Lords Sitting of 18 July 1991

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

Unemployment Figures
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the number of people unemployed on the latest date for which figures are available.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, in June 1991 seasonally adjusted unemployment in the United Kingdom was 2,301,000.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, why is it that after 12 years of unrestricted power, after an economic miracle and having been told that there would not be a recession, the best that this Government can do is to produce the figure of 2,301,000 unemployed—the 15th consecutive monthly increase? Is it not the case that we now have the fastest rising level of unemployment in the western world? It will almost certainly reach 3 million, not least because of low growth, low investment and the fact that 2 million of the jobs lost are in manufacturing industry.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, obviously I am concerned about the plight of the unemployed. However, the latest figures show that for three months running the rate of increase in unemployment has been falling. The RPI has fallen by five full percentage points since its peak in October. The increase in average earnings has fallen by one-and-three-quarter percentage points since last summer and interest rates were again reduced last week. We are determined to ensure that we not only get inflation down but that we keep it down. That is the way to ensure a resumption of economic growth and, with it, to improve job prospects.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, would it not be more intellectually honest to recognise that there is no such thing as unrestricted power and that with the economic state of the world the parameters governing individual governments are limited in availability and scope? Also, unemployment is not wholly within the power of Her Majesty's Government.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I agree with my noble and learned friend. Rising unemployment is not unique to the United Kingdom. Most other major industrialised countries have also experienced increases in unemployment over recent months, including the United States, Japan, France and Italy. Only a few days ago, figures were published showing that unemployment in France has increased to its highest level since records began.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, as my noble friend suggested to the Minister, our manufacturing base under this Government has been dangerously run down. Thousands of industrial jobs have been lost. Is the Minister aware that 900 businesses are collapsing every week, with similar job losses? The Rover Group announced yesterday that it is to shed 1.200 industrial and manufacturing jobs. According to yesterday's report of the Select Committee on Energy in another place, the coal industry is facing another rapid decline and 30,000 jobs are threatened. Soon thousands of servicemen will be dumped on the dole. When will all this end?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, one of the problems is that the unit wage costs of manufacturing are 11.2 per cent. higher than previously. Unit wage costs continue to rise faster than those of our international competitors. That puts at risk our ability to compete in both domestic and foreign markets. Jobs will not be created unless pay settlements are kept at realistic levels. However, productivity is rising again; output per head in the three months to May 1991 was 1 per cent. higher than in the previous three months.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, notwithstanding the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, the policy of the Labour Party, if applied, would produce a massive increase in unemployment?
Noble Lords: Give us a chance!
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Opposition are calling for a chance. They should recall that unemployment has doubled under every Labour government since 1929. The policies advocated by that party make it clear that it would happen again if Labour ever gained power.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, in the light of the disturbingly large increase in the number of young people who are unemployed, will the Government ensure that training and enterprise councils have sufficient resources to enable them to fulfil the Government's guarantee of training or further education for every school leaver?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords. Of course it is immensely important that young people in our society are properly trained and educated. We encourage them to stay on at school but we have guaranteed them a place on youth training if they are not employed. That guarantee remains.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that when the Labour Party left office in 1979, the unemployment figure was 1,200,000? It later rose to over 3 million under his Government and at present it is approaching twice the figure that applied when the Labour Government left office. Does the noble Viscount realise that he is being complacent? Is he aware that in Crawley—a Tory heartland—unemployment in the past two years has risen from 2,811 to 8,300? That is an increase of 295 per cent. In Reading—another Tory heartland—one-third of all offices and shops are empty. In Newbury there has

273
never been such a recession. Will the Government do something about that and get rid of the complacency with which they approach the problem?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, of course the noble Lord finds instances where unemployment has risen in areas of traditionally low unemployment. That is quite natural. He said that we were complacent, but I do not accept that. This year alone my right honourable friend has announced three measures to help the unemployed in order to get them back to work.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that in this country there are now more people in employment than ever before? Those figures also ought to be taken into account.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the figure of those in employment is over 26 million. There has been an increase of over 2.8 million since 1983 in the number of people employed—a larger increase than in any other European country. The proportion of the UK population of working age in employment is higher than in Germany, France, Spain, Italy and Ireland. Unemployment is higher in France, Italy, Ireland and Spain.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that much of the present unemployment is among professionally qualified and skilled people? Therefore, it is not helpful to such people to suggest that training and further education will help them because they believe themselves already to be trained or skilled. What action will be taken to help such people?
Incidentally, with reference to the comment about the number of people in employment, how many of those jobs are part-time compared with those that are full-time? Those are the figures with which we make comparisons.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Baroness refers to the problem of people losing managerial jobs. That is why my right honourable friend has announced an increase in the number of job clubs. Some of that increase is accounted for by executive job clubs. We hope that will help solve that problem. It is true that the number of part-time workers has increased. I understand that 25 per cent. of the workforce in employment at March 1991 comprised of part-time workers.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in replying to my noble friend Lord Rochester, the Minister referred to a guarantee of a youth training place for 16 and 17 year-olds. Is the Minister aware that the report conducted by MORI and published by the Department of Social Security the day before yesterday revealed that 48 per cent. of 16 and 17 year-olds applying for severe hardship payments had no youth training place? In the light of that information, would the Minister like to reconsider the word "guarantee"?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords. Youth training is voluntary and some of the young people referred to by the noble Earl do not wish to take up youth training.
Lord Kinnaird: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that although we in this House are just as much concerned about the number of people unemployed as anyone else, these repeated Questions that are always on similar lines and are asked like clockwork do absolutely nothing whatever to alleviate the situation?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I must agree with my noble friend. However, this matter is obviously of concern to all noble Lords on both sides of the House.
Lord Blease: My Lords, is the Minister aware that of the 11 areas listed in the survey, there are at least five regions of the United Kingdom with a chronic long-term unemployment problem, of which Northern Ireland is one? In Northern Ireland 30 applicants are chasing every job. I believe similar statistics apply to other areas of the United Kingdom. Is there not a need for Jobcentres to be more efficient and for training measures to be targeted more closely to the employment market?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that there is a higher rate of unemployment in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the country. However, as I said, the employment service will provide more opportunities next year. The numbers of opportunities available for unemployed people will increase from 650,000 this year to 900,000 by next year. I believe that is a good target to aim for.
Lord Blease: My Lords, will the Minister answer my question about Jobcentres? They are central to the problem of unemployment. If they are not targeting the job market effectively they are failing in the job they were designed to carry out.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Jobcentres are doing an extraordinarily good job. They are placing people in employment daily. The flows out of unemployment are averaging 278,000 a month.

Wages Councils: Pay Rate Prosecutions
3.13 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many prosecutions took place last year of companies paying below the minimum hourly rates set by wages councils.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, seven employers were prosecuted during 1990 for paying wages below the minimum hourly rates set by wages councils.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he not aware that there were over 5,000 alleged breaches last year? Seven prosecutions out of 5,000 possible offences is a very low number. Is he further aware that in the past 10 years or so there have been only 67 prosecutions

275
although, allegedly, over 100,000 breaches have taken place? Are the Government serious about applying the law as regards wages councils' rates?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, as regards the final point, the Government uphold the law. However, it has been the practice not only of this Government but also of the previous government—the average number of prosecutions each year under both governments has been the same—to seek compliance through advice and persuasion. If there is sufficient evidence of deliberate or repeated underpayment of workers, prosecutions are always considered. The level of prosecutions is higher than under the previous Labour government.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it not more to the point to abolish wages councils?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, wages councils should have no permanent place in the labour market. They are being kept under close review.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that although the party I represent is opposed to the concept of a national minimum wage because of its adverse effect on employment and on account of the need to preserve differentials for skills, we want wages councils to continue? Is the noble Viscount further aware that we have grave doubts about whether there are enough inspectors to monitor the situation? We have doubts also about whether they have the means to ensure that the law is observed.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am grateful to hear the noble Lord's comments about the existence of wage; councils and the problems with setting a minimum wage. Following the passage of the wages Act 1986, the same number of investigations has been undertaken by the inspectors each year. They investigate some 30,000 establishments annually. The usefulness of the inspectors lies just as much in their advisory capacity as in their ability to bring prosecutions.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, as regards the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is it not a fact that some wages councils were set up under Conservative governments to protect the weaker end of the employment market? Do the figures that have been mentioned not indicate that a more rigorous approach is needed as exploitation is taking place on an increasing scale?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, that is not the interpretation I put on the matter. Many of those covered by wages councils are not among the lower paid. About two-thirds of workers who are in industries covered by the wages councils receive wages above the statutory minimum wages.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the payment of wages below the levels set by the wages councils may have the effect of tending to increase public spending through the social security budget? Are the Government able to quantify the cost, through family credit and housing benefit, of the
276
payment of wages at levels below those set by the wages councils? If not, will the Government put themselves in a position to do so?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, low pay is not synonymous with low income. Many of those who receive low pay are young people working in the catering industry and other industries covered by the wages councils. That does not necessarily mean that their families receive family credit.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us have had many years of practical experience with the wages councils? Both employers and trade unions acknowledge that the existence of wages councils means that discussions can be held and usually solutions found to disputes without workers resorting to damaging industrial action. That is the real value of wages councils. To destroy the wages councils would be to invite unnecessary industrial disputes.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we believe the wages councils have outlived their usefulness.

Iraq: Sanctions
3.18 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs asked Her Majesty's Government:
What specific conditions will have to be met before sanctions against Iraq can be lifted.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we intend to maintain sanctions against Iraq until all the relevant resolutions of the Security Council have been implemented in full and the people of Iraq, as well as their neighbours, can live without fear of intimidation, repression or attack.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. While my Question is certainly not a plea for a relief of pressure on the Iraqi leaders, nevertheless does the Minister not agree that unfortunately sanctions are always most harmful to the most vulnerable? Is he aware of the recent report by two university nutritionists, commissioned by UNICEF, which shows that up to 30 to 40 per cent. of children who have been examined were suffering from extreme wasting caused by malnutrition and disease? What will be the Government's response to the call for action by Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan who is responsible for humanitarian help to Iraq? He has said that urgent action should be taken to enable Iraq to import more food, medicines and other materials that are necessary for the survival of its people. Can he also give the extent of UN humanitarian aid to Iraq at present?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I cannot say what our policy is towards the report by Prince Sadruddin because we are studying it closely at the moment. Indeed, Prince Sadruddin will present his report to the UN Sanctions Committee at the United Nations early

277
next week. As the noble Baroness will be aware, supplies for medical purposes have never been the subject of sanctions.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I support the general line of the noble Earl's reply. Can he say whether the Government have formed a view on the proposal of Prince Sadruddin on behalf of the United Nations that Iraq should be enabled to sell its oil on the open market?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is precisely what will be discussed in the United Nations next week. Prince Sadruddin made two points in his report. One related to the damage to the infrastructure of Iraq and the other to the question of allowing Iraq to sell oil or to release some of its assets in order to purchase more goods for civilian needs. That will be the subject of the discussion.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is delightful to hear from the Benches opposite that sanctions always hurt the weakest members of the community? They have not taken that view in respect of South Africa. Does he further agree that the solution to the problem is direct humanitarian aid and that any lifting of sanctions would contribute to the threat which Iraq presents to its neighbours and the rest of the world?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House took note of my noble friend's very valid first point. Regarding his second point, that is why I said that all the resolutions of the Security Council must be implemented in full so that Iraq as well as its neighbours can live without fear of intimidation, repression or attack.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that some of us on this side of the House regard Saddam Hussein and all that he represents with some horror. The atrocities which he has committed are almost unmentionable. Therefore, what will the Government do, in conjunction with the United Nations, to get back some of the untold millions of our money which he owes and which he has around the world? We should find out about that before we talk about sanctions.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, Iraqi assets overseas are frozen and compensation—which is what I understand the noble Lord's question to refer to—is the subject of a Security Council resolution.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is not the answer to the Minister's noble friend Lord Beloff that the ANC in South Africa asked for sanctions but the people of Iraq did not?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it was the effect of sanctions rather than who requested them or applied them in the first place which was the point of my noble friend's question.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, will the noble Earl bear in mind the plight of the British subject, Mr. Richter, and ensure that sanctions are not lifted until he is released?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I have said before at this Dispatch Box on behalf of the Government, we take Mr. Richter's case most seriously. That is one of the issues which we shall take into consideration.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, do the requirements which must be complied with before sanctions are lifted include ceasing to attempt to manufacture nuclear weapons?
The Earl of Caithness: Yes, my Lords, but not under the sanctions resolution. That issue is covered separately and is being discussed following the recent visit by the UN committee on that problem.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that earlier this week President Bush expressed deep concern for the suffering among the poor people of Iraq and that he is searching for a way to deal with that problem without lifting the necessary sanctions? Can the Minister give an undertaking that if a course of action is decided upon, it will have the support of Her Majesty's Government?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the action will be decided by the UN Sanctions Committee, of which Great Britain is a member. Of course we are appalled by the suffering of those Iraqi people. Their suffering is entirely due to their leadership.

Health Authorities: Business Rates
3.25 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many health authorities will be adversely affected by the recent revaluation of business rates, and how they will be compensated for the resulting shortfall in their budgets.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, precise figures for health authorities' business rate liabilities for 1991–92 are not available because many assessments are still provisional or are subject to appeal. We estimate that this year the majority of health authorities in Great Britain will pay business rates which are lower in real terms than in 1989–90, the year before revaluation. Just under half will pay more. The Government gave health authorities global cash limits from which they are expected to meet all costs from whatever source, including rates.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. I am pleased that not all health authorities will lose out. Nevertheless, is the Minister aware that the problem is particularly prevalent in the South East? Is he also aware that the Hampstead health authority's additional rate bill for 1991–92 is £91,000? After five years of cost-cutting

279
exercises there is no fat left. Will the Government consider compensating health authorities which are losing out?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Baroness accepts that not all health authorities will lose out. As I said, more than half will probably gain. We estimate that this year some £255 million will be paid in rates by all health authorities compared with some £243 million in 1989. Allowing for inflation, that is a reduction overall. However, we accept that some health authorities, particularly those in the South, will pay increased rates. That ought to be put into perspective. First, it is only a relatively small percentage of the overall expenditure of those health authorities. Secondly, there is transitional relief which limits the increase that they will have to pay. Thirdly, we h Ave ensured that no regional health authority received a less than 10.2 per cent. increase in cash, which again is well above inflation.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, as the Minister has said that r early half of the district health authorities will be at a disadvantage, is it fair that they should be obliged to cui patient care as a result of decisions taken by the Government? Ought they not to be compensated in some way?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not believe that any health authority will have to cut patient care. As I explained to the noble Baroness, all health authorities have received a very significant real terms increase in 1991–92. We feel that no health authority should need to reduce patient care as a result, although I accept that some may have to expand more slowly.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, as between 75 per cent. and 95 per cent. of the expenditure of health authorities relates to wages and salaries, there is very little left which can be cut without reducing staff in hospitals, and that this is an important issue for health authorities which are having to pay higher rates?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said, health authorities are gaining overall. I accept that some are losing but one must put this in perspective. Rates represent barely 1 per cent. of their expenditure and there has been a real increase of over 10 per cent. in their total cash resources.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that, subject to the progress of business, the House may be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour. In that event the Third Reading of the Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill will be taken during the break.

Avon Weir Bill [H.L.]
British Waterways Bill [H.L]
City of Bristol (Portishead Docks) Bill [H.L.]
Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Bill [H.L.]
Harris Tweed Bill [H.L.]
River Calder (Welbeck Site) Bill [H.L.]
Torquay Market Bill [H.L.]
3.27 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This is another carry-over Motion in respect of seven Private Bills which have not yet completed their passage through this House.
Moved, That the promoters of each Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 3 p.m. on Thursday 17th October next and that all fees due on or before that day have been paid;
That such Bill he deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 3 p.m. on the second sitting day in the next Session with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such Bill in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma in regard to every stage through which the Bill has passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
That the Private Business Standing Orders apply to such Bill in the next Session only in regard to any stage through which the Bill has not passed during the present Session;
That in the case of any Bill against which there is any petition outstanding—

(i) any such petition which has been presented (if not withdrawn) stand referred to any Select Committee on the Bill in the next Session;

(ii) any minutes of evidence taken before a Select Committee on the Bill during the present Session stand referred to any Select Committee on the Bill in the next Session;

(iii) no petitioners be heard before any Select Committee on the Bill in the next Session unless their petition has been presented within the time stipulated

281
for the deposit of petitions in the present Session or deposited pursuant to Private Business Standing Order 109(b);

(iv) Private Business Standing Order 110 have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 109" were omitted.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons requesting their agreement.

