Lords Sitting of 31 October 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.

Electoral Register: Qualification
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether any authority has been given to electoral registration officers to extend the 10th October deadline for qualification for inclusion in the electoral register, whether for United Kingdom or for overseas residents.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, there has been no change to the qualifying date of 10th October, or 15th September in Northern Ireland, for the registration of electors either living in the United Kingdom or overseas.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that information which I have obtained from the Library states that 16th December is the new date for applications to be registered on the list but that even after that date applications for registration will be received? Can he say whether the fact that the dates are being opened up in such a way to give open-ended registration has anything to do with the Government's dip in the public opinion polls?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, unfortunately I missed the last part of the noble Lord's question but I shall not ask him to repeat it because it might not be particularly helpful. The noble Lord may have obtained incorrect information. Declarations must be made on or before 10th October but they need not be received by the electoral registration officer by that date. They can be treated as claims for inclusion in the draft register or, depending on when they are received, in the published register. In theory, therefore, it is possible for an overseas elector's declaration to be received up to early January 1992 in order to be accepted for the 1991–92 electoral register. In practice of course that is quite unlikely to occur.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, according to the Library the information comes from the Home Office. It has been in touch with his department regarding the matter. I do not believe that the information is incorrect. Will the Minister accept that perhaps he has got it wrong?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I must disagree with the noble Lord. Ministers never get things wrong. I shall certainly look into the mysterious publication which has misled the noble Lord. I note that he is gesticulating. I shall certainly look into the matter, but I can assure him that what I have told him is correct.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, will the Minister accept my acknowledgment that the dates for the draft register to be published and the last date for claims
1842
are, as he explains, included in the 1986 regulations? Having said that, can he tell us the amount of money put aside for encouraging the registration of overseas electors? How does it compare with the cost of publicity aimed at United Kingdom residents who wish to be included on the register, bearing in mind that everyone—the Home Office and registration officers—is concerned with the shortfall on the UK register?
Earl Ferrerso: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for agreeing with me and disagreeing with his noble friend. With regard to his second question, the Home Office has spent £460,683 on the campaign for domestic electoral registration in England and Wales and has contributed £480,189 towards the total cost of the overseas campaign, which totals £760,000.

Industrial Tribunals
2.40 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to deal with the delays now occurring when cases are listed for industrial tribunal and employment appeal tribunal hearings.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have increased the budget for the industrial tribunals in England and Wales by some half a million pounds. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in consultation with the senior judiciary, has allocated substantial additional judge time to the employment appeal tribunal. That has already helped to reduce delays in cases reaching a hearing.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that reply. Is he aware that, despite what is apparently to be done, there are horrendous backlogs of cases, particularly in the South, which sometimes mean that delays of up to six months or even perhaps nine months are envisaged? In my own union, I am aware of two recently heard cases listed for the EAT where the earliest date that can be given is March next year. Does he agree that that is an awful way to conduct cases that were originally meant to be quickly determined through easily accessible proceedings, bearing in mind that such employment cases often involve people who have been dismissed?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it is the intention that the industrial tribunals should hear 60 per cent. of cases within 12 weeks. There has been an increase in the number of cases coming before the tribunals and public expenditure must be contained within the resources available. All parts of the public service, including industrial tribunals, have a part to play in that process. I have today announced an increase in the budget for industrial tribunals. I am glad to say that the average waiting time in the employment appeal tribunal has fallen from some 18 months in April to an average of 13 months as of today's date.

1843
Assuming that there will be no further increase in the number of applications, waiting time should continue to fall.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, bearing in mind that the waiting period is still quite lengthy for people whose living may be at stake, would it not be fair to restore the status quo as soon as the applicant lodges his appeal so that his job is not filled by someone else?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am a little confused. The noble Lord refers to an appeal. I do not know whether he means an application to an industrial tribunal. The 12 weeks are not wasted. It is quite complicated to get all the facts together and prepare the papers. He will also be aware that some two-thirds of registered applications do not reach a hearing. Parties often settle prior to a hearing, often through the help of ACAS. Therefore the 12-week period is logical.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a large number of people will still suffer unnecessarily under the present situation? Does he agree that the matter ought to be reconsidered?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it is the duty of the industrial tribunal to look into the circumstances surrounding the case and to come to some adjudication on whether or not compensation should be paid at that time.
Lord Meston: My Lords, is not the situation caused by a shortage of clerical staff to process the increasing number of applications to tribunals? Is that situation hindered by the present embargo on the use of part-time tribunal chairmen? Will those problems be further increased when the Government activate the power to extend the jurisdiction of the tribunal—however welcome that extension may be?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have tried to indicate that this pressure on the budget is caused by an increasing number of cases being referred to industrial tribunals. In order to remain within the budget, one way of limiting the amount of public expenditure has been to restrict the working of some part-time chairmen. I hope that the increase in the budget that I have announced will allow the part-time chairmen to resume their hearings, but that will be at the discretion of the president of the industrial tribunals.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, what are the Government doing to improve the quality and effectiveness of the pre-hearing reviews that take place prior to industrial tribunal hearings?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, that is a rather different question. I am not aware that there are complaints about that.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, on the issue of dismissed employees, the Minister will be aware that industrial tribunals have the power to order reinstatement. Sometimes that is not a widely used power. On the other hand, is it not a farce to imagine that reinstatement can be a solution if there has been
1844
a waiting time of six to eight months? Cannot further consideration be given to providing extra resources if there are so many more cases?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government remain committed to the principle of industrial tribunals as a means of resolving disputes in the workplace. They are intended as a speedy, inexpensive and informal way of resolving disputes.
The noble Baroness will be aware that the decisions about reinstatement are very few. The Government remain committed to the principle of solving these disputes before industrial tribunals.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, as one who sits as a member of an industrial tribunal, can the Minister reconcile the fact that we have been told that we can now sit only half as frequently when there are so many more cases?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the lay membership of the industrial tribunal panel is quite extensive. The regular chairmen are sitting as before. The restriction applies only to the number of sittings of part-time chairmen.

Hospices: Government Support
2.48 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they intend to fulfil their commitment to achieve matched giving to voluntary hospices.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, initially the proposal is to add central funding to that provided by the health authorities to build towards matched giving. Ultimately it may be done also through contract arrangements.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her reply with its sympathetic ambience. Is she aware that hospices were encouraged by the Government's Statement in December 1989 to plan their strategies on the basis of 50 per cent. funding? There is a real urgency for the situation to be addressed, otherwise hospices already face problems of redundancies and bed closures. That is a great tragedy given the enormously important services that hospices provide and the great dedication of staff who work in them.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that the Government are still working towards that aim. This year we have made additional allocations of over £11 million to enable the health service to increase its support for voluntary hospices. In Scotland hospices are already eligible for public funding of at least 50 per cent. of their running costs. In England and Northern Ireland the health service has been asked to work towards a position in which its contribution matches that from voluntary giving.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I strongly support the noble Baroness on this issue as occurs so often these days except where Party issues are involved where that becomes more difficult. I shall open a debate on the subject on 15th November. Perhaps I

1845
may ask the Minister whether the Government still stand by the reply given to me on 13th July of this year. We were told:
"The health authorities and boards in England and Northern Ireland have been asked to work towards a position in which their contribution to the revenue costs of agreed services matches that from voluntary giving".—[Official Report, 13/7/90; col. 551.]
Do the Government still stand by that reply or have they ratted on it?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, no. I had sought to give that reassurance in answer to my noble friend's Question. We are still working towards that commitment. I do not wish to pre-empt the debate scheduled for 15th November. Much depends on the outcome of the current expenditure round and until that is known no final decision will be made on future funding arrangements.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, in view of the urgency which now exists in some of the hospices, whose emergency services are immensely valuable, when can we expect a decision by Her Majesty's Government to grant the sums of money which we are expecting?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I appreciate the difficulties which can arise when the various health authorities are working at a different pace. However, some authorities have already achieved the 50 per cent. level and some are over and above that. At this point all I can say is that we are working towards a situation in which all local health authorities will have reached the 50 per cent. level.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate the extraordinary difficulty into which she places voluntary organisations and others which have been encouraged to expect reliable statutory funding only to find that they do not know when it is coming nor how much it will be? Does she appreciate that when one is trying to run an organisation, uncertainty about one's cash flow is jolly nearly death?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes. I reiterate that we have supplied an additional £11 million this year and have given assurances that that level of funding will continue. It is the achievement of the across-the-board level of 50 per cent. in all health authorities that is requiring a little more time.
Lord Blease: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, unfortunately, throughout the United Kingdom there is a growing demand for specialised terminal care and family services provided by the modern hospice movement? Does the Minister agree that in human terms those modern specialised hospital services cannot be priced by market values nor meet the acceptable criteria of human need by contracting out to commercially-run nursing home operators? As a possible means of getting out of the dilemma and meeting the present and future hospice financing and funding arrangements, will the Minister use her good offices to ensure the co-operation of the Department of Health with the United Kingdom Hospice Movement Working Party which has been established to report on hospice service standards criteria?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am happy to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Blease, in acknowledging the important role played by the hospice movement and the valuable contribution that it makes to the difficulties experienced by people who are terminally ill. Our whole thrust in the health service is towards improving the quality and standards of care. To that extent, I am sure that the Department of Health will be delighted to hear what the working party has to suggest regarding this important issue.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the Minister's sympathy is appreciated; but the problem is financial. Is she aware that health authorities are now telling the hospices that they cannot meet the Government's commitment to 50 per cent. funding unless they receive increased central funds or are expected to cut local services? Secondly, since staff costs represent 80 per cent. of hospice expenditure, does the Minister agree that the members of staff who are constantly working with loss and bereavement should be free of the fears of financial crisis and redundancy which are now seriously affecting the hospice movement?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I have said on many occasions, as with other funding issues, the funding of hospices is the responsibility of local health authorities. We must leave that responsibility at a decentralised level. The precise arrangements for supporting individual projects are therefore a matter of discussion between the authorities and the organisations concerned. In general terms, we expect the authorities to use the considerable additional funds that we have made available to support voluntary projects and to top up rather than to replace the contribution that they already make.
Baroness Ryder of Warsaw: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the hospices and the Sue Ryder Homes the lack of financial assistance adds greatly to the existing worries of the staff, and even more to thousands of supporters who are bewildered and dismayed by the Government's attitude and lack of help?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Department of Health has good and regular contact with those in the voluntary sector who are involved in the hospice movement. Indeed, if the Government have not been made aware at that level they are left in no doubt by your Lordships.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I wish to redirect the Minister's attention to the supplementary question which was asked by my noble friend Lord Longford. There is a great difference between standing by an undertaking and, in the Minister's words, working towards meeting an undertaking subject to the public expenditure round. Will the Minister now repeat her undertaking to this House that the Government will stand by the undertaking that they gave?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, without implicating myself in any undertaking regarding a timescale, I am only too happy to stand by that undertaking.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, is the Minister aware that originally the hospice movement asked for £23 million this year and received £8 million? She

1847
spoke of £11 million for next year. Is the Minister aware that to match giving pound for pound £30 million is now required and I see noble Lords opposite agreeing? We do not want any talk of £11 million for next year.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the overall funding in England and Wales was £11 million for the current year. Until we have the results of the public expenditure round, I cannot say finally what will be available next year.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, in view of the great anxiety expressed by Members on all sides of the House, will the Minister undertake to discuss the matter with the Secretary of State in order to ascertain whether a more satisfactory and rapid solution can be found?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as always, I am happy to relay the opinions expressed in your Lordships' House to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Molloy: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in view of the importance of the subject, would it not be possible to refer the matter back to the House after the Minister's discussions with her right honourable friend in order that we can examine the result?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, had listened to his noble friend Lord Longford, he would know that the House is due to discuss the subject on 15th November.

