions) subsection (5) shall be omitted.
  (9) In section 56N(1)—

  (a) in paragraph (a), for the words following the word "consent" there shall be substituted the words "made to that authority:

  (aa) to applications under section 56K(2) above made to that authority;" and

  (b)after paragraph (d), there shall be inserted the following words—

  ", and every such register shall also contain such information as may he prescribed as to the manner in which applications for hazardous substances consent have been dealt with."
  (10) In section 560, in subsections (2) and (3), for the words "appropriate body" there shall be substituted the words "Health and Safety Executive"
  (11) In section 97B(10)(c) (hazardous substances contravention notices), after "89A" there shall be inserted "and 166".
  12. —(1) Section 38 of the Housing and Planning Act 1986 (transitional provisions) shall be amended as provided in this paragraph.
  (2)In subsection (4), for the words "immediately before the commencement date" there shall be substituted the words "while it was so present".
  (3) In subsection (9)—

  (a) for the words "subject to the conditions that —(a)" there shall be substituted the words "subject to —

  (a) the condition that";

  (b) for paragraphs (b) and (c) there shall be substituted—

  "(b) such other conditions (if any) as are prescribed, by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, for the purposes of this section and are applicable in the case of that consent".

  13. In section 87 of the Local Government. Planning and Land Act 1980 (fees for planning applications etc.). at the end there shall be inserted the following subsection —
  "(9) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, the reference in that subsection to an application for any consent includes. in relation to a planning authority in Scotland, an application under section 56K(a) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 for the continuation of hazardous substances consent.".")
  Schedule 12 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 379C not moved.]
  Clause 135 [Burning of straw and stubble etc.]:
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 380:
  Page 134, line 42, at end insert ("and such exemptions may only be granted when it appears to the Minister, and following consultation with the appropriate national bodies, that no other practicable disposal method is available.").
  The noble Lord said: We now move to Clause 135 dealing with straw and stubble burning. It is one of the better-drafted clauses in the Bill and I express my general support for it. However, the Bill contains one relatively minor defect as regards the provision for exemptions. Under certain circumstances there must be exemptions from prohibitions or restrictions under the clause. However, its provisions go so far in providing for representation for those who suffer hardship, for the modified banning of straw and stubble burning and for delays in the implementation

  2311
  of the provisions which are necessary, that we believe that there should be a further set of restrictions on the possibility of exemptions.
  In Amendment No. 380 I propose that exemptions should be granted only:
  "when it appears to the Minister, and following consultation with the appropriate national bodies, that no other practicable disposal method is available".
  I am sure that the Minister will say that that is how she will be considering exemptions. If she can assure me that that is in the mind of the Government and that my amendment is unnecessary to that extent, I shall be happy to withdraw it. However, we should be clear on that point. I beg to move.
  Baroness Trumpington: I know that this amendment is one that concerns the National Society for Clean Air, and an identical amendment was proposed in Committee in another place. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and this Committee that when we receive applications for exemptions to the ban, where there is evidence of genuine need, we shall take steps to ensure that everyone with an interest is made aware of the position. We have it in mind to issue a press release. This will give organisations such as the National Society for Clean Air and any others an opportunity to make representations, and their views will be considered when Ministers decide whether to grant exemptions. The noble Lord will, I hope, recognise that there will be a degree of urgency, but there will be no secrets in our decision-making.
  I can also assure the noble Lord that it is our firm intention only to allow exemptions where there is no practicable alternative method of disposal. Our guiding principle will always be the practicability of alternatives, not their costs.
  Having given those assurances, which I hope are what the noble Lord was expecting from me, perhaps he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am satisfied with that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Alport Lord Alport moved Amendment No. 380A:
  Page 135, line 12, at end insert:
  ("(e) to establish a licensing system for the burning of crop residues on agricultural land and to make provision for the administration of such a system including inspection, penalties for the infringement of the conditions of any licence or the burning of crop residues without a licence and for levying a fee sufficient to cover the cost of issuing such a licence.—).
  The noble Lord said: At the beginning of this Session I withdrew a Bill to control straw and stubble burning. I said that I withdrew it because I thought that the Government had shot my fox. Now that I have seen Clause 135, I realise that I was wrong; they have missed.
  As it stands, the clause proves that the Ministry of Agriculture does not have the foggiest idea how to tackle the problem. As at present drafted the clause is in the vaguest possible terms. Some time ago the Government announced that they would ban
  2312
  straw and stubble burning after 1992. If they do that, it will make a nonsense of all the arguments which my noble friend the Leader of the House advanced against the Bills which I introduced in 1982 and 1983.
  By the time I introducd my second Bill, which incidentally would have taken effect at the beginning of 1989 and would have prevented the conflagration of that autumn, I had realised that a blanket provision against burning was not desirable from the point of view of arable farming or the environment.
  The burning of crop residues is an ancient practice. For example, it is mentioned in the Old Testament. To give a pledge that it would be prohibited by 1992 is either a classic example of political opportunism or sheer ministerial ignorance. As it stands the clause gives no indication of the way in which the Ministry will implement its proposals. That will be left to regulations.
  When I inroduced my Bills in those two years, I carried out quite a lot of research. I reached the conclusion that the only way to control straw and stubble burning which would be effective and fair to the arable farmer and the community generally was by a licensing system. Therefore, this amendment is designed to concentrate the minds of the Minister and her advisers on the only practical solution to the problem and to give the present Minister or her successor the legislative power to introduce a comprehensive and well thought out licensing scheme.
  From past experience I fear that I know what the Minister is likely to say in her reply. As she suggested the other day, I believe that I can read her lips. She will talk about grave administrative difficulties and the evils of bureaucracy. She will claim that the scheme will cost huge sums of public money, although my amendment proposes that the cost of issuing the licences will be borne by the arable industry. She will draw attention to the new code of practice issued by the NFU in conjunction with the Government, which makes insignificant changes to the code of practice which failed to control burning last year.
  I remind the Committee that the National Farmers Union is now strongly in favour of a licensing scheme. The Minister will claim that the amendment is unnecessary because the clause is drafted widely enough to allow her to do whatever she wants. My understanding is that that is not so.
  Perhaps I may give my advice to the Minister. She should tear up her brief and put it in the large wastepaper basket under the table. She should then accept this amendment, which is both benevolent and realistic. I beg to move.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley: I understand that the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Alport is grouped with this amendment.
  Today is rather an extraordinary day. For about four or five years I spent my time trying to strangle my noble friend Lord Alport and he spent his time trying to strangle me. Today, I agree with him entirely and I believe that he agrees with the point that I am making, which is very similar to the