Dangerous Dogs Bill
3.28 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Dogs bred for fighting]:
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("dog") and insert ("type").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment seeks to substitute the word "type" for the word "dog" on line 10 of page I. It is a minor amendment which would not have any effect on the operation of the Bill. It would mean that Clause 1(1) (c) makes real sense, which must be meritorious.
Clause 1(1) sets out the types of dog to which the rest of the clause applies. Paragraph (a) deals with the type known as the pit bull terrier; paragraph (b) with the type known as the Japanese Tosa; and paragraph (c) with dogs of any type that may be designated by the Secretary of State. It is the type that he designates, not the dog. The Bill tells us that such a type must be a type,
"appearing to him to be bred for fighting"—
that is all right—
"or to have the characteristics of a dog bred for that purpose".
The point that I seek to make is that it is the type that has the characteristics, not the dog. The order made by the Secretary of State relates to the type. The Bill should therefore read, "being a type appearing to him to be bred for fighting or to have the characteristics of a type bred for that purpose". A type cannot have the characteristics of a dog. It is the other way round. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, was good enough to write to my noble friend setting out the thinking behind the amendment that he has put forward. It is a drafting amendment and does not affect the sense of Clause 1(1) (c). Clause 1(1) (c) enables the Home Secretary to make orders to prohibit certain types of fighting dog. We had an interesting debate on the question of what constituted the characteristics of a fighting dog when we discussed an amendment in Committee in the name of my noble friend Lord Radnor.
Although the sense of the present drafting of Clause 1(1) (c) is clear, the noble Lord is probably right in suggesting that, for consistency, the Bill should refer to the type of dog, rather than dog, throughout. I am therefore happy to accept the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount. I do not like to say what a surprise this is because on previous occasions I have found that
282
Ministers have been prepared to accept my little, perhaps pedantic, amendments. I therefore have nothing more to say.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 11, at end insert ("and upon which an import ban has been or is being imposed").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment does not add anything to or subtract anything from the Bill. It seeks to clarify the position. The position is already clear, but my amendment would put it beyond any doubt.
Clause 1(1) (c) refers to the type of dog designated or bred as a fighting dog which may be added to the list of dogs in paragraphs (a) and (b). That may be done by the Secretary of State. He may do that under subsection (9) on page 2 by statutory instrument, subject only to the negative procedure. That means that it takes effect unless annulled and does not require the positive approval of both Houses of Parliament.
I understood from previous debates that the powers of the Secretary of State under Clause 1(1) (c) are intended to stop other dogs coming into the country which might be regarded in his opinion as fighting dogs or such dogs as are stated in paragraph (c). It does not extend to dogs already here —for example, Alsatians or other breeds such as the Staffordshire bull terrier—and not classified as fighting dogs in the Bill. Clause 1(1) (c) therefore applies only to newcomers. It cannot be extended to Alsatians or any of the other breeds that are here. They are not classified under subsection (1) and it is not intended to classify them under subsection (1). It therefore refers only to newcomers.
I understand that two South African dogs have already been named and are the subject of a ban. If they are the subject of a ban, they must also be subject to internal prohibition. We have established that point. One cannot ban imports without making the product, the item, the animal or whatever it is unlawful. That is why, in order to ban for example the Japanese Tosa, it is also necessary to make the Japanese Tosa unlawful, even though there is only one in the country. That is what the Bill does. It lists one dog. He is the showpiece. He stands for the breed throughout the world. There is only one here. That is how, technically, it comes to be where it is.
I want to make sure that Clause 1(1) (c) relates to an order to be made by the Secretary of State for dogs which might otherwise come in, but of which no existing examples in this country are known. He will extend subsection (1) by statutory instrument to include the newcomers specified for an entry ban. If that is clear, the two breeds of dog about which we have read recently and which are to be excluded from this country will have to be added to subsection (1) by statutory instrument by the Secretary of State in accordance with Clause 1(1) (c). He cannot have the ban without the dogs being in the Bill. That is the simple point. That will therefore restrict the extension of subsection (1) to those cases that I have described.
When I come to Clause 6, I want to clarify an associated point, but I shall not deal with that now. It

283
is important to understand beyond any doubt what the Secretary of State may do by statutory instrument under the negative procedure. It will be necessary, when we come to Clause 6, to be clear what the Secretary of State may do by statutory instrument requiring the affirmative procedure—the positive approval of each House of Parliament. That is what is required under Clause 6, but it is not required under Clause 1.
I hope that I have made the position clear and that I shall receive a clear answer. The best way of dealing with the situation is to accept my amendment and then there will be no doubt whatever about it. I beg to move
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I should like to rise in support of my noble friend. My only complaint is that his amendment does not perhaps go far enough. We had a good assurance from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in Committee that this subsection would not be applied to dogs of any breed or type that are in this country at present. However, that was a verbal assurance and we all know how little a verbal assurance means when it comes to the administration of the law in a few years' time. I would far rather see that provision stated in Clause 1(1). If my noble friend had extended it by making it quite specific, I should have supported him in that too.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I understand the intention behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. He has fully grasped that one of the strengths of Clause 1 is that by allowing a domestic ban to be put on particular types of fighting dog it is possible to sustain an import ban on such dogs. However, we should not wish to limit the types of dogs which can be designated under Clause 1(1) (c) to dogs on which an import ban has been imposed. There may be circumstances, however unlikely, in which people in this country breed or seek to breed a particularly dangerous new strain of dog. They may do that by cross-breeding existing strains or by systematically selecting an aggressive offspring of a currently biddable ordinary breed of dog.
For that reason, the noble Lord's amendment would be an unacceptable restriction on the kind of fighting dogs which can be designated under the order. I urge the House not to accept the amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, it seems to me that the noble Lord has confirmed my interpretation of subsection (1) (c). I understood him to say that the subsection will be used to prevent a new strain of dog coming in. Is he saying that a new strain of dog created within our own dog society would come under paragraph (c)? Or would that have to be dealt with by primary legislation? I want to have clear what will need a new Bill and what the Secretary of State may do without a new Bill in this respect.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is absolutely right. If a new strain of dog, particularly a nasty, vicious and dangerous dog, was created by some form of genetic engineering or cross-breeding, that would certainly come under Clause 1(1) (c).
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am not clear as to what refinement of dog production could or could not be dealt with by the Secretary of State under this clause. However, if it is not necessary to have the words inserted in the clause in order to make clear the limited powers of the Secretary of State under subsection (1) (c), then I am satisfied.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert:
("( ) Keep such a dog unless there is in force in relation to the keeping of the dog by that person a policy of insurance providing adequate cover against third party risks.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, last week Members from all sides of the Committee tried to persuade the Government of the merits of making third party insurance compulsory for the keepers of all dogs. They were unsuccessful, although the matter was not pressed to a Division. I remain far from convinced by the argument of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, against the proposal. This amendment is not, however, a repetition or slight variation of last week's amendment. It is very much more modest and confines compulsory insurance to the exceptionally dangerous breeds covered by Clause 1.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, suggested in Committee, at col. 1480 of Hansard, on 10th July that compulsory insurance for what might be called Part I dogs would almost certainly form part of any exemption scheme. I am sure your Lordships believe that it should certainly form part of any such scheme and should therefore be written into the Bill. If written into the Bill, an insurance scheme can become compulsory before the fine details of an exemption scheme are finalised. The sooner the better, as I am sure noble Lords agree.
The provisions for muzzling and keeping a dog on a lead in a public place already appear on the face of the Bill. Why not also the compulsory insurance proposals? After all they are much more important, given that they would apply not only when a dog, with the knowledge of its keeper, was in a public place but also when a dog escaped into a public place without the knowledge of its keeper and was therefore unmuzzled and by definition not on a lead. They would apply too when the dog was on private property, whether on the keeper's private property or a neighbour's private property. The injuries which those breeds can cause are very severe.
One must not forget that at present someone who suffers terrible injuries as a result of an attack by a pit bull terrier, which has an exceptionally strong bite, can be in the position of receiving hardly a penny in compensation—unless the owner of the dog can be traced and that owner happens to be a millionaire—apart from what the general public in its generosity may care to subscribe. I beg to move.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, these Benches support the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, in Committee we argued for third party insurance to cover all dogs. We also debated the noble Lord's point about the right of people who are

285
attacked by dogs to claim compensation. The Minister did not agree with the amendment that we put forward.
It was made very clear by my noble friend, Lord Richard, that someone who had been attacked by a dog had no way of gaining compensation either through insurance provision or from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. In order to ensure some kind of help for such unfortunate people, I too support the amendment.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I support the amendment. No doubt the Government are aware that the RSPCA, which is a highly responsible organisation, would like to see this provision included in the Bill. The opportunity should not be missed. It is true that those who sustain terrible injuries cannot collect compensation either from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board or from elsewhere. Money cannot in fact compensate but at least it helps through what can be a terrible ordeal.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, keeps telling noble Lords that there is one Tosa in this country. I have received two letters from different addresses—they are perhaps from friends of the noble Lord—one of which refers to my criticism of his "dear little Tosa". I can only imagine that the gentleman has an unfortunate sense of humour. The other letter is about six pages long and asserts how harmless and kind the dog is. How do we know that there is only one of them? I believe that we must assume that there are more than we realise. The RSPCA wish particularly to see this amendment included in the Bill.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, in case my noble friend is minded to reject the amendment—I hope that he is not—one of the arguments that would not be acceptable in opposing it is that the cost of keeping these horrendous dogs would be made too expensive for some owners. If that proved to be the case and the owners were therefore not able to keep the dogs, I for one should be delighted.
Lord Milne: My Lord, unfortunately I was unable to be present at Committee stage but I spoke on this matter at Second Reading. The amendment refers to Part I dogs. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, gave an undertaking when he said that the necessity for insurance would be—he did not say "would probably be" as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said—in the regulations.
The amendment seeks to incorporate that assurance in the Bill. There is a later amendment: I am not too concerned whether the provision appears in the regulations or in the Bill. Later on it becomes a general principle of insurances which I hope will be raised again.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I support the amendment. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for stating in reply to an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that the Government have included in Clause 1 various other cross-breeds designed for fighting. Have Her Majesty's Government also considered certain other types of
286
dog which are in existence in this country? I refer to fighting dogs, such as the Akita—a Japanese fighting dog which is very popular in this country—and the Alaskan Malamute, which is a very big and difficult animal. There is also the Neapolitan mastiff, which is commonly known as the Mafia dog. There is obviously the Rottweiler, and the Bouvier des Flandres—a dog used in Germany as well as Belgium and France as a police dog. Those are very large dogs and worthy of consideration under Clause 1. I refer also to the Staffordshire bull terrier.
I hope that one dog will be referred to time and again. It is the soft-coated Wheaten terrier—a dog which only a few years ago tore the arm off a 70 year-old man in the Plymouth constituency of Dame Janet Fookes. There is also the Glen of Imaal terrier. I hope that the Government will consider all other dogs which bear the green star award, an award given in Eire to dogs which are capable of pulling a badger out of a pipe. I shall be grateful if the noble Earl will consider that issue before I move my Amendment No. 9.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not believe that there is much between us. As the noble Lord, Lord Milne, said, the amendment refers only to Clause 1 dogs. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, goes rather wider. My noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes will be glad to know that I shall not ask your Lordships to reject the amendment on the question of cost.
The amendment places a requirement on the face of the Bill for all owners of Clause 1 dogs to ensure that they are covered by third party insurance. The noble Lord, Lord Milne, was quite right to remind the House that I stated that we intend the third party insurance requirement to be one of the conditions of the certificate of exemption. In other words, if people keep pit bull terriers after they have gone through the various processes, they must have an exemption certificate, and that certificate will require them to have third party insurance. I do not believe that there is a great deal to be said for agreeing to place the provision on the face of the Bill when it will already be there in another form, albeit in an order which will be made under Clause 1(5).
I am, of course, aware that the condition of the certificate of exemption will not apply for the interim period before the prohibition offence comes into force and that owners will therefore not be required to have their dogs insured until 30th November. I do not think this should cause us too much anxiety as those dogs will already have to be muzzled when in a public place and therefore it will be unlikely that they will injure. Furthermore, it is only fair that we give people time to make the necessary arrangements for getting their dog insured. It would not be reasonable to expect them to do so without adequate notice. One of the purposes of the interim period until 30th November is to allow people time to make just such arrangements.
The amendment also mentions that the insurance cover should be adequate. I am advised that typical home contents policies—which are the way most dogs including pit bull terriers are covered—already provide cover for at least half a million pounds and

287
often for substantially more. I am furthermore advised that most policies which are specifically taken out to cover Clause 1 dogs will give at least that level of cover.
For all those reasons, I hope that noble Lords will agree that it is not necessary to put on the face of the Bill a provision which will be included in an order.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who—with the exception of the Government Front. Bench—have spoken in support of the amendment. I am disappointed with the noble Earl's reply. Some countries—for example, Denmark—require all breeds of dogs to be insured. I ask for much less than that.
In his reply the noble Earl corrected me. He emphasised that his prediction that the certificate of exemption would require compulsory insurance was a certainty rather than a guesstimate. That I accept. However, we are talking about a four-month gap. I believe that if the amendment were to be accepted we could require insurance to be compulsory within one month: that is, three months earlier than would otherwise be the case.
The noble Earl says that as dogs will be muzzled in public, they are unlikely to injure anyone. However, the dog that so terribly mauled Mr. Frank Tempest of Lincoln was not in a public place when it escaped. It jumped over a high fence and did the most terrible damage. Therefore, it is not true to say that refusal to accept the amendment nevertheless ensures that no one will be injured in the interim period.
A number of other amendments on the Marshalled List refer broadly to insurance. I believe that the best procedure is to see how these amendments are received before deciding what to do on compulsory insurance. When we have heard what the Government say about the other amendments dealing with strict liability, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board proposals and so on. we can then decide what to do at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 14, at end insert ("or such later date as may be fixed by the Secretary of State in the exceptional circumstance. of particular cases").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am almost alone in your Lordships' House in defending the dog owner. Most of the amendments to the Bill have related to compensation, injury, insurance, tightening up of provisions and so on. Nobody is speaking up for the owners of dogs. After all, owners are citizens and have rights This Bill takes away the civil rights of many dog owners.
I know that it can be said that we need not waste sympathy on the owners of vicious pit bull terriers. We need not waste much sympathy on IRA terrorists, drunken drivers, rapists, burglars, criminals or anyone who is at war with society. There is no reason why we should waste sympathy on them. However, there is every reason to give them justice. I believe that one of
288
the cardinal principles of our British constitution is justice for all. The harshness of the Bill can be felt throughout the procedure.
We are undergoing an ordeal of frustration on giving attention to the Bill because of the manner in which it was introduced and the circumstances surrounding its introduction. The ethos of the Bill has been applied by the Government to the procedure. First, they muzzled the Commons, and now they have the Lords on a lead. It is difficult to break through the limitations—especially time limitations—which they have placed on amendments to the Bill.
This Chamber is the only place in which the Bill has been considered in detail. The Commons passed all stages of the Bill before three o'clock one morning with scarcely any reference to the Bill. They devoted a lengthy period of time resurrecting the old war horse of dog registration. Indeed, someone raised the question of adding another category of dog to Clause 1. That is the sum total of what was done in the House of Commons in respect of the Bill.
The Bill then came to this House. I believe that the Government considered that they could not tamper with our procedure as easily as they could tamper with that of the Commons. There they could impose a guillotine, vote on the Bill and get it through before breakfast. That cannot be done in this House. I inquired anxiously about whether any moves were being made by wicked men and women to suspend our Standing Orders or to vary them in order to curtail discussions at the various stages of the Bill through this House. Happily, no such move has been made. We dealt with the Second Reading at the proper time. There was a proper interval between the Second Reading and the commencement of the Committee stage. We are now on Report after the approved interval since the Committee stage and the Bill will have its Third Reading next week. I have no complaint about that.
The difficulty in getting amendments to the Bill agreed has nothing to do with their merits but with whether there will be an argument when the Bill returns to the other place. The Government want to be in a position to move in the House of Commons that all the Lords' amendments be approved. They want to get the Bill through without argument and send it for Royal Assent. That is the programme. That puts arbitrary restrictions upon the reality of the various stages that we are going through. The amendments which have been agreed so far are those tabled by the Government. As the debate continues we shall see what progress other amendments make.
Amendment No. 4 deals with Clause 1(4) relating to the immunity to be given to dogs in the course of export. Some dog owners may feel that the compensation given under the Bill for the loss of their dogs is paltry and they may wish to sell their dogs elsewhere. In particular, that arises in the case of the talisman breed—the Tosa—which is now in London. It is a valuable dog. I am now receiving many letters from the United States deploring what the British Parliament is doing to the Tosa dog. That is not an