NHS Hospitals: Bed Numbers
2.58 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the following numbers of beds have recently been closed in London hospitals for purely financial reasons: Guy's 109, King's College 120, St. Thomas' 175, Charing Cross 137, Westminster 89, St. Bartholomew's 140, North Middlesex 100, Whittington's 65, Lewisham 46, St. George's 75, Ealing 57; and whether they can give any assurances about the future of these beds.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, given our decentralised system, it is for the individual health authorities concerned to determine the level of health service provision required in their areas, taking account of local circumstances and resources available to them. Bed numbers are not of course an accurate indicator of levels of service in the NHS. What matters is the number of patients treated and I am happy to say that in London that has increased.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware that that is not good enough? Is she aware that under Section 1 of the National Health Service Act 1977, which applies to the Secretary of State, he is under a responsibility to provide health services and in fact to improve them? Does she not agree that in some of the leading hospitals in London an enormous number of beds are temporarily closed because of edicts from the
1848
department about reducing expenditure? Is it not grossly unsatisfactory that the noble Baroness says that she does not have this information and will not provide it to the House? Is she aware that I tabled a Written Question in order to obtain that information? She refused to give me the information then, as she refuses to give it to me now.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have had the opportunity to say before—and I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for repeating it—that spending has never been higher in the National Health Service. As populations move, health services must change to reflect that. Since 1976 it has been the policy of successive governments to shift resources from London to where people are now living. This Government's recently introduced reforms will make it easier for health service funding and services to adapt to that sort of change. In future funding will reflect population and so distribution of funds will reflect population needs and not just the historical siting of buildings.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that over the past 40 years the district authorities of Guy's and Lewisham have closed over 1,000 beds because they were not needed? Further, does she not agree that out of the total complement of beds, 69 beds have been closed for purely financial reasons? I am sure that my noble friend will agree that those financial reasons were because our late and unlamented district health authority told us three months into the financial year that we were to receive £1 million less this year than last, even though its budget had been increased.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as always, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend. He has given us the benefit of his particular expertise in this area. He points to the effects of the sort of crisis management which he has seen in the National Health Service and which has spurred us in introducing our reforms.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the Minister take it from me that, although she does not give the figures, the figures in my Question have been verified? I now ask her a question to which I am sure she has the answer. How many nurses across the whole span of the service have been sacked to produce the cost savings? I know of 50 sacked from St. Thomas's Hospital.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in answer to the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, I emphasise that all the closures to which the noble Lord's Question referred are temporary. On the whole, the figures are correct although for Lewisham the noble Lord's figure is 46 and I understand that it should be three, and the quoted figure of 120 for King's College should be 30. The noble Lord may be confusing that with Dulwich in some way. I know that the closure at St. Bartholomew's is not for financial reasons but in order to enable the hospital to carry out a major refurbishment programme, which I am sure the noble Lord will agree is very important.
My understanding as regards the question of staff is that as far as possible all staff involved in those

1849
temporary closures are either redeployed within units where they serve or within other units in the health authority area.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that there is a very real anxiety that there should be such a shortage of hospital beds at the beginning of the winter? Does she not agree that when winter complaints such as bronchitis and 'flu start, there may be a real crisis'? Will she give an undertaking that special provision will be made if there is a serious 'flu epidemic?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I reminded your Lordships on Monday, the issue of occupancy of beds is not the vital question. The vital question is the number of people being treated. Because beds are being used more efficiently than ever before, with swifter turnovers and more day surgery, the number of patients has continued to rise. Therefore, I do not believe the noble Baroness to be justified in suggesting that there will be a crisis of that sort.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on Monday I spoke with an orthopaedic surgeon who told me that at Westminster Hospital and other London hospitals it is possible to operate only on emergencies? If that is so, will the condition of other patients not deteriorate? Also, is that not a waste of expensive surgeons' operating time when they are twiddling their thumbs?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the noble Baroness bears out a very important point; namely, that all emergency situations are being dealt with immediately and any other requirements are being dealt with in due course.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recall that due to my absence last Tuesday my noble friend Lady Hollis referred to a letter which I received from the health authority changing the date of my own appointment at an outpatients' clinic? My noble friend referred not only to bed closures but also to the fact that, due to financial reasons, the authority had no option but to cut staff and also to restrict the opening of outpatient clinics. I readily understand that the noble Baroness had not seen that letter and therefore could not reply to that question. However, has she now had a chance to look into the matter and are we likely to have a restoration of the outpatient clinics, which are as important as any other part of hospital treatment?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for reminding me again about his particular situation. The Riverside Health Authority is ensuring that steps taken to control expenditure will leave sufficient beds available, certainly for the needs of emergency admissions, as we have already established, and other cases such as cancer cases, HIV and AIDS cases, terminations of pregnancy and selected day cases.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, we have now been discussing Questions for half an hour. Perhaps I may suggest that we take a question from the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, and one more from the Opposition Benches. We should then call it a day.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in between Lewisham Hospital and Guy's Hospital is a hospital called St. Olave's which was closed, with its 280 beds, lock, stock and barrel before this wretched Government even came into office?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I should draw the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, to the attention of noble Lords opposite.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the Minister now answer the last part of my Question on the Order Paper? Can she give some assurance about the future of those beds?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that I have done that in saying that those closures are all temporary.

Standing Orders (Private Business)
3.9 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. With your Lordships' permission, I shall speak and move all 32 amendments together. They raise no matters of substance and are mostly to meet changes in public legislation. They fall into three groups: those which result from the abolition of rates and rate support grant; those which result from the provisions of the Water Act 1989, and in particular the replacement of the water authorities by their successor companies and the establishment of the National Rivers Authority; and, finally, those which are minor technical or drafting changes following consultation between those responsible in the two Houses, government departments and parliamentary agents.
For example, Amendment No. 31 repeals Standing Order 143. That required committees on works Bills to have special regard to the provision of accommodation for workers. It dates from days when travelling gangs of navvies, some of them thousands strong, were employed on railway works, and was required to make provision for their welfare and control. It now serves no useful purpose.
Perhaps I may add that similar amendments were agreed to by another place last week. I beg to move.
Moved, That the standing orders relating to Private Business be amended as follows:
Standing Order 1

Leave out lines 70 to 73 and insert:

"the term 'water company' means a company appointed to be a water undertaker or a sewerage undertaker under Chapter 1 of Part II of the Water Act 1989;".

Standing Order 4A

line 7, leave out "a London borough or"

line 16, after "county," insert "metropolitan district or London borough".

line 23, after "counties" insert ", metropolitan districts or London boroughs".

line 35, after "county" insert ", metropolitan district or London borough".

line 38, after "county" insert ", metropolitan district or London borough".

Standing Order 7

line 2, after "specify" insert "by reference to the deposited plans".

Standing Order 10

line 12, after "county" insert ", metropolitan district or London borough".

line 20, after "counties" insert ", metropolitan districts or London boroughs".

Standing Order 27

line 63, after "Parliaments" insert ", one copy at the Health and Safety Executive".

Standing Order 29

line 6, leave out from beginning to "shall" in line 8.

Standing Order 32

line 11, leave out from "the" to "and" in line 13 and insert "principal regional office of the National Rivers Authority for the area containing the river or estuary affected".

Standing Order 33

line 3, leave out "which is subject to the jurisdiction of a water authority".

line 10, leave out "office of the authority" and insert "principal regional office of the National Rivers Authority for the area containing the river affected".

Standing Order 36 (as amended in 1986)

line 10, at end insert "with the proper officer of the district".

Standing Order 37

line 8, at end insert "and at the Department of the Environment".

Standing Order 39

line 18, leave out from beginning to "at" in line 19.

Standing Order 42

line 3, leave out "within the area of any water authority". line 8, leave out "office of the authority" and insert "principal regional office of the National Rivers Authority for the area containing the watercourse affected".

Standing Order 43

line 7, leave out from "the" to "and" in line 8 and insert "principal regional office of the National Rivers Authority for the area containing the river or estuary affected".

Standing Order 45

line 3, leave out from beginning to "in" in line 13.

line 13, leave out from first "Bill" to end of line 14.

line 16, at end insert "signed by the person making the same".

leave out lines 19 to 22.

line 31, leave out subsection (4).

Standing Order 46

That the standing order be repealed.

Standing Order 132

That the standing order be repealed.

Standing Order 137

That the standing order be repealed.

Standing Order 140

That the standing order be repealed.

Standing Order 141

That the standing order be repealed.

Standing Order 143

That the standing order be repealed.

Standing Order 146

That the standing order be repealed.

—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Environmental Protection Bill
3.10 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons and amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons reasons and amendments be now considered.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
MOTIONS MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF TWO OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS AND CERTAIN COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN OTHER OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill 71 as first printed by the Lords. Commons amendments and reasons are printed in italics]

LORDS AMENDMENTS
1 Clause 2, page 4, line 19, at end insert ("and to which conditions as specified in directions in accordance with section 7(3A) below shall apply")
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason
1A because it would be incompatible with the decision taken by the Commons on the Lords Amendment in page 9, line 25.
2 Clause 7, page 9, line 21, after ("the") insert ("matters specified in subsection (3A) and the")
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
2A because it would be incompatible with the decision taken by the Commons on the Lords Amendment in page 9, line 25.
3 Page 9, line 25 at end insert:
("(3A) The Secretary of State shall give directions under subsection (3) above to require the inclusion as conditions of authorisations of the following—

(a) the minimisation of pollution to environmental media;

(b) the protection of the biosphere:

(c) the development of the sustainable use of natural resources;

(d) the reduction, minimisation and acceptable disposal of waste;

(e) the conservation of energy;

(f) the minimisation of environmental health and safety risks to employees and other persons;

(g) the adoption of voluntary controls over the safety of goods and services produced for sale;

(h) the undertaking of adequate provision for compensation for damage caused by the person authorised, or his processes or products;

(i) the disclosure of adequate information to employees and enforcement agencies on matters relevant to the environment and health and safety; and

(j) the undertaking of periodic assessments and audits to monitor the effectiveness of any principles of actions adopted.")