  2313
  point that he makes. Perhaps I may say that it is a particular pleasure for me, because on one occasion I behaved fairly close to the knuckle, to be able to link forces again with my noble friend.
  It will not come as a surprise that I am extremely doubtful about the wisdom of a blanket staw-burning ban. My reasons for doubt centre on the fact that alternative methods of disposal and the resultant change in farming practice, apart from being enormously expensive to the farmer, could be more harmful to the environment than burning. Therefore, my amendment makes it clear that the Secretary of State should take into account the environmental effects when applying the ban.
  What could some of those environmental effects be? First, we shall use far more fossil fuels because of the extra cultivations. It is estimated that we shall use 4 million litres of diesel extract per year. Secondly, because straw burning aids weed control, more chemicals will have to be used to control those weeds. Thirdly, ploughing releases nitrogen into the soil. As it will be virtually impossible on very heavy soils such as those on which I farm to plant an autumn crop because of the ploughing, that leaching will continue throughout the winter. That is the most dangerous time for nitrogen leaching. Perhaps the importance of nitrates in our water is now of no account. If on the other hand it is, the quicker a crop is established, the less is the leaching of nitrates and straw and stubble burning invokes instantaneous growth.
  I realise and entirely sympathise with those who suffer from smuts and dirty washing. I support any measure, such as that proposed by my noble friend Lord Alport, to minimise the very obvious nuisance. Regarding the release of CO2 or nitrogen oxide into the atmosphere, the amount released is exactly the same whether the straw is burnt or allowed to decompose.
  I know that I shall not convince the Committee, but I hope that the Minister will say that there will be environmental problems if straw burning is banned; that those problems cannot be accurately assessed, and that any proposed regulation will bear in mind the possible environmental harm that may be caused by such a ban.
  Nature is very unpredictable. I want the Minister to have ample scope to alter the regulations should nature turn fickle.
  6.30 p.m.
  The Earl of Balfour: One of the problems that I face in Scotland is that sometimes, perhaps after a wet harvest, if I have not managed to bale the straw —particularly wheat straw —it is utterly useless and I must burn it. I agree that care needs to be taken and I always plough right round the field. Thirty years ago I may have called in a threshing mill to obtain the best wheat straw, which then went into the potato pits or was used for thatching. I use practically all the barley straw for bedding and feeding. However, until some use is found for wheat straw —perhaps for making chipboard or plaster board —I do not know what to do with it and have to burn it. I often do not burn until well into October.
  The Earl of Radnor: Perhaps I may comment on the amendment of my noble friend Lord Alport. Since he first brought the issue of straw burning before the Chamber many noble Lords. including myself, have been converted to his view, previously having had views in exactly the opposite direction. However, I hope that the Minister will resist any suggestion of licensing in place of regulations. Although I am against regulations generally, this must be a case in which they are an absolute necessity.
  I may have been happier if my noble friend Lord Alport, instead of putting all the answers into the mouth of the Minister, had been a little more constructive and had explained how he saw the system of licensing working. As far as I can see it would be virtually impossible. I hope that the amendment will be resisted.
  Baroness Trumpington: I hope that my noble friend Lord Alport will forgive me if I say that he claims to know before I speak what I will say. In part I am not surprised. I have been writing letters to him since the 1st December 1989 on what I might say should this moment arise.
  I well understand my noble friend's attachment to the concept of a licensing system under which individual farmers would be licensed to burn their crop residues, subject to stringent conditions. This was an option to which we gave very careful consideration when reviewing our policy following the disastrous situation that arose last year. We concluded, however, that it would not really provide an adequate response to the problems. It would, in fact, have little, if any, impact on the level of smoke pollution and the enormous public nuisance created by straw burning.
  It would also entail major new bureaucratic procedures to grant individual licences. Some have suggested that we could restrict the licences to certain categories of farmland, or to farmers who have never been the subject of complaints about their burning practices. The first would obviously be discriminatory, and the second simply would not work. The only basis for refusal to grant a licence would be where breaches of conditions had been proven in a court of law. That would have no regard to those cases where problems giving rise to public complaint had occurred but where there was no obvious breach of the conditions. It is a sad fact that many burns conducted in accordance with the by-laws still give rise to major public nuisance.
  That is why the Government concluded that the practice of straw burning, regardless of its merits as a husbandry practice, has to be brought to an end. But we have catered for exemptions to allow a degree of flexibility to deal with particular practical problems. And we are giving farmers three full seasons in which to adjust. That seems to us to be the right and fair way to approach this problem. Many in this Chamber (and in another place) agree entirely with this approach. I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment, which I must resist.
  I come now to Amendment No. 381. My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley is concerned about