289
issue at this moment but it shows that elsewhere the Tosa dog has a repute in marked contrast to that imposed upon it in this country.
For the sake of candour I must add that I have made representations to the Japanese ambassador in London drawing his attention to the fact that Japan is the only country mentioned in the Bill. In a derogatory sense it is associated with a fighting dog. There are no fighters in this country; there is only an 11 month-old puppy. It has a brother and sister in America which are competing for prizes in obedience classes. The Americans have an entirely different attitude to dogs of that kind.
Most noble Lords are old enough to remember the posture that Britain struck when John Bull faced the world. He did so behind a Union Jack wrapped around the middle of a rather overweight farmer. In front of him was a ferocious-looking British bulldog. The bulldog was the British outlook on the world and we were proud of that. Now we are cringing before a few bites by pit bull terriers and hastening this Bill through Parliament as if the whole population were about to be bitten on the ankles within the next few weeks. The whole episode is plainly ridiculous and I believe that retribution will come. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy they first make mad, but in politics Ministers and governments have only to make themselves look ridiculous. The Government have certainly done that in respect of this Bill. The time will come when Ministers opposite will no longer have responsibility for this matter. There are no votes to be gained from this Bill.
The easement in the treatment of dogs which are being contemplated for export abroad is arbitrary in nature—that they shall have immunity until the appointed date and not beyond. My amendment seeks to give the Secretary of State a little leeway. The provision cannot be used as a kind of kennel door but can apply only to dogs in exceptional circumstances. An owner of a dog worth thousands of pounds will not wish to see it mutilated and written down in value by retaining it in this country. He will wish to do his best to export it for the sake of the dog, apart from his own sake. That applies to the Tosa dog. There is not the slightest reason why it should undergo the mangling process which is specified for a dog which seeks a permit to stay in Britain. Those negotiations may take longer than between now and the appointed date which, I understand, will be 31st October. I wish to give the Secretary of State a little elbow room. The amendment asks for no commitment but releases him from the statutory condition of Clause 1(4) which restricts the time limit to the appointed date.
This will be a test of how reasonable the Government can be. I assure them that there is not the slightest reason why the amendment should stir controversy in the House of Commons, which they are desperately afraid of doing. Surely it will appeal to some Members who have had a few weeks to think about the matter since the famous night shift in June when the Bill went through the other place. The Bill is going further than protecting the public; it is the beginning of a war on dog owners. They have rights;
290
they are lawful citizens going about their lawful business with lawfully-possessed dogs. If by the end of October when the Bill comes into force the owners have not complied with some unpleasant conditions under which the dogs may stay in this country they will join the criminal classes. They will be liable to have their doors burst open by a police officer or an officer appointed to carry out the task. The officer may say, "I understand that you have here a dog prohibited under the Dangerous Dogs Act and I want to know more about it".
I have already described the hypothetical carnage that might occur in houses where there is an enforced entry in order to remove a dog. The entry may occur not merely to discover whether the dog is there but to seize it under the terms of the Bill. Some noble Lords might be shocked to be present during a seizing process. I am sure that a great deal of violence is lying behind the Bill. Such treatment is not the way to obtain the co-operation of dog owners.
This is not the moment to go further over the general aspects of the Bill. At Third Reading, and as the author of more dog legislation than any noble Lord sitting on the Front Bench opposite, I shall have a few words to say about the catastrophe of this Bill, which lies in the complete political misjudgment by both sides over the registration issue. That is where the whole mischief lies. Both sides were unaware of the political consequences of what they were doing. However, I shall go into that in more detail at another time. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that many of your Lordships are dog owners who also fully support the Bill. The noble Lord has so far championed the cause of the dog, and other noble Lords do not wish to be left out. The noble Lord said also that the Japanese Tosa is an 11 month old puppy. Last time he spoke he said that it was able to put its paws on his shoulders. If it is that size at 11 months, one is rather concerned about what size it may be at 24 months.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has said on several occasions that he intends to champion the cause of the Japanese Tosa. It occurs to me that the intention behind the amendment is to provide the owner of this dog and possibly others with extra time in which to make arrangements for their removal from the UK.
The force of Clause 1 is to rid ourselves of the menace of pit bull terriers and other types of fighting dog as soon as possible. We recognise that in the interim period, before the prohibition offence comes into force, we should make it possible for owners to export their dogs without falling foul of the selling and making a gift provisions of Clause 1(2). That is the purpose of Clause 1(4). We would however expect all owners to have made the necessary arrangements by 30th November when we are proposing that the absolute ban or prohibition will come into effect.
This gives people almost four months in which to sort out whether they wish to have their dog destroyed or exempted from the prohibition ban or removed from this country. That is more than enough time to make the necessary arrangements and I can see no

291
reason why we should make provision to extend the time available in certain circumstances. Pit bull terriers and fighting dogs are valuable because they are fierce and wish to fight. Do we really wish to encourage people by giving them extra time to collect more money? In my view it is much more sensible to give all owners adequate time to make suitable arrangements for their dog and to expect all owners to comply with the requirements within the time. To do anything else would be to muddy the waters considerably and to bring an element of subjectivity and possible confusion into what is essentially a straightforward matter.
It is right that after a date which has been widely publicised, and which will be further publicised, there should be a ban on the ownership of fighting dogs unless they have been exempted. To allow some dogs to be sold or given away after this date would confuse the situation and represent a significant shift in policy. There is no reason to believe that owners will not be able to make the necessary arrangements for the export of their dogs in the four months available to them.
I cannot therefore agree to the amendment and hope that the noble Lord, having listened carefully to our views, will feel able to withdraw it.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I have a great respect for the noble Viscount. I am sorry therefore to use more harsh words regarding what he said. Would your Lordships credit that some 12 months ago the same Government were telling the House of Commons that there was no problem of dangerous dogs? When they were forced to do something last October to fend off the pressure for a registration scheme, what did they do? They did not deal with dangerous dogs; they dealt with stray dogs. They added on to the Environmental Protection Bill page after page lifted from the discussion document published a year ago last month. Dangerous dogs were not dealt with.
Matters were examined and opinions canvassed about remedies for dangerous dogs without any admission that a real problem existed at that time. The Government gave everybody concerned until 15th November last year to submit their comments. This would be guidance for the Government who were most anxious to know what the citizenry had to say about the problem. But did they wait until 15th November? Of course they did not. The representations which they received were all put in the waste paper basket. Certainly, the Government did not wait for al the responses because on 31st October last year they added the stray dog chapter from their discussion document to the Environmental Protection Bill.
The Government now speak as though the dogs under discussion have been creating havoc for a long time and that the draconian conditions being imposed are long overdue. The amendment proposes a small let-up for people who seek only easement to be able to get the dogs out of the country. The Government refuse that. What is the justification for that discipline?
292
The Bill is the product of an elective dictatorship. Its jackboot rests upon the legislation. That is what is so disgraceful. There is no give. The Government, rattled by the vilification of the tabloid press, have surrendered to it hook, line and sinker. They wish to place the Bill on the statute book so that they will not be vilified at the next bite. That is the humiliation of Her Majesty's Government, after 20 years of attempts to achieve reforms as regards dog control and welfare. They are a failure—a damned failure.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 23, at end insert ("provided that a person being the owner of the dog who is aggrieved by any decision reached in respect of that dog by the agency acting under this subsection shall have the right of appeal to the Secretary of State or to such tribunal as he may appoint for the purpose").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at least in a boxing match one gets a break now and again! Amendment No. 5 deals with the agency of which I have the deepest suspicion. We do not yet know what it will be. I understand that tenders were invited for carrying out the task of issuing permits to distracted owners who must come with certificates of castration in their hands while undertaking to keep the dogs in secure places, muzzled and on leads. The dogs have been spared execution but, goodness me, they have been sentenced to a life of captivity. Permits will be needed if the life of the dog is to be spared. The agency is entrusted with that duty.
The conditions under which licences are to be granted will be set out in the statutory instrument. However, we shall not see that statutory instrument until the House has risen. The conditions under which one may seek annulment of anything in the statutory instrument are extremely irksome at this time of year. The agency will not be a government department; in fact, it may be a commercial enterprise. For all I know the agency may be profit-making. It may be an adjunct of Marks & Spencer or any other commercial undertaking which wishes to extend its activities. It may be a combination of organisations, reputable or not quite so reputable, which believes that it may carry out that task for the benefit of the canine world. We cannot press the Government at present as to who it will be because they have not yet made up their minds.
Surely, it is an elementary right of the citizen that if he must go to an outside agency, which will presumably be under the control of the Secretary of State, and he has a grievance against the treatment by the agency, he should have some right to go to the Secretary of State and say, "I believe that this is wrong and I am not being justly treated." The situation may not arise but the right should exist. If it exists it should be acknowledged in the Bill so that the citizen is aware of it; otherwise we place dog owners in the position of being second-class citizens where the dog is a sign of some kind of social inferiority or delinquency. That is not a satisfactory state of affairs.
I thought that your Lordships' House knew all about dogs, horses, fishing and shooting. Where is the dog element today? What has made your Lordships go quiet? Has everyone been told that the

293
Government do not want amendments tabled because they want to push the Bill through before the House rises? Parliament must go on holiday. Is that the point? It is not an emergency; it is a parliamentary programme. The Government want to stuff this matter into the later stages of the programme. That is what it is all about. They dare not go into the Recess giving the tabloid press the opportunity to condemn them the next time a grievous injury is caused.
I may be pleading in vain. At least I am satisfying something in myself about a problem which has deeply troubled me. It may be a mistake to become emotionally involved in matters with which one is concerned in Parliament. Some of us have devoted an enormous amount of time and study to problems, the solutions to which have been rudely shattered. The whole fabric of dog control and welfare has been thrown into smithereens. How can it all be brought together? If the Government had made an appeal to owners to keep their dogs in and said, "Let us have no more of this", we should probably have obtained a better response to the situation.
For the time being that will have to do. I sincerely hope that the Minister will say that the right of appeal exists; that no citizen shall find his fate or that of his dog finally settled by the agency without being given an opportunity to go to the Secretary of State, who is answerable to Parliament, to see justice done. I beg to move.
Lord Milne: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, may be surprised to find that he has one champion. I am sympathetic to the amendment, but not in this position nor quite in these words. The amendment applies to Clause 1 dogs. I can see a clause of this order referring to dogs under Clauses 1 and 2 in slightly different wording and coming at the end of the Bill around Clauses 7 or 8. That would be a reasonable clause in view of the valid dictatorial orders that can be made by the Secretary of State.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, while I have some sympathy with the intention behind the amendment I am not entirely persuaded that it is necessary and I hope to convince the noble Lord to withdraw it.
We are as concerned as anyone that the agency appointed to administer the certificate of exemption and compensation schemes acts fairly and in accordance with the legislation. We will provide the agency, which we hope to select in the next week or so, with clear guidelines on how it should operate and stress that it should contact officials at the Home Office if it is uncertain on any matters of principle. We hope therefore to ensure that few people will feel that the agency has not acted properly with regard to their application.
It is almost inevitable that some owners will not be happy with the decision reached by the agency in respect of their dogs, and of course that is most likely to be the case on occasions when the agency decides that it cannot issue a certificate of exemption. However, I do not think that we need to establish a specific appeals procedure to deal with those cases.
294
For one thing, we do not expect the situation to arise too often and in any case we already have in place well established avenues of appeal for aggrieved citizens.
It will be open to anyone who feels that the agency has not acted properly to raise the matter direct with the Home Office or through their MP. I can assure noble Lords that all such correspondence will be dealt with sympathetically and thoroughly and that the Secretary of State will, where appropriate, be able to direct the agency to reverse its decision.
Bearing all that in mind, it is not necessary to establish the appeal procedure proposed in the amendment. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will accept my assurances that we will look carefully at any complaints against the agency brought to our attention and that we will take action where necessary. I ask, therefore, that he withdraw the amendment.
Lord Richard: My Lords, until the Minister spoke I was not inclined to support the amendment. However, the noble Viscount's response raises in my mind a number of questions that I hope he can answer.
The Minister says that if somebody is aggrieved by a decision of the agency in respect of a specific dog, representation can be made to the Secretary of State. To what kind of decision is he referring? On what basis will decisions be made? Is it suggested that an owner of a pit bull terrier may go to the agency and ask for exemption, which I understand the agency can administer? Are rules to be drawn up to distinguish between one pit bull terrier and another? If so, what kind of rules? Who will decide the basis upon which decisions will be made by the agency?
The idea that the agency can be run in a transparent way merely by guidelines and advice from the Home Office, and that there should be no right of appeal to anybody except via a Member of Parliament or by direct representation to the Secretary of State, is somewhat disturbing. My noble friend Lord Houghton may be surprised to see me on my feet; I had no intention of supporting the amendment. In view of what the Minister said, I believe my noble friend Lord Houghton has a point. There are matters which need to be cleared up.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not know what the reasons for appeal may be. The owner of a pit bull terrier may decide that he has been mistreated. The agency may decide that it cannot issue a certificate of exemption because the various requirements needed for the certificate to be issued have not been fulfilled. That seems to be fairly simple. It is not related to a specific dog. It relates to the requirements necessary for a certificate to be issued. I should have thought that that was fairly clear.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am sorry to hear that reply. I am not disposed to withdraw the amendment and I shall test the feeling of the House.
4.28 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aylestone): My Lords, the Question is that Amendment No. 5 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"; to the contrary, "Not-Content". Clear the Bar.
Tellers for the "Contents" have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 51. A Division there 'ore cannot take place, and I declare that the "Not-Contents" have it.
Amendment negatived.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, before we move to the next amendment, perhaps I may say that I have the advantage of sitting next to my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I know that it was not his intention to press the amendment to a Division, but that he was content to allow it to be negatived. Unfortunately, he was deprived of that opportunity because the Deputy Speaker did not say "I believe the 'Not-Contents' have it", but proceeded immediately to ca 'I a Division. I hope that that will not happen again.
4.30 p.m.
Clause 2 [Other specially dangerous dogs]:
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 45, after ("apply") insert ("nevertheless").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment concerns another small point of clarification. The clause deals with "other specially dangerous dogs". Clause 2(l) states:
"If it appears to the Secretary of State that dogs of any type to which section 1 above does not apply present a serious danger to the public he may by order impose",
and so forth. As regards dogs which are not fighting dogs, but notwithstanding are regarded as a danger to the public, the powers of the Secretary of State are set out in subsection (5) of that clause. That requires the Secretary of State to go to both Houses of Parliament for approval of a statutory instrument which brings any breed of dog into the provisions of Clause 2.
Perhaps I may raise a fastidious point of clarification. If the word "nevertheless" were inserted so that subsection (1) reads:
"If it appears to the Secretary of State that dogs of any type to which section 1 above does not apply nevertheless present a serious danger",
that would distinguish them from those dogs to which Section 1 of the clause does not apply. It may be that the sentence can be read as drafted without raising any doubts. However, the amendment would make it quite clear that the type of dog referred to in Clause 2 is distinct from the type of dog covered by Clause 1. That is important if only because different powers rest with the Secretary of State for different types of dogs. For the non-fighting dog the Secretary of State has to go to both Houses of Parliament. However, for the fighting dog, under the conditions that we discussed earlier, he can add it to the list. I am sure that the whole edifice of the Bill will not fall if this single word of clarification is imposed. It may be a test of my confidence in the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I warmly support this desirable amendment. I am heartened by the fact that
296
just over an hour ago the Government, in the person of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, helpfully accepted Amendment No. 1 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. That was a similar example of a seemingly minor but valuable grammatical improvement. To improve the grammar of a Bill is not just a matter of being pedantic or of aesthetics and sounding more euphonious; it is a question of making legislation easier for members of the general public and also for members of the legal profession to comprehend. After all, why should not lawyers be given a helping hand from time to time?
As subsection (1) of the clause stands, it is just about grammatically correct. But it is by no means readily comprehensible. To insert the simple word "nevertheless" immediately clarifies the Government's intentions as well as making the wording sound better. That is all to the good. I find it very hard to believe that the Government can resist it.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I think it fair to say that the noble Lord's amendment is no more than a drafting amendment, but it is difficult to see how it would improve the drafting of Clause 2. It may be that by placing the word "nevertheless" between the phrases "does not apply" and "present a serious danger" he intends to emphasise the difference between Clause 1 and Clause 2 of the Bill. If so, he is right to point out the difference between the two clauses. We have constantly emphasised the distinction between fighting dogs, which are covered by Clause 1, and other types of dogs, which might be dangerous and which are covered in Clause 2. His insertion of the word "nevertheless" seems simply to emphasise that point.
Whenever I discuss amendments on Clause 2 I find myself saying that it is a reserve power. There really is no comparison between the powers available to the Secretary of State under Clause 1 and the more modest restrictions which he can impose under Clause 2. Under Clause 2, he is restricted to applying the measures set out in Clause 1(2) (d) and (e) to particular types of dog. The process of consultation which he has to go through before making orders under Clause 2 are set out in Clause 2(4). The way in which Clause 2 is drafted recognises that there may be some types of dogs which, in the future, turn out to present a serious danger to the public and, in that situation, the Secretary of State would want to do something about it.
The provisions in Clause 1 are equally clear and are clearly separate from those in Clause 2. The provisions of Clause 1 allow the Secretary of State to take quick and decisive action if we are ever faced with a situation as terrible as that which we face in tackling the pit bull terrier today. We do not really need the insertion of the word "nevertheless", put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, to remind us of the difference between the powers in Clause 1 and Clause 2. I recognise that he has reservations about the powers in Clause 1, as indeed he has reservations about the powers in Clause 2 and no doubt reservations about some of the other provisions in the Bill. In this particular instance I am not convinced that his amendment adds anything to the drafting of Clause 2,