The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
3A because it would involve a charge on the public revenue and the Commons do not offer any further reason trusting that the above reason may be deemed sufficient.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 to 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 1A to 3A.
I welcome the Valdez principles as a voluntary mechanism of corporate self-governance with the goals of sustaining our fragile environment for future generations. That was the goal of those who

1853
established them. But they are not appropriate to the particular pollution control systems set out in Part I of the Bill.
There is nothing wrong with (a) (the minimisation of pollution) as a general statement of intent, except that it does not belong here. We have already provided for something much more specific and stringent in the Bill. We have provided in Clause 7(2) of the Bill that the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost must be used, not to minimise pollution but to prevent it. Only if releases cannot be prevented will they be minimised. And in all cases BATNEEC must be used to render all releases harmless. I cannot accept an amendment which would confuse and weaken the more specific and stringent measures that we have already provided for in the Bill.
Subsection (d) refers to the reduction, minimisation and acceptable disposal of waste. I have already explained how BATNEEC will be used to prevent or minimise releases and to render them all harmless. But there is a mention of the acceptable disposal of waste. We have 50 clauses in Part II which provide for the acceptable disposal of waste, including measures to promote recycling.
The amendment concerns the marketing of products. Here too the Government are pressing for an EC wide eco-labelling scheme to be introduced by the end of 1991. And if consensus within an acceptable time proves impossible, we have already stated that we will take our own steps to introduce a British labelling scheme. The amendment adds nothing to that.
The amendment refers to public access to information. It talks about providing "adequate" information to employees and enforcement agencies. I do not like to think in those terms. Enforcing authorities will not need to be directed by the Secretary of State to obtain "adequate" information from the operators of processes. They will want that information anyway to do their job. And having got that information we have made it quite clear, through the registers set up under the Bill, and by our leading role in the agreement of an EC directive on access to information earlier this year, that the public must have a right to the information held by the enforcing authorities. It is my belief that the role of the public in monitoring environmental information will be one of the most effective stimuli to improving the environment.
Finally, there is environmental auditing. Environmental auditing, as the UK environmental groups who considered the Valdez principles at their seminar recognised, is growing apace. We made it clear in the White Paper that the spread of environmental auditing is something we encourage, given the role it can play in helping firms improve their environmental (and business) performance.
We suggested that businesses should review all aspects of the business that may affect the environment; identify ways to improve the firm's environmental performance; assess the costs of all the possible actions identified and the benefits to be gained; set out a broad policy statement of the
1854
business's broad environmental objectives; involve all staff; publish the environmental performance in the annual report; and so on. But the Government's view is that this should be on a voluntary basis. We do not regard it as helpful for government to be prescriptive about when or how the technique is to be used.
The development of environmental audits is most assured by encouraging individual companies to adapt the techniques best suited to their particular circumstances. The voluntary nature of the technique, as it has been developed by businesses, has encouraged a positive, objective and self-critical approach. The techniques are still developing.
It is beyond question that these amendments would make Part I of the Bill an unworkable muddle. As I have already indicated, some of the principles are already incorporated in the provisions of Part I—for instance waste minimisation. The vague wording of the amendment would cut across the precise wording of Clause 7 and would create confusion. Others of the principles are directly contrary to the provisions of Part I: for instance, the requirement to take account of worker health and safety. Because there is a separate legislative system for worker health and safety with its dedicated enforcement agency, the Bill explicitly excludes worker health and safety factors from IPC. Energy efficiency raises similar considerations. Some of the principles are completely alien to IPC, and if applied would result in the whole system breaking down. These include the requirements to take account of the sourcing of raw materials to ensure sustainability, and the imposition of strict liability on process operators.
Far from strengthening Part I these amendments will weaken it and paralyse it. I urge the House not to insist on these amendments to which the Commons have disagreed.
Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 to 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reasons numbered IA to 3A.— (Baroness Blatch.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I immediately acknowledge that the Commons disagreed to the amendments giving their reason as public expenditure. It is therefore entirely inappropriate for us to seek to overturn the view that the other place took.
Perhaps I can say that I was fascinated by the contrast between the Minister's speech and the debate which took place in another place on Monday. She examined the amendment, which was introduced at Report stage in your Lordships' House. Although I did not agree with her, at least she took the matter seriously and paid some attention to what the amendment was attempting to achieve.
In another place our amendments were misrepresented by the Government and by Government Back-Benchers. They said that the amendments would involve the creation of an environmental protection agency. I am totally in favour of the creation of an environmental protection agency. But, the Minister made clear, our amendments do no such thing. As the

1855
Minister did not make clear, our amendments help those who require authorisation under the integrated pollutions control system to understand what principles they should adopt in seeking authorisation. That is what the amendments do. That is entirely permissive. It was generally agreed not only in the United States, where these principles were first drafted, but also in this country among businesses that the kind of detail set out in Amendment No. 3 is entirely helpful to business and in no way restrictive.
I am sorry that the matter should have been taken that way by Government. I am sorry that the Government should be adopting a stance in the matter which is against the interests of business and against the interests of environmental protection. However, for the reasons I stated it is not a matter we shall insist on.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
4 Clause 41, page 43, line 33, at end insert:
("(1A) Where, at any time during the subsistence of a licence, it appears to the waste regulation authority that pollution of water is likely to be caused by the activities to which the licence relates, it shall be the duty of the authority to consult the National Rivers Authority as to the discharge by the authority of the duty imposed on it by subsection (1) above.")
The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment
4A Line 5, after 'Authority' insert 'or, in Scotland, the river purification authority whose area includes any of the relevant land'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4A to Lords Amendment No. 4. With the leave of the House I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 5 and 5A.
These two government Amendments Nos. 4A and 5A are to amendments moved in this House at Report stage by my noble friend Lord Renton. My noble friend's amendments extended the consultation procedures for waste management sites to provide comprehensive cover for all occasions on which the National Rivers Authority might have an interest. The Government are indebted to my noble friend Lord Renton for identifying and filling a real gap in the Bill.
These further amendments, suggested by my noble friend Lord Balfour and inserted in another place, add the final touch by extending the consultation procedures to Scotland, where the river purification boards would be the bodies consulted. I believe we can say that we have kilted this part of the Bill.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4A to Lords Amendment No. 4—(Baroness Blotch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
5 Clause 58, page 64, line 45, at end insert—
("(4A) Where, at any time during the period of its responsibility for any land, it appears to a waste regulation authority that the condition of the land is, by reason of the relevant matters affecting the land, such that pollution of water is likely to be caused, it shall be the duty of the authority to consult the National Rivers
1856
Authority as to the discharge by the authority of the duty imposed on it in relation to the land by subsection (6) below.")
The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment—
5A Line 6, after 'Authority' insert 'or, in Scotland, the river purification authority whose area includes the land in question'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5A to Lords Amendment No. 5.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5A to Lords Amendment No. 5.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
6 Clause 79, page 85, line 45, at end insert:
("(3D) An appeal against any decision of a magistrates' court on a complaint for an order under subsection (2) above shall lie to the Crown Court at the instance of any party to the proceedings.")
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
6A because magistrates' courts proceedings under clause 79(2) are, as a result of the Lords Amendment in page 85, line 41, criminal in character and hence it is not necessary to provide for an appeal to the Crown Court.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 6 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 6A.
Amendment No. 6 was brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, at Report stage in this House. The amendment was accepted by the Government because Clause 79 was at that stage drafted in terms which meant that proceedings for a nuisance order under subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 79 were civil in character. It was therefore necessary to make a specific provision for a right of appeal to the Crown Court against the decision of a magistrates' court under Clause 79(2) on a complaint made to it by a private individual for a nuisance order.
Subsequently at Third Reading in this House my noble friend Lord Byron brought forward an amendment designed to restore the current position under the Public Health Act 1936 under which a magistrates' court is empowered to impose a fine at the same time as it makes a nuisance order. The Government accepted that that amendment was necessary to state in the Bill the rights to compensation which private individuals who take direct action in the courts at present have under the 1936 Act procedures. However, as a result of my noble friend's amendment magistrates' courts proceedings under Clause 79 become criminal in character and hence it is no longer necessary to provide for a right of appeal to the Crown Court. The provision which Amendment No. 6 made is, therefore, no longer required and if the amendment were to remain in the Bill, the Bill would be technically deficient.

1857
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 6 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 6A.—(Baroness Blotch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
7 After Clause 134, insert the following new clause:

Dog Registration.
(".—(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision for the registration, identification and control of dogs.
(2) Regulations under this section shall include provision for the regulations to be administered by local authorities, and for the charging by them of registration fees of such amounts and subject to such exemptions as they may determine.
(3) Any person who without reasonable excuse—

(a) fails to comply with any requirement imposed on to him by regulations under this section to register a dog, or

(b) fails to comply with any requirement so imposed as respects identification of a dog,

shall be 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 into such agreements with any person as may in their opinion facilitate the registration and identification of dogs.
(5) No regulations under this section shall be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament and the Secretary of State shall lay the first draft regulations before the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(6) In this section "local authority", means in England and Wales a District Council, a London Borough Council or the Common Council of the City of London, and in Scotland means an islands or district council")
The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but proposed the following amendments in lieu—
7A Insert the following new clause:

Seizure of stray dogs
'.—(1) Every local authority shall appoint an officer (under whatever title the authority may determine) for the purpose of discharging the functions imposed or conferred by this section for dealing with stray dogs found in the area of the authority.
(2) The Officer may delegate the discharge of his functions to another person but he shall remain responsible for securing that the functions are properly discharged.
(3) Where the officer has reason to believe that any dog found in a public place or on any other land or premises is a stray dog, he shall (if practicable) seize the dog and detain it, but, where he finds it on land or premises which is not a public place, only with the consent of the owner or occupier of the land or premises.
(4) Where any dog seized under this section wears a collar having inscribed thereon or attached thereto the address of any person, or the owner of the dog is known, the officer shall serve on the person whose address is given on the collar, or on the owner, a notice in writing stating that the dog has been seized and where it is being kept and stating that the dog will be liable to be disposed of if it is not claimed within seven clear days after the service of the notice and the amounts for which he would be liable under subsection (5) below are not paid.
(5) A person claiming to be the owner of a dog seized under this section shall not be entitled to have the dog
1858
returned to him unless he pays all the expenses incurred by reason of its detention and such further amount as is for the time being prescribed.
(6) Where any dog seized under this section has been detained for seven clear days after the seizure or, where a notice has been served under subsection (4) above, the service of the notice and the owner has not claimed the dog and paid the amounts due under subsection (5) above the officer may dispose of the dog—

(a) by selling it or giving it to a person who will, in his opinion, care properly for the dog;

(b) by selling it or giving it to an establishment for the reception of stray dogs; or

(c) by destroying it in a manner to cause as little pain as possible;

but no dog seized under this section shall be sold or given for the purposes of vivisection.
(7) Where a dog Ls disposed of under subsection (6)(a) or (b) above to a person acting in good faith, the ownership of the dog shall be vested in the recipient.
(8) The officer shall keep a register containing the prescribed particulars of or relating to dogs seized under this section and the register shall be available, at all reasonable times, for inspection by the public free of charge.
(9) The officer shall cause any dog detained under this section to be properly fed and maintained.
(10) Notwithstanding anything in this section, the officer may cause a dog detained under this section to be destroyed before the expiration of the period mentioned in subsection (6) above where he is of the opinion that this should be done to avoid suffering.
(11) In this section—
"local authority", in relation to England and Wales, means a district council, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London or the Council of the Isles of Scilly and, in relation to Scotland, means an islands or district council;
"officer" means an officer appointed under subsection (1) above;
"prescribed" means prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State; and
"public place" means—

(i) as respects England and Wales, any highway and any other place to which the public are entitled or permitted to have access;

(ii) as respects Scotland, any road (within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984) and any other place to which the public are entitled or permitted to have access;

and for the purposes of section 143 below in its application to this section, the proper address of the owner of a dog which wears a collar includes the address given on the collar.
7B Insert the following new clause:
Delivery of stray dogs to police or local authority officer
`.—(1) Any person (in this section referred to as "the finder") who takes possession of a stray dog shall forthwith either—

(a) return the dog to its owner; or

(b) take the dog—

(i) to the officer of the local authority for the area in which the dog was found; or

(ii) to the police station which is nearest to the place where the dog was found;

and shall inform the officer of the local authority or the police officer in charge of the police station, as the case may be, where the dog was found.
(2) Where a dog has been taken under subsection (1) above to the officer of a local authority, then—

(a) if the finder desires to keep the dog, he shall inform the officer of this fact and shall furnish his name and address and the officer shall, having complied with the procedure (if any) prescribed under subsection (6) below, allow the finder to remove the dog;

(b) if the finder does not desire to keep the dog, the officer shall, unless he has reason to believe it is not a stray, treat it as if it had been seized by him under section (Seizure of stray dogs) above.