  2315
  the extra diesel used in ploughing in straw and stubble and the risks of increased nitrate leaching. I want to assure him that we took the decision to propose a prohibition of the practice of burning in full knowledge of these concerns. Nonetheless, we judged that these disadvantages are not so great when weighed against the very serious disadvantages of permitting straw burning to continue.
  Regarding the point that additional diesel will be needed, it should be remembered that under the present arrangements, farmers who burn are required to plough field headlands, create firebreaks and incorporate the ash into the soil. So there is already fuel usage for these operations. It is accepted that, to the extent that the preparation of the land for a following crop will require a more thorough form of cultivation, more diesel will be used. But this will certainly not cause the kind of public nuisance that is associated with burning. The extra consumption of diesel fuel, taken in the widest context, is fairly insignificant and likely to have an infinitesimal effect on the environment.
  My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley mentioned the question of nitrate leaching. There is no simple answer. On the one hand, ploughing, rather than shallow cultivation, might enhance nitrate leaching; on the other hand, straw incorporated would immobilise nitrate in the soil. So there are gains and offsets. Again I would say to my noble friend that we have to balance the pluses and minuses. We could not, therefore, regard the considerations which he has mentioned as justifying widespread exemptions to the proposed ban. However, as I have explained, we have provided in the clause the flexibility to grant exemptions where there is no practical alternative to burning.
  I would only add that when considering the question of exemptions, it has struck me that farmers with land bordering on the M.25 and M.11 have been obliged for some years to come to terms with the restriction on burning and have managed very well.
  I hope that my noble friend will withdraw that amendment, since I must resist its inclusion in the Bill.
  I turn to the last of the three amendments. I understand the motivation of my noble friend in moving the amendment, which would ensure debate on the regulations in both Houses.
  Lord Alport: I intend to move that amendment separately.
  Baroness Trumpington: I suddenly realised that my noble friend had not spoken to the amendment, but it was included in my groupings.
  Lord Alport: I am a little confused with regard to the Government's policy. The NFU code for farmers, which is used to assist the Government, states,
  "As you plan your farm operations for 1990, bear in mind that the government intends to ban straw burning after 1992".
  If I understand the Minister correctly, the Government do not intend to ban straw burning completely. There will be exceptions. When the
  2316
  moment comes for them to decide on those exceptions, they will be the same kind of exceptions, to all intents and purposes, as exist under the code. If I am wrong about that and the Government do intend to ban it completely, I shall be interested to see what happens when the time comes.
  We have had a long and gruelling debate about dogs, and I do not feel entitled to ask the Committee to continue with this amendment because I have another amendment to move. However, perhaps I may be allowed to say that, in reply to what my noble friend Lord Stanley said, I am glad that after some period of disagreement on this subject we have now, on the whole, reached common agreement. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 381:
  Page 135, line 12, at end insert:
  ("(3A) Before making any regulations under this section to prohibit or restrict the burning of crop residues on agricultural land, and in exercising such powers to make exemptions from any prohibition or restriction as may be provided in any regulations, the appropriate Minister shall have regard to the implications that any alternative methods of disposing of crop residues may have for the environment, including pollution and the use of natural resources.")
  The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may reply to my noble friend on the Front Bench. I shall write to her between now and Report stage because I am not clear in my own mind on one point. Should nature change its mind and be particularly unpleasant in five or six years' time so that the best way forward is to burn rather than what we have been doing, will the Minister then be empowered to say, "Yes, that particular field may be burnt"? I do not know whether my noble friend wishes to reply now; but, if not, I am more than happy to wait until Report stage.
  [Amendment No. 381 not moved.]
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Alport Lord Alport moved Amendment No. 381AZA:
  Page 135, line 17, at end insert:
  ("( ) Regulations under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
  The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to ensure that when the appropriate Minister eventually decides that it is right to introduce a suitable scheme —I am following the wording of the clause which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said was so well drafted but which seems to be peculiarly worded —for the solution of this problem that, constitutionally, he should seek Parliament's approval.
  Clause 135 is drawn so widely and clumsily —in my opinion, at any rate —that the Minister can produce regulations which may seriously damage the legitimate interests of arable farming, particularly in heavy land where incorporation is undesirable. The Minister may introduce regulations which will have the effect of greatly reducing the production of arable crops and that will affect food supplies at a time when, according to United Nations and United States experts, grain production is now insufficient