297
unlike the first amendment which I was able to accept today. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, a civil servant has spent half an hour writing all that out. I am sure it is a very worthy effort. Nevertheless, I am not satisfied. However, a moment or two ago I put noble Lords to a lot of trouble—quite unintentionally —so to save any ambiguity this time, notwithstanding what I have said, I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 18. at end insert:
("( ) This section shall not apply to—

(a) a dog which is being trained as a guide dog by a bona fide training establishment for the training of guide dogs for use by blind people, or having been so trained is being used for the purpose of guidance by a blind person whose eyesight is so defective that he is unable to find his way about without guidance;

(b) a dog which is being trained for use by the police by a bona fide training establishment for the training of police dogs, or having been so trained is being used for the purposes of the police; or

(c) a dog which is being trained for military duties by a bona fide training establishment for the training of dogs for use by the military, or having been so trained is being used for the purposes of the military.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is specifically to exclude three types of dog from Clause 2; namely, guide dogs for the blind, police dogs and military dogs. Perhaps "types" is the wrong word in the context of the Bill. As I said both at Second Reading and in Committee, although Clause 2 is not nearly as severe as Clause 1, it gives the Secretary of State very wide-reaching powers. The checks on him are, to put it at its best, somewhat vague. My noble friends fall back and say that the orders come to both Houses of Parliament. However, I do not think that that is very satisfactory. It is a bad habit for governments to get into to have too much done by regulations and by orders. Occasionally we should ask for a little more detail to be put on the face of the Bill. In this case I have kept the detail as narrow as I can.
Your Lordships will be aware that the kinds of dogs that might be designated under Clause 2 are possibly just those dogs that help mankind in one way or another; either because they are used by the police and the military for their attacking qualities or for their high intelligence and initiative for leading blind people. The Alsatian, or German shepherd, whichever one prefers to call it, is a case in point. I am told by the association concerned that that is a very vital dog because it shows the initiative and skill in an urban situation which is not held by the Labrador and other breeds that it uses.
I have kept to these three classes of dogs. I could have included dogs for the disabled and dogs for the deaf, but these are not so common and the relevant associations have not been in existence for so long. I thought it would be more acceptable to my noble friend if I kept within these three very important
298
brackets. I have also narrowed it down to make it as acceptable as possible by not including puppies and —what is more important—dogs that have retired. The dogs must be either in training or in work. I know dogs do get retired eventually; they do not always work on until they die. However, a retired dog of this type might become a danger; it would not be with its handler or with the blind person whom it was used to guiding.
I believe that in this broad clause it is reasonable to ask my noble friend Lord Ferrers to look at this matter extremely closely and sympathetically and, if he possibly can, to accept the amendment. It would certainly put many minds at rest among the blind. The noble Lord, Lord Hayter, is not in his seat but he brought out very clearly at Second Reading that the police were not at all happy about this clause. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, nobody could dispute the motive of my noble friend Lord Radnor in moving this amendment. However, it does not seem to me to be necessary. There is nothing in Clause 2 or elsewhere in the Bill which prevents dogs being trained as guide dogs for the blind, or for police or military purposes. If we are to mention those three categories specifically there are other categories which perhaps we should also have mentioned, such as the training of sheep dogs, gun dogs and so on. Although one admires the reasons which my noble friend has put forward, I doubt whether from the point of view of enforcing of the law or of enabling the right type of dog to be trained for the right purposes it is necessary to have an amendment of this kind.
Lord Richard: My Lords, as I understand it, Clause 2 would only apply when the Secretary of State comes to the conclusion that a particular breed of non-fighting dog which is covered by Clause 1 would represent a serious danger to the public. Therefore, the first hurdle that has to be overcome before the powers of Clause 2 can be invoked is the concept that the dog presents a serious danger to the public.
I think it unlikely that it would occur to the Secretary of State that a guide dog for the blind, a police dog or a military dog trained to guard a military establishment, would prima facie represent a serious danger to the public. Secondly, even if he were to come to that somewhat strange conclusion the restrictions that he can then place upon the dog which he has concluded represents a serious danger to the public, again as I understand it, are only those set out in Clause 1(2) (d)
"No person shall … allow such a dog o which he is the owner or of which he is for the time being in charge to be in a public place without being muzzled and kept on a lead".
I find it very difficult to believe that a military guard dog is going to be let loose in a public place other than being on a lead and muzzled. Having said that, I say to the noble Earl who moved the amendment that if there are serious misgivings, particularly on the part of the institutions for the blind, as to the effect of Clause 2 then it would seem to be desirable that the Minister should at least clear up those ambiguities and clarify

299
the position, certainly at the Dispatch Box, though I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that it is probably unnecessary to put it into the Bill.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I find myself in agreement with what the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, wants to do but like the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I am not satisfied that this is the best way to do it. The noble Earl said that he had restricted the amendment to these three categories to make it easier for the Minister, but named some other categories where it might be equally reasonable for exceptions to be made. As I look at the Bill as it stands, Clause 2(2) reads:
"An order under this section may provide for exceptions from any restriction imposed by the order in such cases and subject to compliance with such conditions as are specified in the order".
It seems to me that everything that the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, wants, and perhaps others that he would have liked but which are not specified in the amendment, can be done by the Secretary of State by virtue of this power. Am I right in thinking that?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy for the points which my noble friend Lord Radnor is trying to achieve in his three-pronged amendment.
As I understand it, looking to the time when a Home Secretary of the future might wish to make an order under the reserve power in Clause 2, my noble friend wishes to provide a number of exemptions. He clearly wishes to ensure that no Secretary of State can use Clause 2 powers in a way which affects guide dogs for the blind, police dogs or dogs used by the military.
The sympathy which I have for paragraphs (b) and (c) of the amendment even extends to the point of putting down a similar protection for police dogs and dogs used by the military in relation to the "dangerously out of control" offences in Clause 3. All those who admire and support the magnificent work done by guide dogs will see what my noble friend is getting at in paragraph (a) of his amendment. It was with just such exceptions in mind, that we included the power to make exceptions which is contained in Clause 2(2).
I do not therefore think that the amendment is necessary. Even if a future Home Secretary who was contemplating using this reserve power concluded that the particular type of dog used by the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, the police and the military constituted a serious danger to the public, he would then have to consider whether it could reasonably be argued that in the particular use by those three organisations they constituted such a danger. It is inconceivable that any sensible person would reach that conclusion. Even if the Home Secretary were to reach such a conclusion, he would have to put his proposals to the body of experts set up by Clause 2(4) and then have his draft order approved by your Lordships and another place. If no suitable exceptions were contained in the order, then the good sense of your Lordships, if not another place, would ensure that the order was thrown out.
We are talking about a hypothetical situation. I do not think it is necessary to write these exceptions onto
300
the face of the Bill. The Secretary of State of the day has the power under Clause 2(2) to tailor the exceptions so that they fit the order which he makes; but it is surely right that the order is the place to make the exceptions, rather than the Bill itself. There are checks and balances built into Clause 2 to ensure that no Secretary of State can use the power oppressively.
I hope that my noble friend will therefore accept that the safeguards already in Clause 2 will prevent the Clause 2 powers from being brought to bear on dogs which provide such sterling service as those which he has in mind. I hope that he will not press his amendment.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I do not intend to take the matter any further. The amendment stemmed from the fact that the matter will be dealt with by order. The Home Secretary will be advised by people whom he has chosen, according to the Bill. The order is then brought before both Houses of Parliament. As I said at a previous stage in the Bill, in practice, orders are seldom thrown out and cannot be altered.
What is important is what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said. Perhaps my noble friend will tell us at what type of dogs he envisages the Home Secretary pointing his finger. The clause does not say whether it is breeds or individual dogs. It contains no description. It mentions merely "any type". That was one of the points that prompted me to move the amendment which brings three important categories of dog to the attention of my noble friends on the Front Bench, so that we can be certain that they will not be penalised under Clause 1(2) (d) and (e).
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we have made it clear more than once that Clause 2 contains a reserve power. The Home Secretary would have to consider whether it could be argued that a particular use of a dog constituted a danger. A guide dog for the blind, when being used for that purpose, is hardly likely to constitute a danger to members of the public. I can only try to reassure my noble friend by telling him that Clause 2 is a reserve power.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I am reassured, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Keeping dogs under proper control]:
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 22, leave out ("injures") and insert ("attacks").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is not a drafting amendment. It is one that I moved in Committee upon which we had a short debate. My noble friend Lord Ferrers came some way in this direction by moving from "cause injury" to "injures". Having read Hansard, I am sure that the correct word to be used is "attacks". It is worth remembering that as a result of a dog that "injures" or "attacks" a severe penalty might follow. It could be a fine or imprisonment.
A dog can injure someone in a variety of ways. It could injure a person by attacking him or her; by advancing on him or her playfully, and knocking the person over; by tripping him or her up or something

301
of that type, none of which is in keeping with the Bill's title or spirit. It is the Dangerous Dogs Bill, and it is directed at dangerous dogs.
I can cite an example which my noble friend might say is way out, but he has produced a way-out example today. Being an honest person I have to say that it related to a cat, but it could just as well have applied to a dog. Let us pretend that this cat was a dog. It was on the 14th storey of a tower block in Wandsworth. It liked to lean out of the window. One day it saw a cat or a bird below. It took a step too far and fell all 14 storeys, expunging its nine lives. It landed on the pavement just in front of someone. A dog could do that because they like to lean out of windows. Someone might accidentally nudge it. That dog could have injured the person and would probably have killed him. Is that to be a crime for which someone may be sent to prison or fined heavily?
It is far clearer if we use the word "attacks". It is in keeping with the Bill. A dog has to attack viciously. People can far better describe an attack by a dog than an accident. That could cause a great deal of trouble in a court of law. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble friend has made a serious point which should engage our attention. A dog can attack without injuring and cause great fright—that should be prevented and forbidden—or injure without attacking. I remember an occasion many years ago when a young Labrador became excited and knocked over a small girl. Luckily it did not injure the girl. It was not my dog. I felt that the dog's owner should have had it under better control, because the girl might have been hurt. My noble friend wants to cover attacks only, but with great respect to him I say that attacks and injuries should be covered. I believe that this is a matter which, on this occasion, my noble friend may wish further to consider. We must realise that a dog can injure someone without attacking and attack someone without causing injury; but both ways ought to be prevented.
5 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, this amendment has been grouped with Amendment No. 26. I willingly attached my name to the latter, but I was hesitant about doing so in relation to this amendment. I should like to explain why that is so. The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, said that the inclusion of the word "injures" in Clause 3 is inconsistent with the Bill as it stands because the legislation concerns dangerous dogs. However, Clause 3(1) refers to a dog which,
"is dangerously out of control".
A dog which is not inherently dangerous but which is dangerously out of control—a point which, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was making—is, in effect, dangerous, even if only temporarily so.
We all know of dogs which are overgrown puppies, in effect, even though they may no longer technically be puppies. They are full of enthusiasm and leap about. If they are small dogs it does not matter, but in the case of big dogs they can easily knock over children or even an old lady who is walking along the street on two sticks thereby causing her to fall on the
302
pavement and possibly fracture her skull resulting in very serious injury. The owner of such a dog knows its characteristics. He knows that it is not essentially a vicious dog but merely an over-enthusiastic one. However, I believe that the owner has a moral duty, not to muzzle it, but to keep it on a lead. If he does not do so and the dog leaps about knocking over elderly people or children, it is dangerously out of control. Therefore, I think that the word "injures" in Clause 3 is about right.
However, Clause 9 is a different matter, which is why I added my name to Amendment No. 26. That clause provides that,
"a dog shall be regarded as dangerously out of control on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person".
In my view that provision goes too far. Someone could reasonably suppose that a dog in a public place might knock down and hurt a child. It is an unfounded supposition but it could happen. If one is talking about a toddler of just over a year old who is about ready to walk, one could not really argue, in such a case, that the mother was unreasonably worried that a dog might, even by wagging its tail, knock over the child. However, I believe it is quite wrong that someone should risk being sent to prison for six months, presumably because someone reasonably suspected, rightly or wrongly, that the dog might inadvertently knock over his or her child.
The noble Earl is absolutely right to be firm about pressing this amendment to Clause 9 where we are simply talking about "apprehension". However, so far as concerns Clause 3, I think that on balance the Government are right.
The Earl of Harrowby: My Lords, as we are concentrating on personal anecdotes, what happens if the injured party is the owner of the dog, as was the case with my sister who ended up in bed with concussion for four months? Is she liable for a prison sentence or a fine?
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment in a very cautious manner. I should like to begin by reminding your Lordships that my noble friend Lord Ferrers brought forward in Committee a government amendment which strengthened this area of the Bill. Moreover, when the Bill started its passage through this House it contained the words "causes injury". After representations, I believe that the Government realised that this was much too wide. Therefore they narrowed down the wording and removed the word "causes" which was a step in the right direction.
However, it has to be said that the amendment moved by my noble friend today is probably even more accurate; it narrows down the wording even closer. Indeed there could be a case for saying that the words "inflict injury" would be even better because they would denote that the dog deliberately caused an injury.
The problem with the current wording is that a dog could, so to speak, inadvertently cause injury by knocking someone over, especially an elderly person or a child. That is a danger. I know that the Government are keen to ensure that that does not

303
happen. Everyone realises that this part of the Bill is concerned with a situation where a dog bites someone. Let us face the fact that, when a dog attacks or injures someone, we are talking about it using its jaws and teeth on a person and not knocking him or her over or running down the street and knocking someone over. That is what we want to avoid.
It seems to me that even the word "attacks" shows more deliberate intent on the part of the dog. It is slightly better. Nevertheless, it must be remembered that tae Bill has already been improved in this area. It will be interesting to hear the Government's response now to see whether we can improve it still further.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I find the concept of the deliberate intent of the canine fascinating both philosophically and legally. But I do not know whether one could ever define it in terms which a court of law could begin to construe. Surely the essential point about this amendment—and indeed about this clause of the Bill—is that one has to start off with a dog which is,
"dangerously out of control in a public place".
If the dog is not dangerously out of control in a public place, then nothing applies. However, if it is, then I have lo tell the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, that, for the life of me, I do not see why the owner should not be responsible for what—to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft—might be injury which was not caused by the "deliberate intent" of the dog but which was caused, perhaps, by the accidental intent of the animal; or, alternatively, was caused because the dog was behaving in a way which was potentially dangerous but had not actually bitten anyone.
It seems to imply that, in all those circumstances, the injury which the dog would have occasioned—to use a neutral phrase—is one which ought to be laid at the door of the owner for allowing his dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place. That is the offence. If the dog is dangerously out of control in a public place, certain consequences will follow. Further, if, as a result of the dog being dangerously out of control, someone is injured, it becomes an aggravated? offence. Frankly, in my view, to alter the word "injures" to "attacks" does not improve the the subsection. Indeed, in some ways, it makes it rather worse.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, my noble friend Lord Radnor has returned to the point he raised in Committee. I am bound to say that this has been a fascinating debate which has taken a course that I did not anticipate. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, questioned whether it is really the case that someone could be sent to prison for having a dog which knocked over a child. I think that he is extending his imagination a little too far for everyone's good. I do not believe that the Crown Prosecution Service would be likely to consider that that was a case worthy of taking to court where the incident occurred as a result of playful action. My noble friend Lord Harrowby posed the bizarre position which happened to his sister and asked whether she would be sent to prison or be fined for having a dog which caused her to hurt herself. Again,
304
there has to be a case to answer. But I doubt whether the Crown Prosecution Service would think that that was an appropriate case to pursue.
I do not think there is much difference between what my noble friend Lord Radnor and the Government seek to achieve in this connection. It is very nearly a question of semantics, although I accept that that is not wholly the case. I have received some letters about this question of whether we have got the wording right. I have also taken into account what my noble friend said.
I believe that the form of words favoured by the Government is a better bet than that suggested by my noble friend. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and my noble friend Lord Mancroft talked about dogs which were so large or boisterous that they unintentionally injured children. If one is the owner of a dog, one has the responsibility of keeping it under control in any public place where children happen to be. That is the real point. In such a situation, I am not sure whether it matters if the key word is "injures" or "attacks". If a dog knocks a small child to the ground and causes that child serious injury, I do not think that the owner could expect any protection if the Act mentions "attacks" rather than "injures" in the definition of the Clause 3 offence. In other situations, I believe that the word "attacks" would be more nebulous than the word "injures".
I have looked again at what I said in Committee at col. 1469 about the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and his Japanese Tosa. I was concerned about what my reaction would be if the Tosa rushed up to me as it did to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, put its paws on my shoulders and became playful. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said that he thought that a fine experience. I think that I was right to say that I would be scared stiff.
I believe on reflection that it would be easier for me to prove that an attack had taken place rather than that the dog had caused injury. The dog, whether well intentioned or ill-intentioned, might have knocked me over. It is not a happy prospect to contemplate. If one were knocked over by a 17 stone juggernaut of a dog, I do not think that I would have much difficulty, nor would anyone else, in claiming that one had been attacked. If the only thing that was wounded was one's pride, I think one would find it much more difficult to prove that one had been injured. That is for the simple reason that an injury is tangible and capable of proof while an attack is subjective and open to a variety of interpretations.
My noble friend Lord Radnor referred to the remarkable example of a cat which fell 14 storeys and was killed. My noble friend asked what would have happened if it had been a dog which had hit and injured a person on the way down. That comes under the terms of public liability. If a person is killed as a result of your dog falling from the 14th floor of a block of flats to the ground, I do not see that you should have any more redress against the owner of that dog than you would against the owner of a scaffold pole, or indeed a flower pot, which also might have fallen 14 floors and hit you on the head.