(3) Where the finder of a dog keeps the dog by virtue of this section he must keep it for not less than one month.
(4) In Scotland a person who keeps a dog by virtue of this section for a period of two months without its being claimed by the person who has right to it shall at the end of that period become the owner of the dog.
(5) If the finder of a dog fails to comply with the requirements of subsection (1) or (3) above he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.
(6) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, prescribe the procedure to be followed under subsection (2)(a) above.
(7) In this section "local authority" and "officer" have the same meaning as in section (Seizure of stray dogs) above.'
7C Insert the following new clause:
Enforcement of orders about collars and tags for dogs
—(1) Section 13 of the Animal Health Act 1981 (orders for control, etc. of dogs) shall be amended by the insertion, after subsection (2), of the following subsections—
"(3) An order under subsection (2) (a) above may include provision for the execution and enforcement of the order by the officers of local authorities (and not by the police force for any area).
(4) In subsection (3) above "local authority" and "officer" have the same meaning as in section (Seizure of stray dogs) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990."
(2) In section 50(1) of that Act (meaning of "local authority") at the end there shall be inserted the words "and to section 13(3) above".
(3) In section 60(1) of that Act (enforcement), at the end, there shall be inserted the words "but subject, in the case of orders under section 13, to any provision made under subsection (3) of that section."
7D Page 196, line 20, at end insert—

'Stray dogs
.—(1) The following provisions of the Dogs Act 1906 shall be amended as follows.
(2) The amendments made to section 3 by section 39(2) of the Local Government Act 1988 and section 128(1)(a) of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 shall cease to have effect.
(3) In section 4—

(a) subsection (1) shall be omitted;

(b) in subsection (2), for the words "so taken to a police station" there shall be substituted the words "taken to a police station in pursuance of section (Delivery of stray dogs to police or local authority officer) (1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990":

(c) in subsection (2)(a), for the words from "his name and address" to "other" there shall be substituted the words "this fact and shall furnish his name and address and the police officer shall, having complied with the
1860
procedure (if any) prescribed under subsection (5) below, allow the finder to remove the dog";

(d) in subsection (3) for the words from "fails" to "section" there shall be substituted the words "removes the dog but fails to keep it for at least one month,"; and

(e) after subsection (3) or, as respects Scotland, subsection (4) there shall be inserted as subsection (4) or subsection (5) the following subsection—

"() The Secretary of State may, by regulations made by statutory instrument, prescribe the procedure to be followed under subsection (2)(a) above and any instrument containing regulations under this subsection shall he subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."'
7E Page 207, line 3, at end insert—
'1906 c 32. Dogs Act 1906. Section 4(1).'
7F Page 207, line 5, at end insert—
'1982 c. 45. Civic Government Section 128(1).'
(Scotland) Act 1982.
7G Page 207, line 6, at end insert—
'1988 c. 9. Local Government Act Section 39(2) and (4).' 1988.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley rose to move, That the House do disagree with Amendments Nos. 7A to 7G proposed by the Commons in lieu of Lords Amendment No. 7 to which the Commons have disagreed and do insist on their original Amendment No. 7.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Motion I am more than conscious that I cannot please all your Lordships all the time; perhaps I cannot please any of your Lordships any of the time. As the House will know, on Monday night the House of Commons debated your Lordships' amendment on dog registration which your Lordships had approved by a massive majority of 72. The House of Commons rejected it by only three votes—274 to 271—despite a vicious, if I may so call it, three-line Whip and the summoning of the Government's payroll. The Government normally have a majority of over 100.
The question, therefore, is: what does this House do now? I suggest that your Lordships should decide on two points. First, is the Government's alternative amendment better than the amendment that your Lordships voted for? Secondly, what is the correct constitutional duty of this House? As far as the Government's alternative amendment is concerned, I suggest that it is a case of your Lordships asking for bread and the Government giving us stone. It is up to your Lordships whether, like David, you throw it back to Goliath. However, what is clear about the Government's amendment is that it refuses to acknowledge that, to carry out any control of dogs, two ingredients are essential: first, the ability to tie the ownership of a dog to its owner and, secondly, the ability to provide the necessary funds to carry out the duties spelt out in the scheme—and that includes the Government's scheme.
The government amendment does neither. As was so amusingly pointed out today by Miles Kington in

1861
the Independent, it puts the responsibility on the local authorities who, of course, will be forced to put the cost on poll tax payers. I cannot for the life of me, as a dog owner, see why those who do not own dogs should pay for the trouble my dogs cause. Let me make it quite clear that the Government's alternative will cost the local authorities a great deal of money; more or less the same as your Lordships' amendment. The only additional cost that your Lordships' amendment will add is approximately £3 per dog for registration and insurance.
Your Lordships' scheme would not be a charge on local authorities or poll tax payers but on the dog owner. I have no doubts in my mind—I hope your Lordships have no doubts and certainly there were no doubts when this House voted for the amendment— that the Lords amendment is both fairer and better.
I turn to the question of what your Lordships should do if you are persuaded that the scheme accepted by this House is the best. There is no constitutional reason whatever why your Lordships should not ask the House of Commons to think again. Indeed, there is a very strong case for saying that as the Government's majority fell from over 100 down to three it is our duty as a revising Chamber to do just that.
I have, of course, checked the position with the Clerks and, indeed, with all three Chief Whips. I thank them for their kindness and their technical advice; though I have to say that my noble kinsman Lord Denham seemed to be somewhat lacking in enthusiasm, if that is the correct word, for my view. Likewise, I have kept my noble friend Lady Blatch fully informed as to my line of thought. I am grateful for her attention; though again I have to say that she was not able to express complete delight at my particular view. I am therefore completely confident that if your Lordships decide to ask the House of Commons to think again you are within your rights to do so.
However, I would be naive not to accept that some of your Lordships will wish to say that such a course of action is undesirable, stupid or even childish, particularly if it annoys the House of Commons and risks the whole of the Environmental Protection Bill. I cannot agree. I am sure the House of Commons is more than capable of understanding the position without resorting to petty annoyance. Should your Lordships decide to send this amendment back to the other place I give an assurance that there will be no further attempt whatever to try its patience should the Commons again reject the amendment. That will ensure the safe passage of the Environmental Protection Bill.
Therefore, I hope that the debate will concentrate on the merits or, as I should prefer to say, the demerits of the Government's alternative to your Lordships' scheme rather than on the non-existent—they really are non-existent—constitutional issues. I have moved this Motion because I feel that as your Lordships voted for the amendment by such a large majority and
1862
the Commons rejected it so narrowly it is correct for me to give your Lordships the opportunity to decide what to do.
Moved, That the House do disagree with Amendments Nos. 7A to 7G proposed by the Commons in lieu of Lords Amendment No. 7 to which the Commons have disagreed and do insist on their original Amendment No. 7.—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
3.30 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, perhaps it may be convenient if I follow the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and explain my Motion in relation to his. He is proposing that we should disagree with the Commons in their amendment. It is an important package in connection with the stray dog. It is suggested that we send back to the Commons, with our insistence, our amendment concerning dog registration. That would be a mistake. In present circumstances I do not think that either House is justified in trying now to impose its will on the other.
The dog registration scheme has been defeated twice in the House of Commons. The last occasion was on Monday of this week when 545 Members of the House of Commons voted. The dog registration scheme, and the acceptance of the pack age which the Government have brought forward, was dealt with by only a margin of three. I do not think that we are justified in sending this measure back to the House of Commons for the third time. I do not believe that the House of Commons can ask us to accept its amendment having regard to the fact that it was published on 17th October after your Lordships' House had dealt with the Report stage of the Bill. The matter was debated in the House of Commons on Monday last. This afternoon we are being asked to take the whole package and make it law. That is not the way to deal with the issue.
The proposals in the Commons amendment raise important questions of civil liberties and the rights of the citizen. The proposals invent a new offence of the straying dog. It is nothing more than a lift from the discussion document The Control of Dogs which was published only in June. The document explains the proposed new offence of the straying dog and other matters relating to the powers of local authorities concerning the seizure of strays and the conditions under which they can retain or dispose of the dogs. The discussion paper gives the public and all concerned until 15th November to send in representations, opinions and suggestions. However, before that date we are being asked to legislate into law an important part of the recommendations. I do not think that is fair. It is not fair to the House or the public.
The dog registration amendment, which the noble Lord is asking us to reaffirm this afternoon and send back to the Commons, was passed in your Lordships' House last June. The Government had the whole of the Recess to consider their response to something which they do not like. They did nothing. The House