  2317
  to meet demand. That will result in higher prices, which have already risen by 40 per cent. in the past few years. Reserves have been seriously depleted. The so-called grain mountain has become a molehill. In turn, this could affect this country's exports. The Minister's regulations could destroy the livelihoods of individual farmers and damage the environment by forcing farmers to adopt practices which are environmentally unfriendly.
  When the Executive assumes extensive and ill-defined powers to issue regulations Ministers have a constitutional duty to submit them for parliamentary approval, and Parliament has an equal duty to ensure that they do so. This week, in the Court of Appeal, the Lord Justices criticised,
  "The unprecedented and unsupervised powers which Parliament had delegated to the Secretary of State for Social Security".
  Lord Justice Purchas said,
  "It may be in this case, in the execution of the legislative process, that Homer nodded with the result that wholly exceptional and, it might be thought by some, objectionable powers without any Parliamentary fetter or supervision … were achieved by the Secretary of State".
  When Clause 135 was considered in another place the House of Commons, perhaps like Homer, seems to have nodded; but there is no reason why we should do so now, even at this late hour.
  As it stands the clause gives the Minister power to issue regulations arbitrarily and recklessly without consultation with the industry, the local authorities and environmental interests, or by making it subject to any proper parliamentary supervision. I consider that that is not good enough. In the case before the Appeal Court to which I have referred, the Lord Justice said:
  "No previous Act had given such wholesale unregulated and unsupervised powers to the Secretary of State".
  Here is another example of the progressive erosion of the constitutional responsibilities of Parliament by a powerfully entrenched Executive.
  I hope that the Government will consider this amendment and that it will be accepted, because it is time that we realised that legislation by regulation has to be carefully controlled. That has been the point of view of Parliaments over a long period of time. I beg to move.
  Baroness Trumpington: I must once again apologise for jumping the gun, but I now finally come to the last of the three amendments on this subject. We have accepted that industry needs some time to adjust to new cultivation techniques and to invest in the necessary equipment. We believe it right to allow the farmers three seasons to do so. We hope that advances in technology will be encouraged by notice of the ban. For example, I have challenged the agricultural machinery section of the industry to find machinery which will cope with stubble in heavy land.
  However, turning back to the amendment, I can understand the motivation of my noble friend in moving this amendment which would ensure a debate in both Houses on regulations introducing the prohibition and any exemptions; but there will be such opportunity under the negative procedures
  2318
  if noble Lords do not like the measures that we introduce. I must point out that the use of the affirmative procedure is normally restricted to secondary legislation which alters the effect of primary legislation or which affects government finance. Neither of those considerations applies to regulations to be made under this clause.
  I hope that explanation satisfies my noble friend, but I can assure the Committee that I have others if it does not.
  Lord Alport: I am grateful to my noble friend for her explanation, and I do know that there is always the negative procedure. The whole point is that the affirmative procedure makes it essential that the Government bring their proposals before Parliament; the negative procedure rests with the initiative of Members of either House to bring the resolution forward.
  However, I do not want to pursue this matter further. I have dealt with this subject for two years and this may well be my last effort. I hope that the Government are successful but I am willing to take a bet with my noble friend —a small bet —that in two years' time, in 1992, my noble friend or her successor will come before this Chamber and say, "We are very sorry but we have not been able to find a satisfactory way of controlling straw stubble burning. Either we must continue to rely on the code, which has not worked, or introduce a nice little system such as my noble friend the late Lord Alport introduced some years ago". I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 135 agreed to.
  Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 381ZA:
  After Clause 135, insert the following new clause:
  ("Licensing of medicinal products: environmental considerations
  In section 19 of the Medicines Act 1968 (factors relevant to determination of application for licence) there shall be inserted after subsection (1)(c)—
  "(d) the need to safeguard the environment;"").
  The noble Lord said: The amendment is concerned with trying to tidy up legislation on controls of various types. It is probably the direct result of certain kinds of legislation in the past not being tuned in to environmental problems.
  The two Acts with which it is particularly concerned are the Medicines Act 1968 and Part III of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, and the difference between the two. The use of certain types of chemical, for instance, in veterinary medicine, is not restricted in certain fields in the same way as in others, due to the overlapping of the two Acts which cover them.
  The particular case involved is the preparation nuran. If it is used on land as a medical preparation dealing, for instance, with fowl or chicken batteries, it is controlled under the environmental legislation because it is a toxic red list chemical.
  If it is used in a fish farm, it is used as a veterinary preparation and it is not controlled because it comes under the Medicines Act 1968. This confusion has left me reasonably muddled, and the amendment seeks to correct the problem. I beg to move.
  Baroness Trumpington: This amendment addresses an important aspect of the assessment which all medicinal products must undergo before they are licensed. It is particularly important for veterinary medicinal products, which, because of their nature and the circumstances of their use, are most likely to have an impact on the environment. It has therefore been standard practice in the Veterinary Products Committee for many years to consider the environmental aspects and impact.
  The Act requires us to take account of the impact which a medicine may have on the health of animals generally. That allows us to take account of environmental considerations. I accept that the Medicines Act could be more explicit. The Government therefore welcomed a Commission proposal to add an explicit requirement to look at the,
  "potential risks the medicinal product might pose to the environment",
  to the provisions of Directive 81/851, which is the Community Directive on Veterinary Medicines Licensing Procedures. The Council adopted on 25th June, a common position accepting this proposal. The proposal has still to undergo the co-operation procedure, and so will not become law for some months. However, I have no doubt that this particular clause will survive.
  The Government will therefore need during the next 12 months to consider how to incorporate this Community provision, which we support and which has the same aim as the noble Lord's amendment, into UK law. At the same time we shall be considering how to implement other provisions in the proposed directive. In these circumstances, I think it would be premature for me to prejudge that consideration. I hope that, in the light of what I have said, the noble Lord will allow me time to consider this matter further.
  Lord Addington: That is one of the most encouraging answers I have received from the Dispatch Box. It is evident that the problem has been recognised and is being dealt with. I take it that the fact that such a potentially dangerous chemical could find its way into any type of natural ecosystem has been fully recognised. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 381ZB not moved.]
  Clause 136 [Financial assistance for environmental purposes]:
  [Amendment No. 381A not moved.]
  Clause 136 agreed to.
  Clauses 137 and 138 agreed to.
  Clause 139 [Power to give effect to Community and other international obligations etc.]:
  Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 382:
  Page 137, line 23, at end insert:
  ("(4) This section, in its application to Northern Ireland, has effect subject to the following modifications, that is to say —

  (a) in its application in relation to Part VI and sections 13, 131, and 132, the reference to Her Majesty's Government
  2320
  in the United Kingdom includes a reference to Her Majesty's Government in Northern Ireland; and

  (b) in its application in relation to the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, the reference to the Secretary of State shall be construed as a reference to the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland and the reference to Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom shall be construed as a reference to Her Majesty's Government in Northern Ireland;
  and regulations under it made by that Department shall be a statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 and shall be subject to negative resolution within the meaning of section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954.").

  The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the interpretation of Clause 139 in respect of Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
  Clause 139, as amended, agreed to
  Clauses 140 to 143 agreed to
  Clause 144 [Regulations, orders and directions]:
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): There is a mistake under Clause 144 in the marshalling. Amendment No. 382ZB comes first.
  [Amendment No. 382ZB not moved.]
  Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 382ZA:
  Page 139, leave out line 26 and insert ("69(7), 120(2), 121(3) or 128(2) above or section 147(3) below").
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
  Clause 144, as amended, agreed to
  Clause 145 agreed to.
  Schedule 13 [Consequential and Minor Amendments of Enactments]:
  The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 382A:
  Page 198, leave out line 1.
  The noble Earl said: Section 3 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 will be repealed under Part II of Schedule 14 to the Bill. That can be seen on page 204. Section 3, the prohibition of unlicensed disposal of waste, is fairly well covered by Clause 32 of the Bill. I feel that to leave the first line on page 198 is unnecessary. This is a probing amendment to some extent. I beg to move.
  Lord Reay: My noble friend has again demonstrated his eagle-eyed attention to detail even in these obscure recesses of the Bill. In this case, however, I am afraid that he has been a trifle too enthusiastic. We deal here with a quite significant provision by the standards of consequential and minor amendments. This change to the Transport Act will have serious consequences for anyone who commits a pollution offence involving waste. If they operate a goods vehicle, they will risk losing their goods vehicle operator's licence. This is directed especially at fly-tippers. The list of offences therefore covers the main fly-tipping offences likely to be committed by lorry drivers or operators.
  My noble friend has spotted that one of these offences under Section 3 will be repealed by the present Bill. This is true, but it does not mean that