305
One can think of all kinds of hypothetical situations to back up one's choice of words. All things considered, I remain of the view that the word "injures" is a simpler and clearer way of getting at the real target, which is the dog that bites and mauls someone. There are bound to be borderline cases where the word "attacks" fits some situations and the word "injures" others. I believe that one must rely on the good sense of the police and the prosecution authorities to exercise a sensible discretion in relation to such cases so that trivial or vexatious cases do not come to court.
We shall certainly ensure that the guidance issued when the Bill becomes law reflects the sorts of considerations that we have discussed and the sorts of concerns put forward by my noble friend and others, but I hope that on reflection my noble friend will agree that the word "injures" is better and more appropriate than the word "attacks".
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down I wonder whether he has contemplated that in effect what he has said is this: if a dog is dangerously out of control in a public place and, shall we say, attacks an old lady and tears some of her clothing and then knocks over a child, even though neither of them was injured, no offence has been committed. Surely that is the kind of thing that should be forbidden?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, if the dog gets hold of an old lady and rips her clothes to pieces, I reckon that that would fall under the expression "attacks".
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down for the second time, may I say that he misunderstood me. I was broadly supporting him on the amendment. What I felt was draconian was the provision in Clause 9 whereby the fear of being knocked over, as opposed to being attacked, by a boisterous dog can nevertheless in theory result in imprisonment or a fine. Despite the noble Earl's assurance that the Crown Prosecution Service would use its discretion, I wonder whether he agrees that Clause 9, as it stands, is too draconian and that Amendment No. 26 of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, might be accepted?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, again with the leave of the House, I think that for the reasons I have given the word "injures" is better than the word "attacks". One can always find hypothetical cases that suit one's arguments better, but we are trying to get at the dog that actually injures somebody. To come back to my noble friend Lord Renton's point, I think that the tearing of clothes is a reasonable ground for apprehension that it would injure. That apprehension, my noble friend will remember, is one of the parts of the Bill that allows a person to take action.
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I must admit that despite everything that my noble friend has said there is still, after 21 minutes of debate, some confusion, to put it mildly, about the difference between the two
306
words and the effect they will have when the Bill becomes an Act. I have heard a number of views. There is no doubt at all that your Lordships are not by any means all on my side. However, I still feel most strongly that the word "attacks" is better than my noble friend's word "injures" and that that is what the Bill is about.
This type of debate can go on for ever. The shorter the amendment, the longer the argument. Obviously, Members of your Lordships' House are not absolutely happy with "injures"; equally obviously, a number are not absolutely happy with "attacks". I hope that my noble friend will examine the matter again. I shall do likewise, and I reserve my position to bring it back again at Third Reading should I feel that that is the right thing to do. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh Lord Clifford of Chudleigh moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 45, at end insert:
("(4A) It shall be an offence for a person to keep a dog unless there is in force in relation to the keeping of that dog such a policy of insurance that will cover the legal liability of the owner for the amount of not less than £1 million.
(4B) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (4A) shall be liable to be disqualified, for a period which the court thinks fit, from having custody of a dog.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, one is pleased that two prior amendments have mentioned dogs other than those specifically thought of in Clause 1. I have had the opportunity to read out some, but should like any dog, from the Akita to the Scottish terrier, when crossed with the American pit bull terrier, and the Scottish terrier on its own to be considered dangerous should it run across the road and cause a car accident or should it tear at the face of a child who teases it.
The matter was discussed in Committee. I hope that your Lordships will consider the poor gentlemen mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. Since the Committee stage I have undertaken some research, and, with the blessing of Mr. Frank Tempest of Lincolnshire, I have talked with his sister-in-law. Mr. Tempest is at present receiving attention and has received attention once a week—paid for by the National Health Service—at either the Lincolnshire or the Leicestershire infirmary. He receives attention from a nurse once a week and is given physiotherapy for his hands once a week. His wife bathes his face and eyes five times a day.
The RSPCA has given a figure of £7 million per annum for the costs incurred by the National Health Service as a result of dog attacks. When is it envisaged that the National Health Service will cease paying for Mr. Tempest? When will he have to go on to private medicine? Were it not for the Lincolnshire Echo, which has raised £20,000 from local people who care for him, he would not be able to pay for it. I wonder whether noble Lords have grandchildren. He does. What does his grandchild think of his grandfather? It is not pleasant.
I know that on the previous occasion when the matter was brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, it was dismissed by the noble Earl, Lord

307
Ferrers, because it would be difficult to implement. Her Majesty's Government are ensuring that by a certain date certain breeds of dogs must be muzzled and that certain breeds have third party insurance cover.
On the previous occasion the noble Earl said that insurance companies would find it difficult. I shall quote from one particular pet insurance company, Paws. and I have spoken to the other body advising the Government, Pet Plan. The insurance companies say t -tat they would find it easier if all dogs were covered. In a communication following a telephone conversation with me the insurers said that there is a complication as a result of the definition of "dangerous dogs". I have brought up various other names and I know that the noble Earl spoke at Committee stage of two dogs—the Dogo Argentino and the Fila Braziliera—which are to be added to the list with the American pit bull terrier and the Tosa. I believe that others should be considered under that provision in Clause 1, but the insurance companies would find it far more practical if all dogs were included. The insurance companies add that they are fairly concerned about the definition of a "dangerous dog": whether a dog is wild by nature or tame by nature, and the identification of the pit bull terrier, if classed as a cross-breed.
In the past I have made a slight error in saying that the pit bull terrier is a cross-breed. It was originally, but now there is a pure breed of pit bull terrier. It has been crossed with other dogs innumerable times. Would all cross-bred dogs need to be classified as dangerous dogs? With an estimated 8 million dogs in the United Kingdom, a high percentage of which are cross-breeds, compulsory third party insurance and complete dog registration would seem the likely answer. That opinion comes from an insurance company.
We have discussed that point sufficiently and I shall go no further on it. I turn to subsection (4B) which states:
"A person guilty of an offence under subsection (4A) shall be liable to be disqualified, for a period which the court thinks fit, from having custody of a dog".
That will have more effect than saying to a person, "You will be fined £100. Make sure you look after the dog correctly".
We are privileged to own shotguns but we have to have licences for them. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, brought up the point on the previous occasion that we are privileged to have the opportunity of owning a car. Many people insure their cars. As the noble Earl said, it is an obligation. We cannot have a licence—and again licences have been mentioned—for a car unless it is insured. I remind the noble Earl that many people do not insure their cars. In a previous part of the debate, on the Bill I mentioned that 12 million vehicles in the country are not insured. Irresponsible drivers are banned. Why should not irresponsible dog owners also be banned? Finally, a dog reflects its owner's character. It is only fair to say that the underlying cause of a dog's neurosis is its owner. I beg to move.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, at Committee stage on this amendment we spoke in favour of third
308
party insurance. We have certainly not changed our position on that. The noble Lord, Lord Clifford, has now again put forward strong arguments in favour of the principle that people who are injured should be compensated and that owners of dangerous dogs should be discouraged.
Although I am not sure about the shape and the wording of the amendment, or whether the level of liability of £1 million is correct, nevertheless, we support the principle of third party insurance for all dogs. Therefore, we support the amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Clifford is to be commended on the powerful way in which he introduced the amendment and the extensive research that he has obviously carried out since Committee stage. He spoke in a moving way about Mr. Tempest of Lincoln and his family. Like the noble Baroness, I support the principle of the amendment and if it were to come to a Division I would vote for it. The trouble is that the Government, having resisted my far milder amendment which would cover Clause 1 dogs only, I suspect will hardly be inclined to accept the principle of this amendment.
However, the amendment gives me an opportunity to raise a valuable point revealed en passant by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, in his comments on Amendment No. 7 introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, reminded us that under Clause 2(1), in the event of the Secretary of State coming to the conclusion that other breeds of dog represented a serious danger to the public, all he would be able to do is to order them to be muzzled and kept on a lead in a public place, and try to prevent the owners from abandoning them. He would not, as Clause 2(1) stands, be able to require them to be compulsorily insured. That is a great and serious gap in the Government's defences, as surely any dog that the Secretary of State, after due deliberation, considers to be a serious danger to the public —I emphasise the word "serious"—should be compulsorily insured. This consideration makes me all the more determined to revive my amendment to Clause 1 at the next stage and to table a consequential amendment to Clause 2 to provide that, where the Secretary of State discovers another breed of dog to be dangerous, not only should those dogs be muzzled and kept on a lead in a public place but they must also be insured. It is no use confining the provision to dogs which are presently covered by Clause 1. It must be extended to dogs that are discovered in the future to constitute a danger to the general public.
I apologise for that digression but it is essential to get this point across. Although I strongly support the principle of Amendment No. 9 and I shall follow my noble friend into the Division Lobby if he presses it, realistically I think it is probably better to concentrate upon returning at the next stage to the earlier amendment to Clause 1 and the consequential amendment to Clause 2(1).
5.30 p.m.
Lord Milne: My Lords, I support everything that has been said on this matter today and in previous debates. I particularly support the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. I realise that the drafting of the amendment is not ideal. It is probably better to withdraw the amendment now and return with a better drafted amendment at a later stage. The arguments that have been put forward have been discussed on a number of occasions and I shall not discuss them again. I support an amendment that requires all dogs to be insured.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, referred to the case of Mr. Tempest who was mauled by dogs. Everyone who has witnessed the effect of that attack was horrified by what happened. Mr. Tempest was mauled by two pit bull terriers. That is one of the reasons that that breed of dog is now being banned. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has said that it is unfair to ban those animals but they are being banned precisely because of the attacks they have committed. If those dogs are kept in future, the owners will have to comply with certain requirements. One of the requirements is that the dogs will have to be insured.
This country differs considerably from the United States in that the Americans allow pit bull terriers to remain in private possession in spite of the fact that those dogs have killed 34 people there. The whole rationale behind this Bill is that we should only allow those dogs to be kept when their owners have met certain requirements in relation to the dogs, including insurance. The arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, put forward are, on the face of it, enormously attractive. However, we must think carefully before we insert provisions into statutes. We must consider the implications of those provisions, whether they can be enforced, and if so, how.
As I said in Committee, compulsory insurance requirements are so unusual that they do not really exist in any case other than motor car insurance. They are unpopular with the industry and, frankly, are almost impossible to enforce. The noble Lord, Lord Clifford, said that it is a well-known fact that not everyone insures their motor cars. He used that as an extraordinary argument for saying that all dog owners must be made to insure their dogs, in the full knowledge presumably that a lot of dog owners will not do so. Frankly, I do not think that that argument holds an awful lot of water. That is why the Government have agreed to compulsory insurance only in the particular case of the relatively small number of exempted Clause 1 dogs. To go further than that would be to extend the effect of the Bill too wide to too many households.
The noble Lord, Lord Clifford, said that in his experience insurance companies would welcome compulsory insurance for all dogs. However, my advice contradicts that view. My understanding is that compulsory insurance for all dogs would not be welcomed either by the RSPCA or by the British insurance industry.
310
As I explained in Committee, in practice many dog owners are already automatically covered by the third party indemnity section of normal household policies. It may well be that as a result of this legislation dog owners will review their insurance requirements and take any steps that they consider necessary to increase their cover. If that were to occur, it would doubtless be a wise step. This Bill places additional burdens on all dog owners and they would be well advised to make sure that they have the necessary insurance cover.
However, to go down the road of having to ensure that all dog owners have insurance; specifying what that insurance should be and how it should operate; and checking that it remains in force would be an onerous task. The amendment does not merely propose that big, offensive or difficult dogs should be insured; it proposes that every dog, that is all Labradors, Spaniels, Dachshunds, Chihuahuas, Shih-tzus and others must be insured by law. That is not the purpose of the Dangerous Dogs Bill. This Bill states that certain breeds of dog should not be kept because they are dangerous. The Bill contains powers to cover the case of any breed of dog that is found to be of a bad character at a later stage. The Home Secretary of the day can take certain powers against such a breed. I suggest that if we accept this amendment we would be taking matters too far. It would make the law completely impossible to enforce. I advise your Lordships not to accept the amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, I hope I may correct him on one point. He said he thought the RSPCA was opposed to compulsory third party insurance. However, this afternoon I received a briefing from the RSPCA which states:
"The RSPCA is emphatically and enthusiastically a supporter of compulsory third party insurance".
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord obviously has received a different briefing from mine. Perhaps the briefing which he has received was written by someone who had different information from that held by the author of my brief. I of course accept that the noble Lord has received different information.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I wish to emphasise that the briefing of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, was provided by the RSPCA. I have the same briefing as that held by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. The RSPCA has also stated that it had envisaged third party insurance as part of a dog registration package. The RSPCA added that point to its enthusiastic support of third party insurance.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I am grateful for the support I have received. I am a little worried that the briefing provided by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—I say this in full as one Coldstreamer to another, we prefer not to abbreviate—appears to be slightly different from the one held by the noble Earl. I am sorry that the Government are not willing to ensure that a provision is included in the Bill that complies with the will of the people whom the Government represent. Some 92 per