1863
re-assembled on 8th October and we began the Report stage of the Bill. There was simply a tidying up of the amendment to make it more presentable in terms of procedure and order. The period was extended from one year to two years during which the Secretary of State was to produce a scheme. The Government did not say a word about their intention to obstruct this revised amendment when it came before the House of Commons.
As soon as we had got rid of the Bill at Third Reading the Government then produced their amendments for the Commons. Those were published last week and debated on Monday. They are now before us. The provisions constitute a Bill in themselves. They represent a very big slab of a comprehensive Bill on dog control which should receive careful consideration at a Committee stage of your Lordships' House. This afternoon we are being asked to choose between two courses of action neither of which has been adequately discussed in this House or in another place. The dog registration scheme has not been discussed in detail in your Lordships' House or in the House of Commons. The alternative sent to us by the Commons has not been discussed. That is a reflection on this House. I believe that we made a mistake in June by introducing dogs into this important Bill. We need a comprehensive Bill concerned with dogs: they should not be smothered in the Environmental Protection Bill.
Therefore, the best course of action, leaving honour on both sides, would be a goalless draw in which we would not insist on our amendment and would ask the Commons not to insist on its. Then, in the next Session, we can have a comprehensive Bill on dog control and deal with the matter in a sensible way. We are not being fair to the public or to the reputation of this House by seeking to resolve the matter on narrow margins of difference between the two Houses. It is quite unsuitable that either House should try to prevail over the other. If I do come to my Motion I shall not have to repeat what I have said.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the spirit of the Lords Amendment No. 7 in the long-term interests of the welfare of the public, the safety of children and in the interests of dogs. I wish that another place had been able to accept it. It will take a considerable amount of time for the proposed registration scheme to become effective. For immediate purposes the new clause will go quite a long way to meet all interests to which reference has been made. I hope that it may appear reasonable to your Lordships to give the new clause a fair opportunity to see how it works. In that context, are voting statistics wholly relevant when there is no constitutional conflict? I shall support the amendment for the reasons I have given although I appreciate there is no obligation on any noble Lord to do likewise.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, in his Motion to send the matter back to the House of Commons once more for the reasons which he gave. There are two main reasons why the Government's alternative
1864
amendment fails. It does not provide any finance for the scheme put forward. Local authorities simply do not have spare money at the moment to deal with this kind of situation. When the noble Baroness responds I wonder whether she can tell us if the announcement made today concerning the poll tax for next year included the Government's calculation of the cost of their proposed amendment? It will be quite expensive to carry out the Government's proposals whereas the scheme we put forward was self-financing. It would not only have covered the cost of registration; it would also have given us the wherewithal to have a good and effective dog warden system across the country. That would have brought enormous benefit. The benefits would have come quite quickly and certainly no slower than under the proposal in the Government's amendment.
I hope that this House, having said twice very clearly that it wishes to see a dog registration scheme, will now give the Commons just one more chance. I support what the noble Lord said. If this House decides to send the matter back to the Commons and if the other place still rejects what we propose, we on this side of the House will certainly not attempt to take the matter any further.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Stanley and I hope that his amendment will go back to the Commons once more. I am sure that he is right about the constitutional position and right that the Bill will in no way fall. Quite apart from factors such as nuisance and so on which we debated last time, I strongly support the amendment because in my opinion the Government perpetually miss the bus. They go on producing more and more laws—and very probably these matters should be put into a separate Bill on the control of dogs—while they completely fail to make the connection between the dog and the owner. After all, it is not the dog's fault if it makes a mess where it should not. One has to be able to get to the owner in the end. Registration is probably the only way to do it. It may not work too well to start with but its effect will be cumulative. If it had a rocky start many noble Lords would look back after a while and say that they had done right and that it was the only way to deal with an ever-growing difficulty and an ever-growing dog population.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I wish strongly to support the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, in respect of this matter. I shall address only for a moment the so-called constitutional problem. I do not believe that it exists. I should simply like to remind your Lordships of what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, as Leader of the House, said on the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill on 11th November 1975. We were dealing with an amendment which this House had passed but which had been rejected by the Commons. The discussion concerned whether it should go back to the Commons. The noble Lord said:
"Can it then properly be argued that, because our own reform was rejected by the House of Commons, we cannot now do our constitutional duty and use those powers specifically given to us by a Labour Government in our unreformed condition?… If now we decide to use that very limited power, we are not thwarting the will of the people for,

1865
in so far as it is represented by the House of Commons, it will and must prevail in a comparatively short time. We shall be using those powers for the purpose for which they were given to us —that is, as an opportunity for further consultation, for second thoughts before this legislation inevitably reaches the Statute Book and because we did not want the Second Chamber to be associated with what the Government are doing".—[Official Report, 11/11/75; col. 1742.]
As the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, pointed out, there was an overwhelming majority for your Lordships' amendment in this House. The majority against the amendment in the other place has been steadily whittled away. It is a clear sign that the Commons have been reflecting and having second thoughts. That is the very purpose of this Chamber. If the Commons reject it and it comes back here tomorrow, then their will will prevail. But it is our duty in these circumstances to give them the opportunity.
Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, I should like to start by congratulating my noble friend Lord Stanley on his achievement. Let him not misunderstand me; I am against him. But I congratulate him because he has done something which few of us are able to do. By his persistence he has persuaded the Government to do something the Government did not want to do. That is no mean achievement. I congratulate him upon it but I am against him for this reason.
He argued, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, has just argued, that there is nothing constitutionally wrong in our sending our views back to the Commons. I would not quarrel with that for a moment. But I believe that we should not, and I will tell your Lordships why. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said that our business is to get the Commons to have second thoughts. They have voted on it twice already. My noble friend Lord Stanley advanced in support of his argument the fact that the last time the Commons voted on it the majority was only three. I wonder whether I could cast noble Lords' minds back to the 28th March 1979
At that time I was the Opposition Chief Whip in the House of Commons. A Motion was moved that the House had no confidence in the Government lead by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff. The outcome of that vote was a majority of one. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, did not say, "Oh, I think perhaps the Commons ought to think again about this". The noble Lord, if I may say so with respect, quite correctly immediately took that vote as being the will of the Commons. Parliament was dissolved and a general election followed with the result that all of us know, to the disappointment of the noble Lord and some other of my old friends opposite.
If such is the view of a Commons majority, even of one, on so important a matter with such far reaching consequences, how can anyone say that a majority of three is so small that we ought to ask the Commons to think again, particularly when they have thought twice? I do not think we should do it.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, for his remarks, but reflecting on what has happened over the past 11 years, perhaps I should have asked the Commons to
1866
think again. I have not the slightest doubt, and have never been in doubt any more than the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, has, about the necessity for the Commons to be supreme in these matters. If, for example, there were no more time for the Environmental Protection Bill to go through, your Lordships having passed the amendment, I would have no hesitation in voting against it and saying that the will of the Commons must prevail. However, I understand that there is more time for the amendment to be considered and for the Environmental Protection Bill to go through, either with the Lords amendment or with the Commons amendment or, as my noble friend Lord Houghton suggested, with neither amendment. In those circumstances it seems to me that there is absolutely no constitutional reason why, if noble Lords wished to adhere to their original view, they should not send it back. That is clearly the constitutional position if there is time. If there were no time I would say that your Lordships should give way gracefully and immediately.
I am bound to say that, having listened to my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, not for the first time I am deeply impressed by him. I take off my hat to him in every way, as I have done so often in the past. When one reflects on some of the other amendments to which I must not refer and sees that we have to make room in the Title,
"to make provision for a scheme for the registration, identification and control of dogs",
one realises that there was no intention originally, as the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, has made clear, to have any reference to the matter in the Bill. If we have to agree a further amendment on this subject in connection with the Title, it seems to me that there is large merit in what my noble friend Lord Houghton has said. I am quite happy to vote for either amendment. If one were defeated I would certainly be happy to support his amendment—in order to give the Commons an opportunity of thinking again—and to send the Bill back with neither amendment in it. There is much merit in what he said. Let us have more time to think about it without creating these clashes. If he pursues his amendment, I believe that your Lordships would be entitled to pass it and to send it back.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I continue to be of the same opinion as I was in the original debate though on that occasion I was in a minority. I will come to the merits in a moment because I do not want to spend my time arguing at great length about the constitutional proprieties. I would just say that ever since the 17th century the Commons have asserted their right in financial matters. This House has in practice conceded it except on a few very unfortunate occasions.
My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley claims that we are putting a charge on the poll tax. Matters of local taxation have always been claimed by the Commons as their monopoly. What my noble friend proposes in subsection (2) of the Lords amendment is to put a poll tax on dogs payable by the dog owners. If that is not messing about with taxation, I do not know what is.

1867
Of course there are merits over and above that aspect of the matter. I believe that the Lords amendment is, and always was, unjust. I believe that it is unworkable and counter-productive. The proposal ought never to have been put into the Bill, not only for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, but also for those which I have just outlined.
What is proposed is unjust because it puts a penalty on the owners of dogs. I seem to remember that the last time we debated the subject I put the cost at £25 and my noble friend on the Front Bench told me that that was an under-estimate. It would hit those who need to own dogs much more than those who do not need to own them or who have plenty of money to pay the fee. I do not altogether disregard that consideration.
The proposal is unworkable and counterproductive because it would lead to more and not fewer stray dogs wandering about. It is totally incapable of enforcement. I should like to give the House a short anecdote about the mother of my dog. The animal was found without a collar in one of the places on the motorway where petrol is sold. It was wandering about, having strayed from or having been jettisoned by its owner—I know not which. However, let us consider how much better off I would have been if the Lords amendment had been in force. I say that because no one by the wildest stretch of the imagination could possibly have traced the owner of the dog. Therefore, the non-registration of the dog, or the straying of the dog, would have been totally incapable of enforcement.
There is a fundamental flaw in the registration scheme; it is hopeless and crazy because it cannot be enforced. But, worse still, it is counter-productive because the effect of the charge—the poll tax on dogs which is proposed—would be to cause more people, not fewer, to jettison their dogs. That outcome must be obvious to anyone. Therefore, I trust that either the Motion of my noble friend or that of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will be agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene when the noble and learned Lord clearly feels very strongly on the matter. I shall not in any way go over the ground of the argument, except to say that I think his anecdote goes against his own case. I say that because if the dog had been registered the owner could have been found and the problem would have been solved.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I am sorry but I must interrupt the noble Lord. The point I was trying to make was that the dog was not in fact registered, although registration was not then in force and is not in force now. However, if such a scheme had been in force, whether or not the dog was registered, it would still have been impossible to trace the owner because the dog was not wearing a collar.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think that if the noble and learned Lord examines the impact of what he is saying, he will find that he is puzzling
1868
Members of the House on this issue. I intervene again to make a different point. He quite rightly said, as I said earlier, that we should not seek to intervene in taxation matters. However, surely the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, would reduce public expenditure rather than increase it. It would mean that registration was paid for by individual dog owners out of their private pockets instead of a very complex series of proposals to be paid for by the poll tax payer.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, it really is a most extraordinary occurrence that we should be in the process of having a constitutional discussion on dogs. The real answer, if I may interpret the working of Parliament, is that both Houses have agreed that we must do something about this matter. That is more fundamental than the points made by the noble Lord. The strong point made by my noble friend Lord Stanley is that it would be for the Minister to work out how best this can be done. We are all doubtful about how it should be achieved. There is only one way of settling a doubt and that is to do it; we should try it out and see what happens.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Another way is not to do it!
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, that may be the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, but I do not necessarily think that it will be the way that the Secretary of State, whoever he may be and whatever party is in power, goes about solving the matter. I am told that practically all countries in Europe have rules on the subject of dogs. We stand pretty well alone in not having any. Most people will agree that we have got into trouble because of the situation; trouble as regards dangerous dogs and trouble in respect of trespassing dogs.
We should make such rules and hold firm to them. I believe that we should do that and accept the proposition. There is no real problem here; indeed, the House of Commons has already said that it wants to do something. However, how it is done is a matter to be decided. I believe that we should support the Motion of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley so as to ensure that something is done.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I should point out to my noble friend Lord Selkirk that this has been tried out. It has been tried out in Northern Ireland and has been successful. I admire my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. He has done a very good job. I was about to say that he has been just like a terrier on a rat, but that is not a very good way of expressing what I mean.
I like the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I cannot understand why the Government cannot bring forward legislation to register dogs in the next Session. I know that their great fear is that it will prove too expensive. However, when one considers the expense they do become involved in—some of it, in my view, is unnecessary —I do not believe that the expense of a dog registration scheme would be too great. It would