  2321
  we do not need to include it here. The licensing authority, in deciding whether a person should hold a goods vehicle licence, will take account of past offences. These would include offences committed before the Bill became law. It is also possible that Schedule 13 will be brought into force before the replacement of Section 3 by Clause 32 of the Bill. Until then fly-tipping offences will continue to be prosecuted under the 1974 Act. That is why we need Section 3 in the list of relevant offences in this paragraph. I hope that my noble friend will be persuaded by this to withdraw his amendment.
  The Earl of Balfour: I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Reay for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 382B:
  Page: 98, line 30, at end insert:
  ("Sale of electricity: Scotland
  11A. In section 170A(3) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (restriction on sale of electricity by local authority) after the word "prescribed," there shall be inserted the words "or in cases where it is produced from waste,".").
  The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 382B, I should like to speak to the other Scottish amendments to Schedule 13, Amendments Nos. 383 and 383ZA. The Government are committed to encouraging both recycling and energy efficiency. These twin goals can be realised by producing more energy from waste—a field which recent developments in technology have now opened up. This amendment will clarify the law by removing from the existing Scottish legislation a possible obstacle to local authorities exploring fully this option.
  Amendment No. 383 makes a purely drafting change to Section 56(6) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, which applies only to Scotland. The change is consequential on the repeal of Section 30 of the 1974 Act in Schedule 14 of this Bill. Amendment No. 383ZA achieves the same effect for Scotland as Amendment No. 219D, which amended Clause 49 achieved for England and Wales; that is, it makes clear that local authorities have a duty to dispose of the refuse deposited at their civic amenity sites. I beg to move.
  7 p.m.
  The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendments Nos. 383 and 383ZA:
  Page 199, line 42, at end insert:
  ("Exclusion of Part 11 of Control of Pollution Act 1974 for radioactive substances: Scotland
  14A For subsection (6) of section 56 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 (interpretation of Part II) there shall be substituted the following subsection —
  "(6) Except as provided by regulations made under this subsection, nothing in this Part of this Act applies to radioactive waste within the meaning of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960; but regulations may —

  (a) provide for prescribed provisions of this Part of this Act to have effect with such modifications as the Secretary of
  2322
  State considers appropriate for the purposes of dealing with such radioactive waste;

  (b) make such modifications of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 and any other Act as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in connection with regulations made under paragraph (a) above.".").

  Page 200, line 4, at end insert:
  ("(1A) In subsection (1) at the end there shall be inserted the words "and to dispose of refuse so deposited".").
  Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 383A and 383B:
  Page 200, line 30, leave out ("Section 14") and insert ("(1) Sections 14 and 15").
  Page 200, line 31, leave out from ("amended") to end of line 41 and insert ("as follows.
  (2) In section 14, after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection —
  "(2A) Subject to the following provisions of this section and to sections 15 and 16 of this Act, a highway or roads authority may also make an order under subsection (1) or issue a notice under subsection (2) above where the authority is satisfied or (as the case may be) where it appears to the authority that traffic on the highway or road should be restricted or prohibited for the purpose of enabling the duty imposed by subsection (1)(a) or (2) of section 86 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (litter clearing and cleaning) to be discharged."
  (3) In section 15(8), after paragraph (b), there shall be inserted the following paragraph —
  "(c) if issued under subsection (2A) of that section, for more than five days from the date of the notice:".").
  The noble Lord said: These are both drafting amendments. I beg to move.
  Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 383BA:
  Page 200, line 45, at end insert:
  ("Registers of deposits etc. at sea: Northern Ireland Assembly control of regulations
  In section 25(3) of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, after paragraph (a)(ii) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph —
  "(iii) in section 14(8), for the words from "and any such power" onwards there shall be substituted the words "and any such regulations shall be subject to negative resolution within the meaning of section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954; and").
  Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 383C:
  Page 201, line 17, at end insert:
  ("Exclusion of Water Act 1989 controls of exercise of trade effluent functions in case of prescribed processes

  (1) Section 74 of the Water Act 1989 (control by Secretary of State of exercise of trade effluent functions in certain cases) shall be amended as follows.

  (2) In subsection (1), after the word "shall" there shall be inserted the words "subject to subsection (3), below".

  (3) After subsection (2), there shall be inserted the following subsections—
  "(3) The provisions of Schedule 9 shall not apply in relation to any trade effluent produced or to be produced in any process which is a prescribed process designated for central control as from the date which is the determination date for that process.

  (4) The "determination date" for a prescribed process is —

  (a) in the case of a process for which an authorisation is granted, the date on which the enforcing authority grants it, whether in pursuance of the application or, on an appeal, of a direction to grant it;

  2323

  (b) in the case of a process for which an authorisation is refused, the date of the refusal or, on an appeal, of the affirmation of the refusal.

  (5) In this section, "authorisation", "enforcing authority" and "prescribed process" have the meaning given in section 1 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the references to designation for central control and an appeal are references respectively to designation under section 4 and an appeal under section 15 of that Act.".").