311
cent. of people in this country would like to see some form of registration introduced which would include a form of insurance covering legal liability.
I believe it would be worthwhile for the Government to reconsider carefully the amendment I have tabled. I admit that the Government may wish to redraft the amendment. As I am not a qualified lawyer, I have not drafted it in the correct legal fashion. However, I wish the Minister would accept the principle of the amendment. If he will confirm that he accepts that principle, I shall be quite happy to withdraw my amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may have the leave of the House to speak again. Noble Lords may have received briefing from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals indicating that it was in favour of compulsory insurance. However, my information is that the RSPCA was in favour of compulsory insurance provided there was registration. There is not going to be registration. Therefore, one comes back to the question which I ask your Lordships to consider; if every single person and every single dog is to be covered by insurance, how on earth is that to be enforced? It will be very difficult to enforce.
In the context of the Dangerous Dogs Bill, it is an absurdity to require Chihuahuas, Shih-Tzus and other unfortunate little animals which will not do any damage at all to be insured. That is an argument which one could understand being put forward in a general dogs Bi11; but there are many reservations against that. In the context of the Dangerous Dogs Bill, I suggest that if your Lordships were to accept the amendment that would go way beyond the purpose of the Dangerous Dogs Bill and would be exceedingly unpopular and impossible to enforce.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, the noble Earl is overlooking the fact that Clause 3 begins with the words:
"If a dog is dangerously out of control in a public place".
The noble Earl seems to envisage that every dog in the country is potentially out of control in a public place. There may be many others which are contemplated in this Bill but they would have to be out of control before the noble Lord's amendment would apply.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I contravene the customs of your Lordships' House yet again, but I do so only in an attempt to be helpful. The amendment states quite simply that:
"It shall be an offence for a person to keep a dog unless there is in force in relation to the keeping of that dog such a policy of insurance".
If it will be an offence "for a person to keep a dog", that means all dogs.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, perhaps I may point out that is only an offence if it relates to the first line of the clause which reads:
"If a dog is dangerously out of control in a public place".
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I think that we have gone far enough with this particular
312
amendment. Later amendments deal with compensation and insurance, and there is also an amendment which relates to moneys given to local authorities to oversee the implementation of the Bill.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, asked how on earth my amendment would be implemented. I have spoken to dog wardens in Plymouth. Before the Environmental Protection Bill comes into effect next year they hope to have a place to train people to become dog wardens. They also hope to encourage people in other parts of the country to become dog wardens.
There is a way to check, and if the Government were not to give up so easily they would see it implemented. I should like to hear an answer on that point. At the same time, I am very grateful that the noble Earl considers that there is a possibility of another dog Bill in the future. If that is the case, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 5, at end insert:
("(6) If it appears to a court on a complaint under section 2 of the said Act of 1871 that the dog to which the complaint relates is a male and would be less dangerous if neutered the court may under that section make an order requiring it to be neutered.
(7) The reference in section 1(3) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 (penalties) to failing to comply with an order under section 2 of the said Act of 1871 to keep a dog under proper control shall include a reference to failing to comply with any other order made under that section; but no order shall be made under that section by virtue of subsection (6) above where the matters complained of arose before the coming into force of that subsection.").
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 10, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 11 in the names of my noble friends Lord Radnor and Lord Stanley of Alderley.
At the Committee stage of the Bill, I undertook to look further at the point which is the substance of my noble friends' amendment. Your Lordships are now familiar with the fact that, under the Dogs Act 1871, before it was amended by this Bill, a court could order that a dog should he kept under proper control, but there was doubt as to whether it could say how that should be done. Clause 3(5) of the Bill clarifies the court's power to make orders by allowing the court to say how a dog could be kept under proper control. The examples given are by muzzling, keeping on a lead, or excluding it from specific places, or otherwise.
My noble friends' amendment seeks to add powers to the courts to be able to order that a dog is neutered or spayed. The amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Ferrers has the same effect. The only substantial difference between the amendments is that, in the case of my noble friends' amendment, a court can order that a bitch be spayed.
The purpose of the Dogs Act 1871 is to keep dogs under proper control and it does not seem to us an argument that spaying a bitch is a way of keeping a dog under proper control. By contrast, neutering a male dog may cause it to be less aggressive or, in other circumstances, may cause it to stray less and therefore be more controllable.
That is why the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Ferrers is restricted to male dogs. It has been suggested to us that the problems of straying and of attacks are almost solely confined to male dogs. On that basis, I can reassure my noble friends that the force of their amendment would not be lost if they were to withdraw it in favour of the government amendment.
My noble friends' amendment is therefore technically faulty and although I have sympathy with the intention behind the amendment, I am sure that they will understand why the Government cannot accept it but have offered an alternative.
5.45 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, perhaps I may speak to both of the amendments in turn. First, I should like to thank my noble friend for bringing forward his amendment, which is technically better than the one put down by me and my noble friend, Lord Stanley.
The amendment stemmed from a debate in Committee, when, unfortunately, I was out of the Chamber and therefore cannot remember vividly what was said. My understanding, from reading the 1871 Act, was that dogs had to be kept under control or had to be killed. Those appeared rather extreme ends of the punishment scale and therefore it appeared that to add the alternative of neutering to make a dog less aggressive was desirable.
Having said that, there was a doubt in my mind, which has now been allayed having been told the purpose of the 1871 Act. whether it was reasonable to include the spaying of a female dog and whether neutering might have applied to both. The reason for including spaying was that a bitch could pass on her had temper through her blood line. However, as the Act deals with particular dogs which are tiresome that is probably superfluous. I should be happy to accept my noble friend's amendment and not to move the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stanley.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I have had experience of the neutering of dogs and the spaying of bitches. In my experience neutering stops the male dog from straying but it does not necessarily stop him from fighting. In the case of bitches, after spaying they obviously cannot have puppies. I have found that spaying does not stop them from being very territorial. I have a greyhound bitch which is spayed. At home she is very territorial and will go for any dog of either sex who is on her own territory. If she is not under control and she sees any other dog on what she considers to be her territory, she may attack it. I wanted to make that point. Neutering is certainly good with regard to preventing male dogs from straying.
Lord Richard: My Lords, this government amendment, Amendment No. 10, appears to be eminently sensible. It fills a gap in the powers that can be exercised under the Act of 1971 and we on these Benches support it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Lord Mancroft Lord Mancroft moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 5, at end insert:
("(5A) A person shall be guilty of an offence if, without lawful excuse, he interferes with the control of or attempts to exercise control of a dog in the charge of another person.
(5B) It shall be a defence in any proceedings under subsection (5A) above for an accused to prove that his interference with the control of a dog in the charge of another person was accidental.
(5C) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (5A) above is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I brought this amendment forward in Committee and reserved my position at that time. I now bring it forward again.
Many points were made in Committee. The point that told most with me was, rather unusually, that made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who, I suspect, is probably not the most enthusiastic fox-hunter in the House. He said with regard to my amendment that the point being made was a good one. That comes from someone who did not agree with what I was attempting, as it were, to protect in my amendment, but he agreed with the principle behind it.
I do not want to bore your Lordships by going through all that is entailed in my amendment, as I did in Committee. Briefly, it prevents people—there is no hiding of this fact—particularly those who wish to disrupt hunts, not from disrupting a hunt or from demonstrating legally against it, but from attempting, as they frequently do, to lure hounds on to a road where they may either cause an accident to a passing motorist or be killed, as has happened on several occasions.
Even my noble friend Lord Ferrers, in rejecting my amendment at that time, was extremely understanding of the point that I made. Most members of the Committee agreed with the principle of the amendment, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who has never, I believe, claimed to be greatly knowledgeable about or interested in hunting and country matters. There is no reason why he should be. The main reason why my noble friend Lord Ferrers and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, rejected my amendment, or spoke against it, as it were, was that it fell outside the Bill. It certainly does not fall outside the Long Title of the Bill. Over the years many things have slipped into Bills that were not necessarily originally intended for them, but, as an afterthought. have found an easy resting place within a Bill. I suspect that my amendment is one of those cases.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, made another and an extremely telling point. He said that my amendment brought to a head the divisions or the lack of understanding between those of us who live and work in the countryside and those—the vast majority—who live and work in the towns. As I understood him, he said that the interests of those who live in the countryside and the interests of those who live in the towns often come to a head in debates. We have attempted for many years to put off defining the role of the countryside in the future of our country as it becomes becoming increasingly urban.
The Bill is a classic example of that because it is, if I may so describe it, an urban Bill. It deals with an urban problem—the problem of dangerous dogs. There are very few dangerous or fighting dogs that attack people in the countryside, probably because people in the countryside know better how to look after their dogs. The Bill is designed to deal with a problem that is found in towns. My amendment is a countryside amendment. It might be said that my amendment is necessary because town people come to cause trouble in the countryside. I made the point in Committee (and I shall reiterate it now at the risk of boring your Lordships) that last season the hounds were out in England on 21,400 occasions. On the Saturdays that they were out, there were on average during the season 15 violent incidents in the hunting field involving saboteurs with the exception of one Saturday in the season—31st March—when there was only one incident. It may be coincidence, but that was the day of the poll tax riots. The hunt saboteurs were presumably employed elsewhere.
I suspect that the real reason why the Government do not like my amendment is that they worry, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said earlier this afternoon, about getting it through the House of Commons. There is a worry that it might he rejected by another place. That may he true, but your Lordships do not need protecting from another place by the Government or by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. After all, we are used to having our more important amendments rejected by another place. You can tell whether an amendment is a good or important one: it is automatically rejected. It is only the less important ones that slip through.
More important than that is the prospect that the Members in another place may not understand the amendment because they too represent the vast number of urban dwellers in this country and have little understanding—indeed, decreasing understanding—of the rural way of life. That in itself is a sad thing. It would be understandable if the current Government were a Labour Government, unlikely though that may be, as the Labour Party has never set itself up as a great champion of country activities, but a Conservative Government always did so. Is it not a sad indictment that a Conservative Government cannot understand an amendment that relates to country matters?
Those are not reasons for rejecting the amendment. All those noble Lords who spoke in the debate in Committee, including my noble friend the Minister, understood the point behind the amendment. They appreciated the problem which is a problem of violence. It is a problem of coaxing dogs into a situation where they may be killed, as they have been in the past, or where injury may be caused to innocent passers-by by road accidents.
Therefore, the only acceptable reason for me to withdraw the amendment today would be that the Government, having accepted that the problem exists, came up with a better solution to deal with it. I agree that this is not a perfect solution. It may not even be in a very good place, but no one else has come up with a solution. It deals only with part of the problem, but
316
at least it does that. The problem exists and it is becoming worse. I would therefore have to press the amendment if my noble friend could not advise me or show your Lordships that there was another and better way of dealing with the problem. I beg to move.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I have some sympathy with my noble friend Lord Mancroft because he is right that it is an urban problem and many people do not understand the countryside at all. However, I see a great danger if there is no law to control saboteurs. In many universities at the weekend you see notices on boards offering sandwiches if students attend hunt meetings at certain places. I do not know whether they received 10 shillings or a pound, but they were given sandwiches. Those people are told where the meet is and it often happens to be at a pub in a village where there is a tarmac road. Those saboteurs can interfere with the hounds.
I said that the saboteurs interfere with them. But packs of hounds vary according to the whippers-in. Some packs are extremely well controlled. If saboteurs annoy hounds, they can cause incidents. Perhaps a horse will shy. One or two may fall down on the tarmac and somebody might be badly injured or even killed. I believe that there should be some form of law to prevent saboteurs from interfering with hounds at a meet. As I said, it can cause considerable harm to riders when their horses shy.
Perhaps I may just illustrate how times have changed. At the end of the 19th century even trains used to stop to allow hounds to cross the railway line. I believe that something ought to be done about hunt saboteurs, certainly at a meet. When there are tarmac roads and traffic nearby, they ought somehow to be controlled. Perhaps I may just tell the House a little story. It happened only about two years ago in Kent. A friend of mine had a pack of bloodhounds and a meet was advertised. Saboteurs turned up. They saw the bloodhounds and followed the hunt. To their amazement they came up with the quarry (which was a man running) and saw the bloodhounds licking him all over. They were completely astounded. I thought that I should tell that story to add a little lighter note.
6 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I should like briefly to support this amendment with which I have much sympathy. It is unfortunate that this has become a hunting and hunt saboteurs amendment. As someone who has enjoyed hunting very much in my life, I see no reason why this provision should not be of great use in the Bill. I shall not bore your Lordships with any more anecdotes, but there have been many occasions when the actions of a dog have been interfered with by a party other than the owner when the dog was thought to be acting dangerously or could cause injury. Let us not just think that this provision has something to do with hunting and saboteurs. When my noble friend comes to think deeply about the matter I am sure he will realise that it concerns many other things as well.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I hope that the Government will not accept this amendment. Perhaps

317
I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that the division into town and country, so that by definition anybody brought up in the country must appreciate the joys and virtues of foxhunting and therefore should support the amendment, is absolute rubbish. In fact I was brought up in the country and not in the town. When I was a boy I used to go on foot following a hunt. It engendered in me very considerable sympathy for the fox. Therefore I do not support foxhunting. I do not particularly object to it. If people wish to ride around with packs of hounds in the countryside in red coats blowing trumpets, so be it. The idiosyncrasies of humankind are immense. I do not wish to interfere particularly with hunting but on the other hand I do not support it either.
I do not believe that a Bill on dangerous dogs is a place to have a sensible discussion or produce a sensible piece of legislation on foxhunting. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has chosen to turn this debate into what is almost a referendum of this House on whether it supports foxhunting or hunt saboteurs. I have to say that I support neither and therefore do not support the noble Lord's amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not quite sure where the last observation of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, lands us. My noble friend Lord Mancroft is nothing if not persistent. I always feel some modest discomfort when I find myself in disagreement with my noble friends and in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, opposite. It is only modest discomfort. It is not that I am unhappy to be in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Richard. That is a delightful experience. That certain discomfort derives from the contrast with the views expressed by my noble friends behind me.
There is a perfectly good reason for that. As one who was brought up in the country, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, ought to know that people do not go round blowing trumpets at hunts. That is the kind of thing one does in an orchestra, not when chasing hounds.
My noble friend Lord Mancroft discussed with me his worries about the activities of anti-hunt protesters. He also discussed them with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. I hope that what my right honourable friend was able to tell him on that occasion will convince him—he takes a lot of convincing but I hope that he will be persuaded—that we share his anxiety about the activities of those who seek to disrupt what is a perfectly legitimate and legal activity.
Frankly, it is intolerable. It is one thing to have a genuine dislike of hunting and wish to protest against it. It is quite another to protest in such a way as to disrupt the perfectly legal pursuits of others, to pay cohorts of people and give them free lunches in order to join in the fracas. If my noble friend Lord Massereene believes that they are paid 50p, I must tell him that that is not at all the going rate. It might have been the rate about 35 years ago, when my noble friend was younger and when hunt saboteurs did not operate, but they are now paid a great deal more than 50p.
318
We have gone a long way to meet my noble friend's points. My noble friend Lord Kimball was concerned at Second Reading that the expression "cause injury" in Clause 3 of the Bill might render the person in charge of hounds liable to the Clause 3 offence if an anti-hunt protester lured the hounds across a motorway and an accident occurred in which injury was caused. The amendment which I moved at Committee stage and which was approved substituted the word "injures" for "causes injury" in Clause 3 and met the point exactly.
My noble friend Lord Mancroft would want us to go further. I am afraid that even in its revised form the amendment which he tabled continues to give me cause for considerable concern. His amendment is, as he pointed out, quite clearly directed at the hunt. But it would not apply only to the hunt, the hounds and the anti-hunting protesters. It would have application everywhere. Perhaps I may give your Lordships one example of its possible application away from the world of hunting.
Many householders have had the unpleasant experience of looking out of their windows first thing in the morning and seeing a large dog using the pavement outside for purposes for which that pavement was not intended. Dog-fouling of footpaths is an absolute menace. Often dogs which foul the footpath are being taken for a walk, off the lead, by their owners, who turn a blind eye to what the dog is doing.
I happen to think that a householder who rushed out of his front door and chased the dog off would be acting perfectly reasonably in doing so. Most of us would have enormous sympathy with him. But, in that situation, where the owner of the dog is with it and turning a blind eye to what it is doing, the householder who chased the dog away would be caught by my noble friend's offence. It is doubtful whether he could claim that he had lawful authority to act in the way that he did, which is the defence in the amendment. The pavement outside his house does not belong to him. He could not claim that his interference with the owner's control of the dog was accidental, which is the other defence proposed. The householder who shooed the dog off the pavement into the road and found that the dog was hit by a car might find himself in trouble. Whether or not an accident occurred or anyone was injured, the owner could well report the matter to the police and the police could decide to prosecute. I believe that it would be undesirable to have an offence on the statute book that could be used in that way.
My noble friend's problem relates to enforcement of the law. His principal anxiety during the Committee stage was the blowing of horns as opposed to trumpets by the anti-hunt protesters. As my noble friend is aware, the law already catches the blowing of horns in certain circumstances. There have been successful prosecutions for such activities under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. Therefore I do not believe that he can argue that there is a gap in the law which ought to be filled in that respect. However, my noble friend's real and understandable worry is that the procedures

319
to cope with hunt saboteurs vary throughout the country. He would like the procedure made more uniform.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has told my noble friend Lord Mancroft that the Home Office will be discussing this area of the law and how it should be enforced at a meeting in September to which representatives of the British Field Sports Society and other organisations with an interest in hunting will he invited. A very senior representative of the Association of Chief Police Officers will also attend. I believe that that is the right way in which to deal with those difficulties. It is the right way for those who have an interest in protecting the right to hunt to make their point strongly to the Home Office and indeed to the police. It is after all the police who are responsible for enforcing the law.
I hope that my noble friend will accept that that is the best way to set about the problem. I recognise that it is a difficult and highly vexatious one. I believe that that method is right as opposed to putting a provision in the Bill.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am not a foxhunting man, but the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has a point. I am rather surprised that the noble Earl rises for the first time to express some leniency over dangerous dogs. I have been furnished with a list of the accredited cases of foxhounds committing offences of trespass, invasion of the privacy of households, killing cats, eating pork pies off the kitchen table and many other irregular deeds because they had broken loose. I believe that something should be done to keep foxhounds under control.
I heard a rumour at one stage that a plea would be made that foxhounds be given complete immunity under the Bill. That would not have surprised me in the least. However, there is a serious point. Dogs in packs, unless under control, can be extremely dangerous, cause serious accidents and terrify people. I was born in the country and taken to fox hunts at a very early age. The relative with whom I stayed was a farmer and a saddler. Unfortunately he had a double interest: he was not in favour of the hunt, but he wanted business from the huntsmen. At every hunt he indulged in a practice known as turning the fox. He seemed to know where to hide behind the horses and how to turn the fox in the direction which the hunt did not wish.
On the serious point, I am vice-president of the League Against Cruel Sports. I am a subscriber to Hunt Saboteurs. That may surprise noble Lords. However, a great many young people altruistically and through ideals take the risk of going into the hunting field during the winter to express their discontent with foxhunting. They may be ill advised. They may be wrong. But at least they do so for no gain to themselves and at considerable risk. I am therefore ready to stand by young people who want money to get them out on bail or money to pursue the hunt as a result of injuries which a number of them receive after a good swipe across the face by a man on horseback who uses the stock end of his whip. Many such cases occur. However, I would publish the list of intrusions into people's privacy, in homes and
320
gardens, over the past 10 years for the discomfiture of any huntsman at any time. It is a fully verified list of known cases.
Whatever the hunt saboteurs do, they should not interfere with the control of the foxhounds. That only adds to the greater risk that already exists. I understood that the amendment intended to make it an offence to seek to seduce the hounds from the huntsmen by uttering false cries on a hunting horn, leading them astray and giving the hounds the impression that they are wanted elsewhere. They would then get into difficulties. I do not believe that that is the best way to conduct one's campaign against hunting.
In any case, we are told that the next Labour Government will consider the question of hunting with hounds. The day may come when a referendum asks the people of this country what they think about hunting as a field sport.
The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and I are mutual back scratchers. He helped me on my Badgers Bill and I shall help him on his adventure today. If he calls a Division, honour bound I shall vote for him.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may make one comment, with the leave of the House. I realise that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, was to thank my noble friend Lord Mancroft for having helped him over the Badgers Bill. He did not do that with any degree of seriousness. The noble Lord said that if he went into the Division Lobby it would be with my noble friend Lord Mancroft. It is very rare for the noble Lord to be in error, but he is on this occasion. He stated that I had risen for the first time. I did not think I had; I have risen several times. I believe that he meant in defence of dangerous dogs. He said that he and others had known plenty of occasions when packs of hounds had gone into people's gardens, killing cats and eating pork pies. The noble Lord has a vivid imagination but I am sure that he would not say that unless he had chapter and verse to back it up.
If such events were to happen, they would not be an offence under the Bill. Clause 3 states quite simply that,
"If a dog is dangerously out of control in a public place the owner … is guilty of an offence, or, if the dog while so out of control injures any person".
It does not refer to consuming cats or eating someone's pork pies. Therefore the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, really should not go into the Lobby with my noble friend.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, this has turned into an interesting debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for his support. It was a slightly double-edged sword. Nevertheless it was kind of him. I do not believe that there will ever be a law in this country which forbids dogs to take pork pies off tables. It would be difficult legislation to place on the statute book.
As I said earlier, on the 21,400 occasions when huntsmen hunted last year they did not succeed in causing one of the 250,000 road accidents that injured people. I do not believe that anyone can claim that they are dangerous in any way. One only has to meet