1869
certainly solve the problem of stray dogs. I believe that at some time in the near Future we shall need some law to control stray dogs.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord really believes in his criteria regarding what is a workable Bill. He said that what is proposed is unjust and that people would not be able to pay. However, that argument did not stop the community charge going through both Houses of Parliament. That is proving unworkable: it is unfair; and it is unjust. What is proposed here is very simple. The example of stray dogs has been given. We must all have a licence for a television set. Of course there are some people who dodge the law, but the majority keep it. That is how this scheme would work.
I turn to the suggestion that some people would not be able to afford the registration fee. You only have to think of the cost of dog food in this respect. Anyone who can pay for that can certainly pay a little extra for registration. Good dog owners would welcome what is proposed. We are concerned to catch the people who sell little dogs—especially as Christmas approaches —to those who do not really care about them. The scheme would prevent such things happening.
I should like to follow on from the remarks made by a previous speaker. We cannot just sit here and let the situation continue forever. What is proposed is a simple proposition, but it has been made complicated by arguments which really do not stand the test of investigation.
4 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I should like to take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that the proposal of my noble friend Lord Stanley does not involve taxation.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it was my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I apologise to both noble Lords. The proposal of course does involve taxation directed against dog owners. The fact that it will be dog owners only who will pay the tax does not prevent it being taxation. If the constitutional point has any validity, the noble Lord is wrong: this is a proposal for taxation. It is taxation which would fall severely upon certain types of people. The old widow who has a dog for company will find herself compelled to pay £20, £25, £30 or whatever it may be, per year, and will find that a hardship. The fact that taxation is discriminatory and causes hardship does not prevent it from being taxation.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, on this matter of taxation and the proposed registration schemes for dogs, is it not true that there are many matters before the House which relate indirectly to taxation without them being taxation matters? With regard to the other point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is it not also a fact that the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, contains no details of how the registration scheme would be financed, whether the tax would be a flat rate, and whether there would be exceptions? All that remains to be worked out.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, before the right reverend Prelate sits down, perhaps may ask him whether he has looked at the Marshalled List and seen Commons Reason 3A? It is not merely the direct charge of a tax over which the Commons claim superiority of jurisdiction; it is an increase in the revenue. This proposed tax is a local one. If the right reverend Prelate will consult Halsbury's Laws of England, in which I must declare a certain interest, under the title "Parliament", he will find the answer to that point.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, an enormous number of red herrings are being dragged across the Bill by the dogs. Every single clause that we have discussed costs money. We are not saying how the scheme should be implemented; we are sending it back to the Commons who will decide.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, was not up to his usual level of coherence when he said that we should oppose one amendment and accept the other, because we had talked about one too much and had not talked about the other sufficiently. The arguments for registration have been rehearsed frequently in the House and in the other place, but they are real. They have been backed by the vast majority of professional and caring bodies which believe the scheme to be necessary before any of the measures proposed by the Government can be effective.
The point about registration made by the noble and learned Lord was not entirely correct in that two years after they increased the registration fee in Northern Ireland to £5 in 1984, registrations increased from 28,000 to 84,000. The Government have two years in which to work out the scheme for control. It works on the Continent and other places. We have discussed this matter. It is a serious point. With all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, Chief Whips never lose their authoritarian feeling that the Government are always right.
Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, on the occasion to which I referred, I must remind the noble Lord that I was the Opposition Chief Whip, and I thought that the Government were wrong.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I have noticed that even in our party Chief Whips become a little authoritarian.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, it is a good job that I do not stand any higher. The Commons have clearly demonstrated that this is a point which they would like to reconsider. A majority of three, with the payroll vote off, means a majority in the other place.
The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and your Lordships are being entirely reasonable. The point will return to the Commons tonight. It will not hold up the Bill. If your Lordships decide that the clause should remain but it is rejected in the other place, that is an end to the matter. That is fair. The point is wholly constitutional. One cannot compare this with a vote of confidence. It

1871
is a technical matter and one upon which your Lordships should pronounce. If your Lordships believe it to be right, you should vote for it.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps I may make a point on registration, especially in answer to the beguiling tones of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. It is represented to us that the registration scheme would be self-financing. That would be attractive if it were to relieve local authorities of any addition to the poll tax; but experience in Northern Ireland has not proved that 100 per cent. registration is achieved. There registration is only between some 30 per cent. and 50 per cent. With our 7 million dogs it would probably be even less. The idea that a registration scheme would be self-financing sounds attractive, but like other attractive ideas everyone is in favour of them but no one practises them. It is rather like the Church of England. Everyone is in favour of it but no one practises.
Registration is becoming a Holy Grail for those who support it. It will not finance itself. It will add substantially to the cost of enforcement. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, are relevant. There must be strong powers to make dog legislation effective. Inspectors would have to enter houses to check whether there was a dog inside. Such powers, which come into the field of liberty of the subject, lend strong support to what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said. It is a Bill that would require much more thought than we have so far been able to give it. It would need a full Committee stage. The proper thing to do, as he suggested, would be to accept his amendment and let the other place accept that neither side has it right; and then to start again with a new Bill which could take care of every aspect of this tricky subject.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he mentioned my earlier contribution. Is he aware that the Northern Ireland scheme is not a registration scheme? It is a different scheme. Is he aware that even in the troubled conditions of Northern Ireland, the scheme is deemed to have been a success? There has been a great reduction in the number of road accidents caused by stray dogs, and other improvements. In Northern Ireland it is felt that the scheme is successful.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I apologise if I did not do the noble Baroness justice. There is a strong point here. Responsible dog owners are well aware that they will be carrying the burden of the majority. Two large petitions from dog owners against registration have already arrived in the other place. They realise that they are in danger of being clobbered for those who do not pay.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I have been having various cynical discussions with my four-legged friends and acquaintances. They agree with me that on balance the Commons amendments are more attractive to them than the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Stanley whom they formerly supported. They agree that while caring and loving owners like myself and others of their acquaintance
1872
would be the first to register their canine friends, there might be other wilder and rougher elements of the dog population which do not have the benefit of tender and caring owners who have their best interests at heart. In short, while they might be properly registered there might be many that would not be.
The proposed legislation seems to my doggie friends a fairer way of proceeding, although they hope that there will be strict clauses preventing the unauthorised intrusion by dog wardens into the privacy of their homes and gardens. They would also like to know whether they have to wear identifying collars when travelling in their own mobile kennel or, as we would call it, car.
The other point that my friends wished me to make is that they do not like the implication of violence in the word "seize", spelt with a "z". If it were spelt with an "s", it might be thought to be a modern version of the term "take seisin", which simply means to possess. "Seize" seems to them and to me to imply violence; "apprehend" or "collect" would surely be better terms. Would noble Lords like it themselves if, whenever they stepped outside the Palace of Westminster without a coronet, robe or other identifying garment, they were promptly seized for being improperly identified in a public place? My friends would therefore like me to support the Commons amendment.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, the longer the debate goes on the more convinced I am that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is the one which I find most attractive. It is quite clear that there are substantial divisions within the House, as there have been in the other place. I dislike the registration scheme of my noble friend Lord Stanley for the reasons which have been given by those opponents of it in this House, although they were in a minority. I also dislike—although slightly less so—the amendment proposed by the other place which is supported by the Government.
It seems that these clauses have been tacked on to an environmental Bill and amended at the 59th second of the 59th minute of this Parliament. It is unfortunate that we should decide issues of such importance in so short a time when they may come forward in the next Session after November 15th. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, quite rightly says, that is the closing date on information and opinions on dangerous dogs. A Bill should be brought in then with a wider concept than seems possible today. After further consideration, it could cover many of the points raised here. I am in favour of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby.
4.15 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. I am not only deaf but I must be blind because I genuinely thought that he had turned to sit down. I was enjoying listening to his speech. I have had a little trouble in stretching my legs and I apologise sincerely to him.

1873
Unlike my noble friend who has just spoken, I am a supporter of the principle of dog registration as proposed so cleverly and persistently. We congratulate my noble friend Lord Stanley on the way in which he has done this. I believe that, having done our stuff and asked the other place to think again, that is as far as your Lordships ought to go at this time today on the subject. It is not a matter which I believe passionately is of national importance or is an enormously important parochial issue. Of course there are times in your Lordships' House when we should take a firm stand on such matters. I draw your Lordships' attention to a time many years ago—one of the few occasions that I can recall in 24 years of being privileged to be a Member of your Lordships' House—when we insisted on an amendment to the Felixstowe Docks Bill. Noble Lords of the Party opposite wished to nationalise those docks. I well remember my colleague the late Lord George-Brown sitting in the seat on my right. I can see him now waving his membership card at the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, saying, am a member of the trade union, the TGWU. I have been lunching today with the senior steward and I can tell your Lordships that they do not want the docks nationalised." On that basis, we insisted on our amendment and the other place had the graciousness to accept our insistence.
However, on a subject like this it must be somewhat over-egging the pudding if we insist. Perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench, while not pre-empting or disclosing what may be in the gracious Speech which we shall hear next week, could give my noble friend Lord Stanley an indication that the point that has been clearly made should be debated and looked into much further. If that indication could be given, I ask my noble friend whether he considers it right and proper to move his amendment. If he does press it, I venture to suggest that it would be quite improper for us to support it.
We should follow the suggestion in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, with whom for once I find myself in total agreement. His experience in these matters is enormous. The noble Lord's keenness on the issue of the curtailment of ownership of dogs is well known. I find his suggestion even more remarkable. It is because it is so remarkable that there must be an element of sense in it. I hope that the matter will be looked at again during another Session, instead of your Lordships being asked to consider four pages of a draft amendment when noble Lords have not had the opportunity of looking at the small print.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, it seems to me that we are being asked to choose between a scheme that has been carefully thought out, debated and discussed in great detail and another scheme which has hardly been thought out at all. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, reminded us, we have barely had the chance to study it. The Government's alternative scheme seems to me to have grave defects. I wish to put one question to the noble Baroness; perhaps she will answer it when she comes to reply. As I understand the Government's proposed alternative
1874
scheme, under subsection (6) if a noble Lord and noble Baroness possess a dog and go abroad on holiday, and they persuade a friend to look after the dog, and if while the noble Lord is abroad the dog escapes, it may subsequently be seized by the appropriate local government officer. Unless that dog is claimed within seven days it can be destroyed. Therefore, the noble Lord who has taken great care to see that the dog is left carefully looked after may find that, having gone abroad after making the proper arrangements, he returns to find he has no dog at all. Is that a proper understanding of the Government's alternative? If it is, I do not think that it is satisfactory.
As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said, it may be better to have no scheme at all than a bad scheme. However, if today we say that we will have no scheme at all, we shall never have a scheme. We have an opportunity to produce a scheme which has been carefully debated and thought out. I believe that we should choose that scheme rather than one that has not been discussed in detail and which is clearly defective.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and take issue with a number of my noble friends who have been beguiled by the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I do not know how many of your Lordships have tried to get a dogs' Bill before Parliament with some prospect of it being passed. I tried six years ago. I had a policy approved for the registration scheme but I failed dismally to persuade my colleagues to put it into the programme.
There have been a good many subsequent attempts to try to get legislation concerning dogs into the legislative programme. They have all failed until now. We are invited by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, to put the proposals back and trust that, as we approach an election, some future government will be able to find time and space for them in their legislative programme.
I have a great deal of respect for the noble Lord but I do not think that what he proposes can be the right answer. We all know there is a serious problem with stray dogs. Untold harm and damage is caused by stray dogs, particularly by stray packs o r dogs in some of our inner cities. The essential course is to make more strenuous efforts to control them. I have no doubt that both the alternatives before us would be a vast improvement on what we have at present. The question therefore comes down to which alternative we should choose. I have always been a supporter of the dog registration scheme because I believe it has one overriding advantage; namely, that it generates the finance to pay for itself.
My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham suggested that both alternatives would involve taxes whether a registration charge is levied or the cost is added to the poll tax. I prefer to call it a tail tax. I would prefer a tail tax to a poll tax for the overriding reason that if one provides a local authority with the revenue to carry out a new and demanding task imposed on it by Parliament, there is an infinitely greater chance that a local authority will carry out that