  The noble Lord said: This amendment disapplies Schedule 9 to the Water Act 1989 to processes prescribed for integrated pollution control under Part I of the Bill. Schedule 9 is not appropriate to such processes, as the conditions of the operation of the process would already have been considered by HMIP in setting the conditions of the authorisation. I beg to move.
  Schedule 13, as amended, agreed to
  Schedule 14 [Repeals]:
  [Amendment No. 384 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 385:
  Page 204, line 6, leave out ('Section 100").
  The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Balfour: It is always a great pleasure to see the Minister's name in front of mine on the Marshalled List. Equally, I should like to extend my thanks to my noble friend Lord Hesketh for the helpful meeting I had with him and for his answers to my many questions about the Bill.
  Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 386 and 387:
  Page 204, line 20, at end insert ("sub-paragraphs (1) to (9) and sub-paragraph (11)")
  Page 204, line 22, at end insert:

  ("1990 c.

  Environmental Protection Act 1990

  In section 33(3)(b), the words following "below".")

  The noble Lord said: These are both minor technical amendments. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am totally puzzled by Amendment No. 387. First, it tries to take out in the repeal section a paragraph which is in the Bill; in other words, rather than deleting it from the Bill, it repeals something which has not yet been enacted. Secondly, it refers to:
  "In section 33(3)(b), the words following 'below' ".
  I should point out that in that section there are no "words following 'below'". Therefore, in two respects, I find the amendment incomprehensible.
  Lord Reay: I do not know whether I can enlighten the noble Lord on this issue. However, I can tell him that Amendment No 387 is consequential on an earlier amendment to Clause 33. That amendment added the holder of a waste disposal licence under the 1974 Act to the persons to whom waste may be transferred under the duty of care. This is only a transitional provision to enable the duty of care to be brought into force in advance of replacement of
  2324
  the 1974 Act's licensing provisions by Part II of the Bill. This amendment provides for the repeal of that transitional provision at a later date.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am not sure whether that explanation is very satisfactory. The Government are moving an amendment to the Bill and then amending their own amendment by way of a later amendment. I should have thought that this ought to be brought forward on Report rather than at this stage. In order to avoid a certain impropriety in this respect, I suggest that the Government would be well advised not to move Amendment No. 387 and to bring it back, if they think fit, at some time when it is comprehensible.
  Lord Reay: I am afraid that I cannot accept the noble Lord's proposal. I must insist that the amendment be proceeded with.
  [Amendment No. 387ZA not moved.]
  Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 387A to 389:

  Page 205, line 25, at end insert:

  ("1990 c. 8.

  Town and Country Planning Act 1990

  In Schedule 17, paragraph 1.").

  Page 205, line 37, at end insert:

  ("1986 c. ii.

  Berkshire Act 1986

  Section 13.

  1987 c. xi.

  Exeter City Council Act 1987.

  Section 24.").

  Page 205, line 39, at end insert:

  ("1990 c. vii.

  London Local Authorities Act 1990.

  Section 43.")

  The noble Lord said: These are purely technical amendments. I beg to move.
  Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 390 to 390A:
  Page 206, line 20, in column 3 at end insert ("In Schedule 1, paragraphs 9 and 11.").
  Page 206, line 25, column 3, at end insert:
  ("In section 46(2), the words "and (2)".")
  Page 206, line 38, at end insert:
  ("Part Enactments relating to hazardous substances

  Chapter

  Short title

  Extent of repeal

  1972 c. 52.

  Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972.

  In section 56(A)(1), the words "and to Section 56B.below". Section 56B.

  In section 56E(2)(e) and 56K(5)(b), the words "or Health and Safety Commission".

  In section 56F(1),the words "and (3)".
  Section 56F(3).Section 56H(5).

  In section 56J(5), the words from "other" to "applies".

  In section 56M(3), the words "Subject to subsection (4)
  below," Section 56M(4).