321
a pack of hounds to realise that they are friendly dogs. I have never heard of anyone being injured by them, though perhaps the foxes would not agree.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that this was a fox hunting amendment and as such he could not support it. In fact the amendment forbids people to riot, to be violent and to demonstrate not in a peaceful way, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, described hunt saboteurs being bashed on the head by huntsmen. During the past two or three years a variety of prosecutions have been brought against hunt saboteurs and many have been convicted. I have heard of one prosecution of a hunting person but I have heard of many hunt saboteurs being convicted of trespass. This year a major trespass case involving hunting would not have been heard had the noble Lord's organisation, the League Against Cruel Sports, not footed the legal bill. Had the organisation not offered to do so the case would not have been brought. The argument of trespass and violence involving hunts does not apply because the amendment does not relate to that. It is an attempt to prevent violence.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers said that it was rare for him to be in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Richard. Earlier this afternoon a noble Lord said to me, "When the Government oppose an amendment you have a pretty good idea that the amendment is right. When the Opposition and the Government gang up to oppose an amendment you can be absolutely sure that the amendment is right". I suspect that I am more right today than I have ever been, but we shall see.
I was pleased that my noble friend was able to explain to your Lordships some of the measures that the Government are taking. It appears that the Government have taken the problem on board and are beginning to take it seriously. He told the House that under the auspices of the Home Office a meeting has been arranged in September between the sporting groups, the various hunting organisations and the Association of Chief Police Officers to discuss how levels of policing can be improved in the future. At present they vary enormously from area to area. It appears that in future the Home Office will take a more careful interest in what happens with a view to dealing with violence in the countryside. At a meeting held earlier this week I asked my noble friend whether we could reconvene at the end of the season to see how successful the action has been, and I hope that we shall be able to do so.
I am grateful to my noble friend for the trouble that he, his right honourable friend and the department have taken in order to deal with the problem. I hope that he realises how seriously other noble Lords and people outside the House take the problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 4, line 5, at end insert:
322
("( ) Where a dog causes personal injury to human beings in a public place the owner of the dog is strictly liable for the damage done notwithstanding the provisions of the Animals Act 1971.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I moved a similar amendment in Committee, but I wish to point out that a drafting error in the amendment has occurred because the Bill was changed in Committee. The case of a dog causing personal injury is no longer appropriate. If necessary I can correct my amendment at a later stage.
The measure goes to the heart of the issue of compensation for people who are bitten by dogs. The Government have argued strongly that compulsory third-party insurance is not acceptable and that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is not the proper mechanism for compensating those unfortunate enough to be attacked by dogs. Therefore, it is fundamental that when the Government introduce a Bill which answers public concern about dangerous dogs following serious attacks on children, postmen and others we should deal with the compensatory mechanism.
Anyone bitten or attacked by a dog falls in an anomalous situation under the Animals Act 1971. Although the Act protects livestock it does not offer immediate protection to human beings. Section 2(2) of that Act introduces what has the deceptively attractive description of the "first bite concept". It means that if a dog having once bitten someone then shows a tendency to attack and bite people there is a strong liability on its owner to ensure that it does not do so again, otherwise he will he subject to heavy compensatory damages. I have not had a confrontation with a pit bull terrier but I am told that if such a dog bites someone it is extremely difficult to make the dog let go. Serious injuries can result and the dog may have to be rendered insensible before releasing its grip. Many people are being attacked by all kinds of dogs and they rarely receive compensation. Indeed, they rarely seek compensation because it is extremely difficult to obtain help through the civil law.
On the last occasion the noble Earl said that he understood my point but that the whole question of liability is extremely complex. He said that even if the Bill is the right measure to deal with the problem, which it is not, a more elaborate provision would be required. Such is the problem of attacks on people and the resulting injury and damage that some provision, even if it is elaborate, must be introduced. Why cannot the Government introduce a provision at Third Reading to meet those anxieties?
The problem will not go away. Figures published in 1989 show that about 5,000 postmen are attacked by dogs each year. Indeed, of all the working days lost by the post office, dog attacks account for about 15 per cent. Children on their way to school, old people in parks, and many others are also vulnerable to such unpleasant attacks. People who are attacked are advised that it is extremely difficult to obtain compensation. They say, "Too bad, it's just one of those things. Let's hope that it doesn't happen again".
The situation has long been sufficiently serious for the Government to address the problem of liability. Perhaps the noble Earl will indicate that the

323
Government recognise that compensation is an important part of dealing with dangerous dogs. I hope that he will also say that the Government are considering ways of dealing with the problem even though it requires the tabling of an elaborate amendment at the next stage of the Bill.
I should add that under the present circumstances, the maximum which magistrates can impose in terms of compensation for anyone who is injured is about £2,000. For the kind of injuries which people suffer, described graphically by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, £2,000 is derisory. It is totally inadequate when one thinks of some of the recently publicised cases in which horrifying injuries were sustained. I should have thought that we should be thinking more along the lines of compensation of £20,000 or even £40,000 rather than the present limit of £2.000. If one is successful in a county court, the amount of damages can be considerably greater but in that case one is up against the Animal Act 1971 and the ubiquitous "first bite" concept.
This is a serious matter which needs attention. I believe that the noble Earl recognises that it is a serious matter but he believes that it is so difficult and complex that, in view of the speed with which the Government wish the Bill to reach the statute book, it will be impossible to deal with it. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am rather concerned about the amendment although I understand and sympathise with the reasons for it. We are concerned not with an especially dangerous dog but with any dog which happens to be dangerous because it is out of control. Therefore, as I understand it, it is a proposal of universal application that could apply to a female poodle which runs across the road to find a male poodle, causing a horrible accident in which a person is killed. That is not unknown.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, the error of drafting in my amendment may have misled the noble Lord. I am not concerned with the causing of injury but with the direct result of an attack by a dog on a person. I am dealing with a dog which bites somebody and not the causing of an accident such as the noble Lord described.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I accept without qualification what the noble Viscount says; I always do. However, I am not sure that the scenario which I suggested tentatively could not still exist. I do not argue with the noble Viscount. Perhaps he is right and I am wrong. However, I am rather worried.
The. other problem is that irrespective of the context the noble Viscount is importing strict civil liability. That goes a long way beyond the criminal provisions contained in the Bill and the broad intendment as can be obtained from the Long Title. It is importing a totally new concept of strict civil liability which, if it is to be done, should require a report from the Law Commission. It would have to consider the matter and its importance in the context of dogs which are not especially dangerous but dogs which are dangerously out of control. In that civil context, with the greatest
324
respect, I do not believe it reasonable to ask the Government to legislate and to change the existing common law and case law on this aspect of the matter in a Dangerous Dogs Bill which is concerned only with criminal liability.
I say nothing about the merits. I have admitted that I sympathise with what the noble Viscount said.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway because he put into words of legal substance my views on the matter. I appreciate the anxiety which underlies the noble Viscount's amendment: we all do. When the noble Lord, Lord Richard, spoke to a similar amendment in Committee, he said that the matter was complicated. I do not believe that the Bill is the vehicle in which to vary significantly the complex law on civil liability. That is what the amendment would achieve.
I have looked carefully at the arguments put forward by the noble Viscount in Committee in support of the amendment establishing in law a strict liability for dog attacks and I have listened carefully to the points raised today, all of which are wholly understandable. I have great sympathy with the aim of ensuring that it is easier for the victims of attacks by dogs to claim from owner's insurance.
This is an issue full of complications. I am advised that if we wished to go down the route of strict liability we would need a rather more elaborate amendment than the one we are considering at the moment. To extend the cover more widely we would need to change the legal basis on which animal related liability is based and this would involve amending parts of the Animal Act 1971. We would not wish to do that without considerable thought and, as I said, I am not at all persuaded that major changes to the law on civil liability would sit comfortably in a Bill which up to now has been confined to the control of dogs and certain criminal offences.
What is more I do not think that we need to contemplate such significant changes in the context of this Bill. After it becomes law, the dogs about which we are most concerned—fighting dogs like pit bull terriers—will all be muzzled and the risk of accident or injury must significantly decrease. To change the law in relation to all other dogs seems to me to be going too far at this stage.
As noble Lords will appreciate, one of the things which the Bill does is to create a clear criminal offence in Clause 3(1) and Clause 3(3). As a result, a court can make a compensation order in any case where it wishes to do so. Clause 3(5) allows courts to take action to require any dog to be better controlled. The owner of a dog which bites a postman more than once is clearly liable in civil law for the damage caused.
For the first time in this Bill, victims of attacks by dogs should be able to gain immediate redress. That may provide the best answer to the noble Viscount's anxieties, which I understand. However, the amendment would make quite severe inroads into the legislation relating to civil liability. Therefore, perhaps the noble Viscount will be content with my assurances.
Lord Monson: My Lords, my name is attached to this amendment and I have not yet had a chance to

325
speak to it. I appreciate what the noble Earl said, but I must take him up on one point. He says that the Bill is concerned mainly with the dangerous dogs specified in Clause 1 and potentially specified in Clause 2. However, in London only 23 per cent. of serious attacks were carried out by pit bull terriers which leaves 77 per cent. of attacks carried out by other dogs.
It is fine to take action against the 23 per cent. but that still leaves open a huge field of attacks on people who suffer severe and enduring injury and receive no compensation. It may be that the amendment is imperfect and we may have to return with something different at the next stage. However, it is not sufficient for the Government to say that they have dealt with the pit bull terriers and the Tosas, with one or two other helpful improvements in Clause 3 which have been mentioned, and leave it at that. We must address the injuries suffered by people in attacks from all kinds of dogs and not simply the dangerous dogs specified in Clause 1.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply. I appreciate that my amendment may be inadequate to deal with the larger problems which it brings out. Again, I should like to consider the matter. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, for his intervention. I always respect what he says. He firmly supports the noble Earl in that this is an area which requires careful attention and this may not be the place to introduce it, at any rate in this form.
I accept the assurances given by the noble Earl and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Lord Richard Lord Richard had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Right to claim compensation
. Persons who suffer injury from dogs dangerously out of control, whether in a public place or elsewhere, and whose injuries are attested to by a general medical practitioner or other suitably qualified medical person, and a police officer, shall where the owner of such a dog cannot be identified or traced, be eligible for compensation upon application to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in respect of such injuries.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this morning I received a letter from the Minister dealing with the specific point raised in Amendment No. 15. I should like time to consider all its implications. It appeared to be pessimistic on the issue and I should not like to mislead the House that there was any great meat in it. I shall not move the amendment at this stage but shall revert to the matter perhaps at the next stage.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Destruction and disqualification orders]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 4, leave out line 38 and insert ("treated for the purposes of enforcement as if it were a fine imposed on conviction.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 17, I shall speak also to
326
Amendments Nos. 18 and 19. These are largely technical amendments but respond again to the anxieties expressed in your Lordships' House at Committee stage. As I said then, the formula adopted in the Bill of recovering as a civil debt the costs of destroying a dog and of keeping it has been followed in a number of pieces of animal legislation hitherto. Unfortunately, with this formula, there are difficulties in enforcing the recovery of those costs, particularly in Scotland and lower courts in England and Wales.
We therefore brought forward these amendments so that the recovery of costs is enforceable. Amendment No. 17 does the trick for England and Wales. Amendment No. 19 similarly works for Scotland, where civil diligence is the proper formula. I urge your Lordships to accept the amendments which fully meet the anxieties expressed at Committee stage. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 5, line 20, leave out ("and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 5, line 20, at end insert:
("(bb) for subsection (5) there shall be substituted—
"(5) Section 411 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 shall apply in relation to the recovery of sums ordered to be paid under subsection (4) (b) above as it applies to fines ordered to be recovered by civil diligence in pursuance of Part II of that Act."; and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Seizure, entry of premises and evidence]:
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 5. line 37, at end insert:
("(1A) The Secretary of State shall within three months of the coming into effect of this section lay before Parliament a statement that he is satisfied that the resources available in the first relevant financial year. or years, to police authorities and local authorities are sufficient to secure the effective implementation of their duties in relation to the control of dangerous and stray dogs, including duties arising under subsection (1) above.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we moved an amendment at Committee stage which was along the same lines as Amendment No. 20. The reason we are bringing it back is that we are still worried that the level of resources being made available to police and local authorities to carry out their duties under the Bill is insufficient.
The AMA survey of its authorities suggests that it makes little sense to separate out the functions of dealing with dogs under this Bill from the wider duties of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It believes that the categories under this Bill are dangerous and therefore it is wrong not to include it with the EPA. For example, it is possible that local authority animal welfare and dog wardens may be called to deal with an incident which proves to be a dangerous dog matter. It will initially involve duties under the EPA because the dog is or appears to be untagged and a stray. In that situation who takes responsibility and pays the price for whatever initial work has to be undertaken?
At Committee stage the Minister said that £250,000 will be sufficient to cover incidental expenses that the police and local authorities will incur in enforcing this legislation. I remember he estimated that the cost would be at a rate of around 10 dangerous dog cases per local authority per year. We will be grateful to learn on what basis that figure was arrived at and how the cost was calculated. It. is at variance with what the AMA believes to be the case.
The AMA believes that local authorities and the police service will be faced with complex calls upon time and resources both under this legislation and under the EPA. It believes that an integrated approach is required not least because legislation has raised a great deal of public expectations. Placing some aspects of the Government's non-registration scheme out to an agency will also complicate the matter further. It is an area under the Bill about which we know very little.
Local authorities take the view that an integrated service, based on the fact that most authorities have an animal welfare service, will provide the best approach. It is possible that the Government, with their usual feeling for local government, failed to recognise the importance of providing a service which people understand and is acceptable to the public.
Finally, perhaps I may say that we do not believe the sums needed will be very high. Therefore an annual report on resources plus consultations with local authorities will easily settle disputes over the effectiveness of the service. Under the Bill as presently drafted a major problem could develop with no clear guidance on who takes the lead or counts the cost. The amendment asks for clearer guidance to be issued to the police service and local authorities covering dangerous dogs and the EPA provisions. The amendment will in no way disadvantage the Bill. There can be few objections to it and it will provide the assurances needed. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was interested by what the noble Baroness said in regard to the costs which will result because of the Bill. Without any disrespect to her, I believe that she is making a meal of the matter. I am sorry that the explanation that I gave at Committee stage regarding the financial effects of the Bill did not satisfy the noble Baroness. I shall try to do better now.
The amendment is framed in terms of the general duties of local authorities and police authorities for the control of dangerous and stray dogs. It therefore includes matters which go much wider than the Bill. It includes the enforcement of the Government's Action on Dogs package, which is due to come into force on 1st April 1992. That may or may not involve more resources. Whether it does so is extraneous to what is required under the Bill.
The Government are obliged to take into account any new duties which might fall on local authorities when they set levels of rate support grant. The Action on Dogs package clearly contains new duties for local authorities to round up, detain and dispose of strays and to enforce the collar and tag legislation. Those duties are set out in Sections 149 to 151 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
328
I understand that the Department of the Environment, which is responsible for the Action on Dogs package, met the local authority associations yesterday to discuss the new duties which will fall on local authorities next year. The local authority associations have told us that they are likely to spend £15 million or more a year on the extra duties which will fall on dog wardens as a result of the Action on Dogs package so they should have resources available for the seizure of dangerous dogs. I can assure your Lordships that the financial implications for local authorities under Clause 5 are only a very modest part of the duties which will fall to them generally.
In making sure that there are resources to cover additional burdens of this sort, it is very important that central Government and the local authority associations should get together to discuss the details. That is the process which is going on at the moment. It is up to the local authorities to make their case and for central Government to respond accordingly.
We have discussed with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Metropolitan Police the duties which will fall to the police service under the Bill. The police service in general has welcomed the powers which the Bill gives them to tackle dangerous dogs. It has also welcomed the fact that, as I have made clear to your Lordships, the arrangements which we have devised for administering the exemption and compensation schemes will ensure that police involvement in that aspect is kept to the absolute minimum. That is desirable both on grounds of cost and of efficiency, so that the police are not involved in processing paperwork but are able to do more productive things.
As regards the Bill, the task of the police and local authorities is relatively small. It is mainly seizing pit bull terriers and prosecuting their owners who break the terms of the certificates of exemption. The task also involves the seizure of dogs which are dangerously out of control and the prosecution of their owners. That is already done under the Dogs Act legislation. Under the terms of the Bill I do not believe that any of these measures should be expensive.
I can assure your Lordships that the usual processes are taking place already by which local and police authorities set their budgets in order to take account of any new burdens which might be placed on them. The Department of the Environment has already met the local authority associations to discuss all these matters. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will be satisfied. Although she may be concerned about the position of local authorities as regards the Action on Dogs package, the effects of the Bill on financial resources are quite slender.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the position so clearly, and also for telling us about the consultations which have taken place with the local authority associations. He did not say whether they have agreed that the estimated costs of their involvement under the Bill will he as low as the sum mentioned. However, I can only hope that the local authorities are satisfied. Having heard the Minister's explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 6, line 11, at beginning insert ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 22 to 24. They all stand or fall together. Amendment No. 23, subject to your Lordships' view, cannot be put to a Division in its present form because Amendment No. 1 to Clause 1 (1) (c) must substitute "type" for "dog" in Amendment No. 23. Therefore, my amendment is defective and cannot be put to a Division. I am assuming that that is the case.
The effect of the amendment is to mitigate the rigours of the statutory regime under which there is an absolute offence created under Clause 1(2). There the Secretary of State designates a dog of a type which appears to him to have the characteristics of a type bred for fighting, notwithstanding the difficulties to which my noble friends Lord Radnor and Lord Peyton of Yeovil. referred.
Clause 5(5) presumes that the dog is a prohibited dog unless the accused shows to the contrary. My amendment is entirely fair and reasonable. I am not trying to alter the presumption. I am saying that,
"a duly qualified veterinary surgeon who has examined the dog … shall identify the type of dog … the characteristics of a dog or the type of dog which presents a serious danger".
There are three categories and these can be shown on a certificate. That is not very onerous. As a matter of courtesy, I had a word with my noble friend the Minister. He wrote me a letter which I have just received. I hope that it is in order for me to refer to it. There was argument which I shall not go into at the moment. In the letter he says:
"The British Veterinary Association have told us that there should he very little difficulty in proving that a dog is not a pit bull terrier".
We are not only concerned with pit bull terriers. There are three categories of dogs in the amendment which have to be identified. If there is any difficulty in proving that something is not something, it must be far easier, in a sense, to prove that it is something. I cannot see any form of reason or logic in this approach. There are three types of dog involved. Why should not the vet identify the types? Then the accused, 99 times out of a 100, will admit the veterinary certificate, as I said on the last occasion. That would be a reasonable resolution.
I shall be grateful to any noble Lord who is willing to spare a moment to comment on this matter because, for the reason I have mentioned, I do not believe that I am in order in putting the issue to a Division although I have given notice of the intention to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I do not know whether Amendment No. 23 is defective in another respect beside that mentioned by the noble Lord at the beginning of his speech. I notice that it refers to a "trial", and Amendment No. 24 refers to the "hearing". I take it that these two words mean the same thing. In that case, it is always a good idea to use
330
the same word if you mean the same thing because it stops people arguing that Parliament must mean different things if it uses different words.
However, more important than that, Amendment No. 24 states that if the accused wishes to rebutt evidence given by the prosecution, he has to give notice,
"not later than 5 days prior to the hearing".
In most cases, the hearing is on an uncertain date. There may be a fixed date for a criminal trial; but usually the case is part of a long list and it is expected to be reached by a certain date. However, some of the cases in front of it in the list will take longer than expected, and others will collapse unexpectedly. It is quite uncertain what is to be the date on which the hearing is to take place. Would it not be much more sensible to start with the date when the accused is summoned to appear before the court, to go forward from there and say that if the accused wishes to rebut evidence he must give notice to the prosecution within so many days after the certain date upon which he is summoned to appear before the court? I submit that doing it in the way that the amendment suggests is unfair to the accused.
7 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am bound to say that I have some sympathy with these amendments. I shall deal first with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. Those of us who practise in the courts know only too well that it is very true that one cannot guarantee the date upon which a trial will take place. On the other hand. I have not known of any case in which a trial has taken place in advance of the date for which it was fixed. What inevitably happens is that one does not get on on the date that one expects. Therefore, the hearing is postponed.
If someone is under an obligation to give five days' notice in advance of a hearing and a date is fixed for, say, 1st November, if the defendant gives his notice five days before and the case is then adjourned then no damage is done. The only damage would be if the defendant gives five days' notice before 1st November and the case is heard on 27th October; then he may find himself out of time. Therefore, I do not think that the practicalities of the argument justify the criticisms made by the noble Lord.
I am bound to say that I find in this package of amendments that my lawyer's instinct and my anti-dangerous dogs instinct to a certain extent seem to conflict. I do not like the situation in which the onus is placed firmly upon a defendant merely on the say-so of the prosecutor. As Clause 5(5) stands that is its effect when the prosecutor alleges that,
"a dog is one to which Section I or an order under Section 2 above applies it shall be presumed that it is such a dog"
unless the defence is in a position to disprove it.
There is something to be said for an amendment in which the discharge of that responsibility by the prosecution is spelt out in perhaps more detail than merely the rather balder provision in the Bill, which is that all the prosecutor has to do is to make an allegation. To that extent I find attractive the general thrust of the approach of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in which