1875
task than if it has to find the money out of its budget in competition with all the other demands on its, expenditure.
I wish to address a question to my noble friend Lady Blatch on the Front Bench. She was kind enough to let me have a copy of the explanatory notes which state:
"There will be a small cost to local authorities, partly defrayed by fees. Authorities will be consulted about resources".
I genuinely have not yet made up my mind on this issue, but I shall certainly vote against the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. Whether the registration scheme or the Commons scheme is adopted, the most important issue is how the measure is to be paid for. If my noble friend cannot give me a pretty firm assurance that resources will be found to pay for the Government's scheme so that local authorities will not have new duties imposed on them without the extra resources needed to fulfil those duties, I shall support the proposal of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, as I think the registration scheme fulfils that requirement. However, if my noble friend on the Front Bench can give me an assurance on resources, that might tilt the balance. I shall listen with great interest to my noble friend's speech.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Jenkin has pointed out that the main problem is that of stray dogs. Surely he must realise that the people who have owned strays are the irresponsible ones who will not register them. Therefore the registration scheme does not deal with the major problem.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, although it has been rightly said that the Northern Ireland scheme is not on all fours with the registration scheme embodied in the amendment of your Lordships' House, the fact is that despite a modest level of compliance that scheme has markedly reduced the number of strays on urban streets and has markedly reduced the incidence of sheep worrying in rural areas. It is no objection to a registration scheme to say that it would not be 100 per cent. effective. It would not of course be 100 per cent. effective but it would be a great deal better than nothing. From the point of view of resources, the registration scheme would be much better than a measure which imposes new duties on local authorities but fails to provide them with the resources to carry out those duties. I hope the House will reject the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. We must do something. Either scheme would do well. I shall listen with the utmost interest to the speech of my noble friend on the Front Bench.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I should say from the outset that I have no disagreement whatever with my noble friend on the rights of this House to exercise its legitimate duty to ask another place to think again. However, I shall discuss the reasons why I believe we should not follow that course a little later.
There is much that unites your Lordships and Members of the other place on this vexed issue of dogs. There is widespread agreement that there is a
1876
problem associated with irresponsible dog ownership and indeed with stray dogs without owners. The problem is more acute in towns and cities. Today our task is to determine measures to resolve the issue. Therefore our debate will properly concentrate on the means by which the objectives can be achieved.
The two options are, on the one hand, a registration scheme which works indirectly and, on the other, a package of measures to deal directly with such matters as identification, straying and dog fouling. The Government remain opposed to registration. An attempt to register all dogs would, I suggest, be expensive, bureaucratic and would dissipate energies and resources without tackling the actual problems. Various costs have been bandied about during our debate. However, the RSPCA's own figures assess the cost of registration at £20 million per year just to run and administer the scheme. Not one penny of that £20 million is designed to do anything practical about the dog problem.
Dog wardens, kenneling and practical enforcement measures could be provided for the same amount of money. That would be money well spent and would represent a better use of resources. Registration fees of £2·50 to £3 have been mentioned in another place. That is wholly unrealistic. When one takes into account stray dogs with no owners that will not be registered, and irresponsible dog owners who will not register, the take-up of the scheme will fall well short of 100 per cent. The RSPCA last year commissioned a study by the London School of Economics and, assuming 60 per cent. compliance rate, which is an optimistic assessment, the study revealed that a one-off fee of £ 121 was deemed necessary. The costs of non-payment and exemptions for low income owners, children or maybe pensioners, or for working dogs would also have to be met. Therefore whether one accepts one-off or annual fees the costs would be considerable and would fall, as is so often the case, on the law abiding, responsible dog owners.
Unless there is a rigorous and effective system of deregistration, in a few years' time the register would contain details of thousands of dead dogs and would quickly become defunct. Who, for example, is going to deregister the many dogs found dead on our highways and byways? Costs would also need to cover publicity campaigns to encourage people to register, the chasing and tracing of owners, updating of records, the employment of scribes, bureaucrats and finance officers, and the provision of computer networks all of which would be unproductive in tackling the real problems which are being experienced in many of our towns and cities. That remains our view of a national dog registration scheme.
However, like all noble Lords, the Government acknowledge that there is a problem which must be tackled. That is why my honourable friend in another place has responded positively to the many concerns expressed in both Houses. I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and with many other noble Lords. I believe that my noble friend Lord Boardman said that this package of measures was tacked on at the 59th minute. The package is,

1877
however, based on proposals which featured in the consultation paper Action for Dogs which was published last year. The proposals were widely disseminated and they received widespread support. Legislation was promised. Perhaps I may add that the RSPCA responded most favourably to that paper. The proposals were originally outside the scope of the Bill. However, thanks to the help of my noble friend Lord Stanley, the Long Title has been amended, which makes it possible to accept the amendment today.
My noble friend Lord Mountgarret asked whether I could give an assurance that we shall come to this subject again in Parliament. The answer is a very definite yes. We shall come to this subject again because your Lordships will have noticed from the amendments on the Marshalled List that we have not dealt in detail with the subject of dangerous dogs. There is another consultation paper out at this moment and it would be wrong and improper for me to pre-empt the result of that consultation process. The paper, Control of Dogs, will inevitably bring the discussion back to this House, but at this moment I cannot pre-empt what may be contained in the gracious Speech.
I shall now briefly describe the content of the new clauses. They place duties on district-level local authorities to collect stray dogs, detain them for seven days and either return them to their owners, find them a good home or, in the last resort, put them down. Local authorities must keep registers and may charge fees on top of the cost of kennelling. The clauses provide for the handing in of strays by the public to the authorities. They also place duties on local authorities to enforce the collar and tag requirement.
In addition, we arc dealing with dog fouling through the provisions on litter and street cleaning in the Bill and our proposed revision of the bye-law-making powers which have just received publicity. As I have just said, we are dealing with attacks by dangerous dogs through the control of dogs consultation paper.
Proponents of dog registration have said that they like our proposals, but want registration as well to help with identification. I question their reasons. It is easier for the public, without access to scanners and computers, to link a dog to its owner through the tag than through an implant or tattoo. A central registration scheme does absolutely nothing to improve on the collar and tag scheme.
I also question the enforcement of any registration requirements. It is fairly easy to spot dogs without a tag —that point was made by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham—even when they are out with their owners. There is no obvious way to spot unregistered dogs when at home and with their owners. Do we intend to spend vast sums of money on bureaucrats chasing those dogs which are unseen, unrecognised and unregistered? By the time an unregistered dog is picked up as a stray, it is almost too late.
There is a range of problems requiring a range of measures. I strongly believe that registration would be
1878
an unnecessary diversion. Analysis of the debate of recent days convinces me that those who seek registration do so more as a mechanism for raising money than as a tool for resolving the problems.
To respond to the question put by my noble friend Lord Jenkin, I must point out that, if the registration scheme is to be used as a mechanism for fund raising to implement an action package for dogs, which is not contained in the amendment of my noble friend Lord Stanley, the fee would have to be at least twice as much as that hinted at. We are talking of about £40 to £50 annually.
Why establish elaborate machinery for raising resources only to deploy them on the registration of dogs of predominantly law-abiding owners, chasing and tracing the more elusive or recalcitrant owners and administering the difficult task of keeping a current register when resources could be deployed on doing something about the real problem with dogs in a practical way?
A number of points have been raised during the debate. Perhaps I may deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, about leaving a dog with a friend. I hope that I can assure him that there is no problem. If a dog owner is responsible enough to leave a dog with a friend and the dog goes missing, it will be clear where the people can go to look for the dog. It will only be if the dog has been impounded that the seven days will count. If the dog has not been impounded, it will be on the loose somewhere else and will not be subject to the measures in the Bill until it is picked up, but it will be possible for the person who is made responsible for the dog to go and collect it.
My noble friend Lady Strange asked about dogs in transit or in cars. Dogs in cases, carriages or baskets in transit or in cars are not on the public highway and do not therefore need to wear the collar.
A number of people have raised the problem of finance, including the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and my noble friend Lord Jenkin. The Government package provides sources of finance because the new clause enables fees to be charged over and above kennelling and other expenses when a stray dog is collected. However, the Government have also made it clear—my noble friend Lord Jenkin should know the mechanisms for this —that, when we impose a new duty on local authorities, there will have to be discussions with the local authorities and new legislation will have to be taken into account in the PESC round for expenditure. It would not be introduced during the coming financial year because we would have to give time for that new duty to be taken into account. However, it must also be said that there is nothing to prevent any local authorities— many already exercise much of what is contained in the package—from implementing and building on what they are already doing as regards the measures in the package.
I said that I would return to the point about sending the matter to the other place to be reconsidered again. I have said clearly that it is the prerogative and the legitimate and constitutional right

1879
of this House to do just that. However, I must remind the House that this amendment was conceded at Committee stage in the other place. It was defeated on the Floor of the House not once, but twice. It has therefore been well considered over a long period and we should not send it to the other place again tonight.
The House was prompted by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, to do something about the problem of dogs. That point has been echoed around the Chamber and more time has been spent on the constitutional issue and on whether we do something than has been spent on talking about the merits of registration.
Registration by itself adds nothing. Registration coupled with a package of action, such as our action package, will be prohibitively expensive because we shall have to raise two tranches of money—the £20 million to fund registration and a further comparable sum of money to implement a package. I believe that the Government's package will prove an effective way and will make good use of the resources. It enforces identification. It acts directly to remove stray dogs from our streets. It penalises the irresponsible owner and it achieves that without the need to link every dog with a computer.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I believe that I have a right to reply. I am sure that your Lordships will wish me to conclude quickly so I shall not reply to any specific point, not out of disrespect to any of your Lordships, particularly my noble friend Lady Blatch, but because we have been over this course once or twice or thrice before.
Just because the House is in a good temper and there has been a lot of humour about, make no mistake: those of us who support my Motion believe in it very firmly and strongly. However, I should like to make it clear that we are talking about dogs. If your Lordships' discussion on dogs has diverted attention away from such matters as the single currency, the CAP or even that evil man Saddam Hussein, that is a good thing and it is a thoroughly British thing to do here.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, if this little matter has drawn the Government's attention to the fact that they must start thinking carefully not just about what we do about dogs, but t hat they must consider the worries—I speak personally here—of farmers, doctors, lawyers and industrialists, that is no bad thing.
Finally, if the Government's attention is drawn to the fact that the situation in which we find ourselves today is in part caused by overcrowding the legislative programme and by sloppy and careless Bills coming before your Lordships, that also is no bad thing.
It is up to your Lordships to make a choice, but, if I read my crib correctly, I must ask the House to disagree to the Commons Amendments Nos. 7A to 7G in lieu of Amendment No. 7 and to insist on the original Lords Amendment No. 7.
4.40 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the Question is that the House do disagree with Amendments Nos. 7A to 7G proposed by the Commons in lieu of Lords Amendment No. 7 to which the Commons have disagreed and do insist on their original Amendment No. 7.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 139; Not-Contents, 158.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Knutsford, V.