  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: At this stage I must call Amendment No. 402ZA. This amendment was printed on page 23 of the Marshalled List in error.
  Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 402ZA:
  Page 206, line 43, column 3, at end insert ("Schedule 4.").
  Schedule 14, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 146 agreed to.
  Clause 147 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
  Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 391:
  Page 140, line 11, at end insert:
  ("section 93; section 99 in so far as it relates to paragraphs 7, 13, 14 and 15 of Schedule 5;").
  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 392, 393, 394, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401 and 402. These amendments are designed to rationalise the drafting of the Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 392 to 394:
  Page 140, line 16, leave out ("(and Schedule 12)").
  Page 140, leave out line 23 and insert:
  ("section 145(1) in so far as it relates to paragraphs 3, 4 and 15 of Schedule 13;
  section 145(2) in so far as it relates to Part III of Schedule 14 and, in Part VIII of that Schedule, the repeal of section 100 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974;
  section 145(4);").
  Page 140, leave out lines 25 to 28.
  Lord Nathan Lord Nathan moved Amendment No. 395:
  Page 140, line 29, at end insert ("on the first anniversary of the day on which it is passed or").
  The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment can be stated shortly: it is to put a date by which the provisions of the Bill, in so far as they are not brought into force under Clause 147(2), shall be brought into force. The amendment provides that the Bill shall come into force:
  "on the first anniversary of the day on which it is passed",
  or an earlier date on which it or part of it is brought into force by order. It is always unsatisfactory that there should be an open end to the date upon which an Act is to be brought into force. We have had seven arduous days of debate on the Bill in Committee, and no doubt there will be further arduous sessions on Report and perhaps subsequently. It therefore seems reasonable to say that there should be a date by which it will be brought into force in its entirety.
  It may be said, and if so, there must be good reasons allied to the argument, that the first anniversary is too short a period. If that were so, I would not object to it being the second anniversary.
  What is objectionable is the type of experience which we had in relation to the Control of Pollution Act 1974 where Part II did not come into force for 10 years. Even then, the whole of Part II has not come into force. It is wrong that government should be at liberty to bring into force, or not, an Act which has been passed through both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, some provision along the lines of Amendments Nos. 395 and 396, to which I have referred, are appropriate. I beg to move.
  Lord Hesketh: I was under the impression that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was to be taken with Amendment No. 395.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I beg the Minister's pardon. Amendment No. 396A is indeed grouped with Amendments Nos. 395 and 396, which, incidentally, we support. A situation where part of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 has still not come into force is clearly unsatisfactory. What is proposed is not a change in the timetable but that there should be an obligation on the Secretary of State to give a timetable within two weeks of the date upon which the Act is passed.
  We cannot require the Secretary of State to make an accurate assessment, but we ask him to make an estimate. That would be enormously helpful to many people, not least the local authorities, which will have to implement the many parts of the Bill, especially those dealing with waste on land. I hope that the Minister will feel that the provision does not in any way fetter the freedom of the Government or the Secretary of State but provides a useful service for the benefit of those who will have to implement the Bill when it becomes an Act.
  Lord Hesketh: We believe that setting a general date on the face of the Bill for all the many provisions would not be the best answer. For example, it could lead to less consultation on proposals under the Bill. We certainly intend to consult on regulations to be made under the Bill. But if our implementation programme were to be delayed next year and those amendments were included on the face of the Bill, we could be faced with a choice between meeting an obligation on the face of the Act to implement the Act within a year or bringing forward inadequately prepared secondary legislation without any public consultation.
  There can be no doubt of our intention to consult widely. For example, we have already consulted on the duty of care proposals under Part II. We have said that we intend to allow two months for consultation on regulations to be made under Part I, and that has been welcomed. We shall also be consulting on guidance issued under that part of the Bill and on diverse regulations and orders contained in statutory instruments elsewhere in the Bill. I should hate to see the prospects for consultation jeopardised, even inadvertently. I do not think that it is the intention of the amendments but that could be their practical effect.
  We have sympathy with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. We do not see a need for an amendment to the Bill to achieve what
  2328
  he wants, but I can assure him that I am willing to publish our proposals for implementing the Bill once it is enacted. I hope that, given that assurance, the noble Lord will feel that we have gone some way towards satisfactorily answering what he requires.
  Lord Nathan: I recognise the point made by the Minister that consultation is extremely desirable, but surely there is a limit of time within which it must take place. It would not be bad for governments to be under some pressure to hasten the process forward. As I said earlier, if the period of a year (the first anniversary) is thought to be inappropriate for the reason that he has mentioned, or otherwise, then let us have the second anniversary. To leave it completely open-ended, in view of the experience we have had with environmental legislation closely allied to this, is unsatisfactory. I therefore feel that I must reserve the position for a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 396 and 396A not moved.]
  Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 397 and 398:
  Page 140, leave out line 32 and insert:
  ("(4) Only the following provisions of this Act (together with this section) extend to Northern Ireland,").
  Page 140, leave out line 37 and insert:
  ("Part VI in so far as it relates to importation and, without that restriction, section 117(2) in so far as it relates to the continental shelf:
  section 130 in so far as it relates to importation;").
  Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 398A:
  Page 140, line 40, at end insert:
  ("section (Public registers relating to deposits in the sea and incineration at sea);")
  Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 399 to 402:
  Page 141. line 1, leave out ("(and Schedule 12)").
  Page 141, line 2, at end insert:
  ("section 139 in so far as it relates to Part VI and sections 130, 131 and 132 in so far as they extend to Northern Ireland and in so far as it relates to the Radioactive Substances Act 1960;").
  Page 141, leave out lines 5 to 7.
  Page 141, line 8, leave out ("section 145 above") and insert ("this Act").
  Clause 147, as amended, agreed to.
  In the Title:
  [Amendment No. 403 not moved.]
  Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 403A:
  Line 25, after ("substances;") insert ("to amend the law relating to the control of hazardous substances on, over or under land:").
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I should like to take the opportunity to thank all noble Lords who have assisted in the lengthy scrutiny of the Bill. Three of I the sessions went on far too late at night. I am

  2329
  grateful to all my noble friends and others who collaborated in a scrutiny of the Bill which I hope the Committee feel was not a waste of time. Certain, perhaps minor, improvements have been achieved. We shall be seeking many further improvements in the Bill as it proceeds. I am grateful for the consideration given by all noble Lords, including the Government Front Bench, and for the work that has been done on the Bill.
  Lord Hesketh: I should like to take the opportunity on behalf of the Government to thank all noble Lords and in particular the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Addington, who have sat through a lengthy period of time, and, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, three excessively late nights. From these Benches we are grateful for the good humour that has been maintained throughout the Bill's passage which has made it a pleasure for us to be here.
  Title, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Companies (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 1990
7.20 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 8th June be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee.] —(Viscount Ullswater.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount for moving the Motion, but I am afraid that I have to tell him that if your Lordships were to accept the Motion it would be without effect. A simple calculation of the date on which the order was made, and a look at the regulations under Section 708(2) of the Companies Act 1985, under which the order was made, will show that the order was made on 7th June 1990 and that within 28 days it had to be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
Staling with 7th June, if you add 27 days to the 7th June you come to 34. Unless the Government have inadvertantly changed the calendar there are 30 days in June. Therefore 4th July —that is, yesterday —was the last day on which this resolution could have been taken to give legitimacy to the order about which the noble Viscount is talking. The order itself is unexceptional, but I am afraid that we cannot accept: the Motion that the noble Viscount has put.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, was good enough to tell me earlier that he believed, on advice, that the regulations were out of time. I am advised that this is indeed the case. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for drawing my attention to this and for agreeing to the procedure that we have followed; namely, that I should move the Motion in my name formally so that the noble Lord could point out that the regulations were out of time.
This is the result of a simple miscalculation of the date by which the regulations had to be approved.
2330
In the circumstances there is nothing I can do today except withdraw the Motion in my name. I apologise to your Lordships for the fact that the order was not brought before this House in sufficient time for it to be considered before it expired. A new order has been made today which takes effect tomorrow. Your Lordships will be invited to consider this in due course. I beg to withdraw the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the House decides on whether the noble Viscount can withdraw his Motion, could he give the House an assurance that DTI Ministers in future will get their act together? There have been so many nonsenses coming out from DTI Ministers. A simple miscalculation like this is not good enough. Will the noble Viscount give us an assurance that the Department of Trade and Industry, from the Secretary of State downward, will get its act together and make sure that your Lordships' time is not wasted?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have made an apology to the House, and I shall of course pass on the remarks of the noble Lord to the department.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) Scheme 1990
7.24 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington rose to move, That the scheme laid before the House on 8th June be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Baroness said: My Lords. I beg to move that the Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) Scheme 1990, which was laid before the House on 8th June, be approved. This is one of two Statutory Instruments designed to amend the Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme. As you may recall, the scheme itself was introduced in February of last year. You may therefore wonder why it is necessary to amend it so early in its life. The principal need for change arises from the EC farm structures package which was agreed by the Council of Ministers in December last year. At the same time, we are taking the opportunity to make some other changes which have been required by the European Commission, and also some which seem advisable in the light of experience.
The Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme consists of two parts. Farmers can receive grant for investments in an approved programme called an improvement plan. Alternatively, they may elect to claim grant on individual investments under the non-plan side of the scheme. The most significant of the changes being made affect the system of improvement plans, and are embodied in the Farm and Conservation Grant (Amendment) Regulations 1990. That instrument is subject to the negative resolution procedure, and will not therefore be considered by your Lordships. The instrument before us today makes certain changes to the non-plan part of the scheme.
The first of these changes relates to what we call the "time and income test" of eligibility for grant on traditional buildings. This test must be met by the person running the business. In the past this person has had to spend at least half his or her time working on the agricultural part of of the farm business, and derive at least half his or her income from that source. The modified test allows time and income relating to certain non-agricultural activities (such as tourism and craft) to be taken into account for the purposes of the test. This will obviously benefit farmers who have diversified their on-farm activities.
Another change stems from the fact that the European Commission has required us to reduce the 30 per cent. grant rate for the replacement of heated glasshouses outside the less favoured areas in order to comply with the strict letter of EC legislation. Like other member states we are of course required to implement Community obligations. However, in view of the storm damage suffered by the glasshouse sector earlier this year, and realising the considerable difficulties facing those involved, we have decided to allow growers to benefit from the higher grant rate for as long as possible. The reduced rate of 25 per cent. will therefore not apply to claims received before 1st January 1991.
There are two further changes which are set out in the instrument. The first of these is purely to clarify the existing position regarding certain horticultural grants. The scheme offers grant for durable structures clad with plastic (or "polytunnels") and for heating systems in such structures. There has been some suggestion that mushroom houses clad with black plastic could thus qualify for grant. That is not the purpose of grant aid in this area, where a firm policy decision was taken to target aid at the glasshouse sector. The instrument therefore clarifies that aid for durable structures is confined to those being used as an alternative to glasshouses, and clad with transclucent plastic.
The final change relates to grant for traditional field boundaries. As part of this grant, aid is available for fencing to protect hedges until they are established. Earth banks serving as field boundaries are however also liable to damage until they have been consolidated by vegetation. The instrument therefore extends the grant to include protective fencing for banks as well as for hedges. Any of your Lordships familiar with the landscape in Devon and Cornwall will know that this will be particularly welcome in that part of the country. This change also applies to fencing protecting raised floodbanks in Scotland.
Your Lordships will have gathered that the instrument before us does not embody fundamental changes to the scheme. Indeed, it would be inappropriate to make such changes when the scheme has been running for only a relatively short period. However, the modified time and income test of eligibility, and the extension of grant for protective fencing, should enable more farmers to take advantage of the scheme which, I believe, with its emphasis on anti-pollution measures and enhancement of the environment, will continue to
2332
reflect the proper priorities for financial aid. I therefore commend the instrument to your Lordships.
Moved, That the scheme laid before the House on 8th June be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Baroness Trumpington.)
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, we thank the noble Baroness for explaining the scheme. I say at the outset that we welcome the changes in the eligibility criteria and the target income requirements, as they should enable more farmers to qualify for grant aid. The changes with regard to pig grants affect only those with improvement plans, and seem likely to affect only a small minority of pig farmers. The majority of items that qualify for grant aid are likely to be of interest to pig farmers and can be operated as non-plan items.
The restrictions on beef production grants that are necessitated by changes to Community legislation may adversely affect some of the more intensively stocked livestock farms.
As the noble Baroness stated, the reduction in the rate of grant for glasshouses, was necessitated by changes in Community laws. We are particularly grateful that the 30 per cent. rate will continue until the end of 1990 as a result of the heavy storm damage in the earlier part of this year. We consider, however, that the rate should be set at the maximum, which is 26.5 per cent., instead of 25 per cent. It is undoubtedly true that horticulture in this country is suffering from intense competition from other Community states.
We welcome the extension of grant aid to fencing for field banks and flood banks, which will be of environmental advantage in Devon and Cornwall where such banks, on which trees and bushes grow, are often used as field boundaries.
We are somewhat disappointed that the Government did not accede to other requests made by the National Farmers' Union, for example, and in particular to installation grants for new entrants into farming and the extension of grant aid to other items that would greatly assist in the control of pollution.
In the United Kingdom new entrants are eligible only for a 25 per cent. enhancement of capital grants. Under Community legislation, installation grants could also be made available and would be particularly valuable to new entrants. We regard that matter as very important because agriculture is currently in a state of transition.
Grant aid is available for effluent disposal facilities but not for items such as roofing over yards, which would help to separate clean and dirty water and therefore enhance the efficiency of such facilities.
Having made those few points, I repeat that we support the order.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. I should like to answer the point he made in regard to glasshouses. I have been very sympathetic to the glasshouse people in view of the damage that they have suffered.

2333
I am informed that 26.5 per cent. would be inconsistent with other rates and would be very costly to administer.
If the noble Lord wishes me to give details of the changes that are being made to the pig restrictions, he only to nod his head and I shall write to him.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before eight o'clock.