Adrian, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Ailesbury, M.

Lawrence, L.

Airedale, L.

Leatherland, L.

Ardwick, L.

Listowel, E.

Attlee, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Aylestone, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Barnett, L.

Longford, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Birk, B.

Lyell, L.

Blackstone, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blease, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McNair, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Manchester, Bp.

Bridges, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Broadbridge, L.

Meston, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mishcon, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Buchan, E.

Monkswell, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Monson, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Carter, L.

Morris, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mulley, L.

Craigavon, V.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Cross, V.

Newall, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Northfield, L.

David, B.

Ogmore, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Oram, L.

Derwent, L.

Phillips, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ennals, L.

Plumb, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falkland, V.

Pym, L.

Fitt, L.

Quinton, L.

Flowers, L.

Radnor, E.

Foot, L.

Rea, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Galpern, L.

Rochester, L.

Gisborough, L.

Rodney, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Russell, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Greenway, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Grey, E.

Seear, B.

Hampton, L.

Selkirk, E.

Hanworth, V.

Serota, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Shannon, E.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Sharples, B.

Hirshfield, L.

Stallard, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L. [Teller.]

Hooson, L.

Stedman, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stodard of Leaston, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Ilchester, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Jeger, B.

Strathspey, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Swinfen, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Terrington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Teviot, L.

Kearton, L.

Tryon, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Underhill, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Varley, L.

1881

Wallace of Coslany, L.

White, B.

Walpole, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Whaddon, L.

Winstanley, L.

Wharton, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Hertford, M.

Aldington, L.

Hesketh, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Holderness, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Hooper, B.

Ampthill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Arran, E.

Howe, E.

Astor, V.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Auckland, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Ironside, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Beloff, L.

Joseph, L.

Belstead, L.

Kimball, L.

Benson, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Bessborough, E.

Kitchener, E.

Birdwood, L.

Knollys, V.

Blake, L.

Layton, L.

Blatch, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Blyth, L.

Long, V.

Boardman, L.

Lothian, M.

Borthwick, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brookeborough, V.

Manchester, D.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mancroft, L.

Butterfield, L.

Margadale, L.

Butterworth, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Byron, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mersey, V.

Carnarvon, E.

Middleton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mills, V.

Carnock, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Mountevans, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Mountgarret, V.

Chorley, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Munster, E.

Coleraine, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Nelson, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cottesloe, L.

Norrie, L.

Craigton, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Orkney, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Oxfuird, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Eccles, V.

Peel, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Pender, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Faithfull, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Porrit, L.

Faringdon, L.

Prior, L.

Ferrers, E.

Reay, L.

Flather, B.

Renton, L.

Forte, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Roxburghe, D.

Gainsford, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Salisbury, M.

Grantchester, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Sandys, L.

Gregson, L.

Seebohm, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Haden-Guest, L.

Sherfield, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L

Shrewsbury, E.

Shuttleworth, L.

Halsbury, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hanson, L.

Slim, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Somerset, D.

Havers, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hemphill, L.

Southborough, L.

Henley, L.

Stockton, E.

1882

Strange, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Westbury, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Wise, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Trumpington, B.

Yarborough, E.

Ullswater, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby rose to move, That the House do disagree with Amendments Nos. 7A to 7G proposed by the Commons in lieu of Lords Amendment No. 7 to which the Commons have disagreed; but do not insist on their original Amendment No. 7.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I still think that my amendment is the best solution in this turmoil, this cauldron of discontent and disapproval. If we proceed to a Motion to approve the Government's package we are being manipulated. Had it not been for the Government's need to have an answer to the registration scheme in the House of Commons, they would never have produced this package last Monday—last week. Why otherwise did they by-pass the Report stage of your Lordships' House on this Bill? They were not ready; they had not made up their minds what to do. The Government allowed Amendment No. 7 to go through with no hint that they were going to make up their minds to block it if they could in the House of Commons.
The Government blocked it in the House of Commons. We have a Motion before us for a package deal which in a vote by 545 people in the Commons was passed by three votes. That is not the way to legislate. Whatever noble Lords do, I believe that there will be regrets for the action taken.
We made the mistake of putting this issue into the Bill. The dogs issue should have been kept out of the Bill. It is open to the House now to support an amendment which proposes to take it out of the Bill. Let us legislate for dogs separately. If noble Lords ask me the way forward I say, "Get the dogs out of the Bill and have a Select Committee of your Lordships' House to consider the problem as speedily as possible."
We have a genius for solving impossible problems of legislation and of policy, as we have shown over the abortion Acts in the past years. I believe that we could find an answer to this problem if we were left alone, not barked at, not shown pictures of heaps of dead dogs, and if we were free from being lectured by the canine organisations. They seem to think that we have nothing to do but obey their wishes.
The dogs issue is a big social problem. I warn your Lordships that there are millions of people—lonely pensioners, widows and others—who cherish their dogs. We have to be very careful that we do not impose intolerable hardship, difficulty and unhappiness upon them. We are being rushed by propaganda into regarding registration as the solution. We have devoted all our attention to that issue.
The Government came forward with practical proposals only when they were afraid that registration was going to carry the day. Registration is now out of the way. Even if we had passed a Motion on registration, that Motion would shelve the matter for two years. Before then there will be a general election. However, they now say that they can put forward practical suggestions and proposals. They had no idea of prematurely bringing in proposals on this matter in advance of the last date for public discussion.
If there is sufficient support for my amendment, I shall be prepared to test the feeling of the House in a Division. However, I do not wish to press an amendment if there is not a considerable body of support for it. I therefore beg to move my amendment and leave it to your Lordships' House to indicate your degree of support for it.
Moved, That the House do disagree with Amendments Nos. 7A to 7G proposed by the Commons in lieu of Lords Amendment No. 7 to which the Commons have disagreed; but do not insist on their original Amendment No. 7.—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is not one noble Lord in this House who would argue over the enormous amount of work that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has done in promoting the cause of animals, and with his concern for animals. On this occasion the Government appear to be legislating for animals in a way in which he disapproves. I hope that I am able to disabuse the House of that view.
First, it was not the Government's intention to tack on to the Bill a clause about dogs. However, the issue was raised at a particular stage and we responded. I believe it is to the Government's credit that we did not respond negatively to that request. We felt strongly, for the reasons that I expressed a moment ago, that a registration scheme would not work and that a registration scheme coupled with an action package would be prohibitively expensive. We therefore gave some very positive thought to what we should do. Had we simply tacked on those amendments, I believe that we would have the right to press the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and to carry it.
However, a consultation paper was published last year. It was very widely discussed. It was extremely detailed. The package of measures has been designed specifically on that consultation paper. In addition, since the moment that the dog amendment was placed on the Table, this subject has been discussed ad nauseam. I was asked by not one but by many noble Lords in the previous debate to do something because we all believe that there is a very real problem. The package of measures deals with straying and strays, identification, and irresponsible ownership of dogs. It deals with those problems in a very practical way. I believe that it gives some promises to your Lordships about mechanisms for funding that package, albeit that we must wait for the negotiations and consultations between the Government and local authorities.
1884
It is for those reasons that I ask noble Lords not to throw out the package and not to wait for another day to bring all these matter back to another place. My view is that they are thought out. It is a good package. It is not on-the-hoof policy. I most strongly ask the House to reject the proposal that we take these measures out of the Bill. I ask the House to support wholeheartedly the Commons amendments because I believe that it is the wish of all noble Lords on both sides of the debate to see something practical and effective achieved by these dog measures.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I can only say that this is not the House's most glorious hour. I believe that we are being manipulated. We are being asked to legislate under pressure and even duress. The Government never thought that this package would be brought forward in circumstances in which we have to swallow the lot in the next half hour without further investigation, inquiry or debate. It is part of the stratagem to defeat the scheme of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. The Government were determined to defeat the registration scheme by hook or by crook. They thought out this idea of bringing forward practical measures rapidly. and putting them before the House as though in the ordinary course of business. That is the sop that they threw out to the House of Commons last Monday. The House of Commons nearly did not fall for it; it is now brought to this House as the answer to the dilemma caused by the raising of the dog issue in this Bill.
I much regret the situation in which we are placed. I can only say what I said before with regard to the attitude of the House towards the amendment. There are regrets to come, my Lords; of that you may be sure. I commend the Motion standing in my name on the Marshalled List.
On Question, Motion negatived.
5 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Question is that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 7 to which the Commons have disagreed but do agree with Amendments Nos. 7A to 7G proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
8 Clause 144, page 139, line 21, at end insert ("but this subsection does not apply to regulations under section (Dog Registration) above.")
8A The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
8A because it would be incompatible with the decision taken by the Commons on the Lords Amendment after Clause 134.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 8 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 8A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 8 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 8A.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
9 Schedule 10, page 190, line 8, leave out from("Committee") to end of line 9 and insert ("or, where directions under subsection (4) of that sectionhave been given, I he new Council, by whom the")
The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment—
9A Line 2, leave out 'subsection (4) of that section' and insert 'section 123(4) of this Act'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9A to Lords Amendment No. 9. This is a technical amendment which makes it clear that the reference in the relevant schedule is to Section 123(4) of the Act.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9A to Lords Amendment No. 9.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
10 In the Title, line 28, after ("ships;") insert ("to make provision for a scheme for the registration, identification and control of dogs;")
The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but proposed the following amendment in lieu—
10A Line 28, after `ships;' insert 'to make provision for and in connection with the identification and control of dogs;'
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 10 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10A in lieu thereof.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 10 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10A in lieu thereof.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at two minutes past five o'clock.