331
he specifies that there has to be some veterinary evidence upon which that presumption is to be based in the future. I do not quite understand why in his last amendment he has picked five days as opposed to 14 days Dr 21 days, which is what the clause at present states. I suppose that figure has been plucked out of the air. If it were 10 days that would give the prosecution plenty of time if it wished to try to rebut the defence evidence. I think that might be an improvement.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway was kind enough to write to me to let me know the reasoning behind his amendments. He was good enough to speak to me about them as well and for that I am grateful. As he quite rightly said, I wrote to him about the matter. I am only sorry that the letter was so late in arriving.
We all share the obvious anxiety behind the amendment, which is that we should be as fair as possible to those accused of the criminal offences in Clause 1 of the Bill. In order to secure that aim my noble friend would place the burden on the prosecution to prove that the dog in question was a pit hull terrier rather than on the accused person, where it lies at the moment, to prove that the dog in question was not a pit hull terrier.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that he found that his lawyer's interest was in conflict with his dangerous dogs interest.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl. I do not think that the effect of the amendment is technically to put the onus upon the prosecution. The onus under subsection (5) would remain on the defence but the prosecution would be able to make its allegation merely by the production of a vet's certificate. That is how I understand it.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, whatever the niceties, the fact is that my noble friend's amendment does raise a very serious point.
As I have said during earlier stages of the Bill, there is no precise scientific way of defining a pit bull terrier in law. It is a cross-breed dog. However, we can meet my noble friend's concern to protect innocent people from injustice by making a simple adjustment to the wording of Clause 5(5). I shall come to that point in a moment.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I said a few words about the reason why, in drafting the Bill, we placed the burden of proof on the accused. It is very widely known, particularly among those who breed and deal in fighting dogs, that the Government are taking action to prohibit the pit bull terrier. Everyone knows that. Those who trade in these dogs have had good notice of what the Bill will do. The offence of possessing or having custody of a fighting dog will not come into effect until November. Those who own these dogs will therefore have some three months to ascertain, in cases where there might be a doubt, whether or not the dog which they own is a pit bull terrier. That would surely be the first step taken by any sensible person who wished to take advantage of the exemption scheme and where he thought there was
332
any doubt. He would consult a veterinary surgeon or some other expert for his opinion as to whether the dog was a pit bull terrier and whether it would therefore be caught under the Bill. The British Veterinary Association has told us that there should be very little difficulty in proving that a dog is not a pit bull terrier. In many cases, therefore, those who own these dogs will at an early stage know for certain that the dog which they own is a pit bull terrier. That is an important point.
Perhaps we could consider what the burden of proof means. It centres on a simple fact. Is the dog in question a pit bull terrier or is it not? In that respect, the Clause 1 offences are somewhat different from other criminal offences in the general law in which the burden of proof which is placed on the accused person goes beyond a simple matter of fact to questions of intent or motivation. The requirement in Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which requires a person to prove that he had good reason or lawful authority for having a knife with him in a public place, is a good example.
There is nothing comparable to that in the Clause 1 offences. There is no question of proving a person's intent or motivation. I do not think that there would be an injustice inherent in requiring the owner rather than the prosecution to prove the question of fact. My fear is that if it were up to the prosecution to prove it, it would greatly add to the complexity of criminal proceedings and to the time taken by the courts to deal with what should be a straighforward question. The prosecution would have to prove on each occasion that the animal in question was a pit bull terrier.
I appreciate that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway is anxious to be fair to those accused of offences and I share his aim. I have studied the points which he raised at Committee stage and the points which he has made to me in person and in writing. I hope that we can be helpful in some respect. I accept that if the burden of proof is to remain on the defendant—as I strongly believe that it should—then it is only fair to give the defendant a reasonable time to bring forward his own evidence on the simple question of fact. At present there is a requirement in Clause 5(5) for him to bring forward evidence no later than 21 days before the trial. It would he reasonable in the circumstances to allow the person to have a little longer, and I am happy to bring forward on Third Reading an amendment which would give an accused person longer and enable him to bring forward evidence up to 14 days before the trial. I made that point in the letter that I wrote to my noble friend. I hope that he will agree that that concession goes at least some way towards meeting his anxieties. I hope that he will be content with the assurance that I have given him.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and my noble friend the Minister for his concession which, as he said, goes some way towards dealing with the procedural rigours and the unsatisfactory sense of oppression which arises for the defence; but it does not deal with the main problem with which your Lordships are concerned. The Government propose that the accused

333
person shall be convicted on the say so of the Crown without proof by a veterinary certificate. One can never get away from that fact.
It is easy to produce a veterinary certificate, as my noble friend says in his letter. In all fairness, those advising my noble friend must have misunderstood the position, because we are not just interested in pit bull terriers; we are interested in three categories of dog. Clause 5(5) relates to a dog:
"to which section I or an order under section 2 above applies".
Clause 1 has, as we all know, within it two types of dog. It relates to pit bull terriers and the adorable Tosa. They are in one category. It then relates to dogs which have the characteristics of a type, or the other way around, which appear to the Secretary of State to be bred for fighting. There are two categories. Those characteristics are not so readily identifiable unless they are specified, as I have sought to suggest in the amendment.
The matter does not even end there, because my noble friend the Minister says, "Pit bull terrier, pit bull terrier, pit bull terrier", and refers to no other dog or dog having the characteristics of a particular dog or type of dog; but there is the other type of dog—the especially dangerous dog. Surely the accused is entitled to be told, by a veterinary certificate, whether the dog, which is a dog to which an order under Clause 2 applies, is within the category of a prohibited dog because it is especially dangerous.
I shall not go into this matter at greater length. I am grateful to your Lordships for your indulgence and assistance. I merely wished to put the logical objection to the Minister's presentation before the House so that consideration might be given on the next occasion to the problems that arise. I did take "5 days" out of the air, as suspected by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I thought that there would be an adjournment and that five days seemed fair enough. I accept that when the matter returns, the provision should be 10 days. At this hour your Lordships would not wish me to respond to the most helpful suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdrawn the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 22 to 24 not moved.]
7.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 25:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
Offences by young persons
(" .—(1) Where a person who is less than sixteen years old commits an offence under—

(a) section 1(2) (d) or (e) above or any corresponding provision of an order under section 2 above; or

(b) section 3(1) or (3) above,

the head of the household, if any, of which that person is a member may (whether or not proceedings are or could be taken against that person) be proceeded against and punished as if the offence had been committed by him.
(2) In subsection (1) above the reference to the commission of an offence by a person who is less than sixteen years old includes a reference to conduct which, but for that person's age, would constitute the commission by him of that offence.
(3) In the application of this section to Scotland for the reference to the head of the household of which the person in question is a member there shall be substituted a reference to the person who has his actual care and control.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, raised the question of the owner and keeper of a dog and how we should take account of the fact that children and minors may own or keep dogs and yet cannot, or should not, be held accountable for them in the same way as their parents.
We have looked carefully at the question of the use of the word "keeper". I have a number of letters from people who believe that "keeper" is the better word. There are indeed a number of precedents for using it and I understand why the noble Lord raised the point he did in Committee. However, we still feel that the phrase which is used throughout the Bill of,
"the person for the time being in charge of the dog"
is the right one. That is the phrase used repeatedly throughout the Bill. In Committee I gave the example that if I were walking my dog and it slipped its lead and galloped over a meadow, there could be a doubt as to whether I was its keeper. However, I should be:
"the person for the time being in charge of the dog".
There can be no doubt about that. That phraseology is a simple concept which works better and more generally than the term "keeper" in the particular circumstances of the Bill. I do not believe that there would be any advantage in using the word "keeper" and there may be disadvantage.
The amendment goes on to pass to the head of the household liability for the actions of a young person under 16. That also reflects concerns expressed by your Lordships. However, in our enthusiasm to meet those concerns, I am afraid that we may have gone too far. The amendment as drafted would extend criminal liability to the parent of a boy who did his neighbour a good turn by taking his dog out for a walk. We do not consider it right that the boy's parents should be so included. That should not be a problem in practice. The Bill is drafted to give discretion to prosecuting authorities to choose whether to bring charges against, for instance, the owner or the,
"person for the time being in charge of the dog".
In the case of the boy taking out his neighbour's dog and an offence having been committed, it would be perverse of the prosecuting authorities to use this amendment to choose to prosecute the boy's parents rather than the dog's owner. I am sure that it would not happen in practice.
Nevertheless, I believe that we should take the opportunity of Third Reading to correct the drafting. The amendment should probably not go wider than covering the case where the youngster is the owner of the dog for which his parents should also accept responsibility. In any other case, the Bill already provides that the owner can be held accountable.
I hope that your Lordships will accept the amendment on the understanding that on Third Reading I shall make a further amendment to cover that point. I beg to move.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I listened with great interest to what the Minister said. Would it not be better if he took the clause back and returned with it, as amended, on Third Reading rather than we pass it

335
now, so to speak, blind and then see what amendment the Government might wish to introduce on Third Reading? I make that suggestion because it seems to me to fit the position rather better than the one made by the Minister.
Lard Kilbracken: My Lords, I wonder whether I might ask the Minister a couple of questions. Can he say who the head of the household is in an ordinary family? Does not that lend itself to a certain amount of argument as to whether it is the father or the mother where it is not established by legislation? The second point is: what will happen in the case of a child who is at boarding school or staying with friends or relations 300 or 400 miles away from his house? It seems rather unfair that if a child commits one of these offenses when he is at a boarding school the head of the house in which he is living 100 miles away should be in any way responsible. In the same way, if he leaves England and goes to stay with friends in Scotland and the event happens there, how does the head of his household, who is back home in England, have anything to do with it?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, put forward a few examples. I am still trying mentally to run along with him to see whether I can give him the correct answers. If I may, I should like to consider what he said and contact him later. The main point is that there should be reference to the person who is in charge of the dog at the time. Obviously, if the person concerned was under the age of 16, the responsibility may be placed not on him but on the actual owner of the dog. However, as I said, I should like to study what the noble Lord said with more care.
As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I thought that it was important to table this amendment because it meets the concerns of many people. However, having put it down, we then realised that we would be meeting the concerns of your Lordships if we were to amend it still further. Therefore, I thought it would be convenient to explain what was in our minds and to point out that we shall amend it further at Third Reading.
However, I am entirely in your Lordships' hands. If noble Lords would prefer me to withdraw the amendment now and produce another on Third Reading, I am content to do so. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, nods his head in assent. Of course, I am always willing to be helpful. If that is the case, I shall withdraw the amendment on the basis that I shall return at Third Reading with a similar one appropriately amended. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 7, line 9, at end insert ("but references to a dog injuring a person or there being grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will do so do not include references to any case in which the dog is being used for a lawful purpose by a constable or a person in the service of the Crown.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in bringing forward this amendment I was much influenced by the
336
points raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, in Committee. He was concerned about a point originally raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, on Second Reading. The amendment recognises the sort of issues my noble friend Lord Radnor had in mind when he moved his amendment to Clause 2 earlier. I do not think that, in the great majority of cases, the police or the military need fear falling foul of the "dangerously out of control" offences in Clause 3. The noble Viscount was right to make the point in Committee that animals used by the police are trained to the highest standards and are controlled with consummate skill and professionalism by their handlers.
However, no one can guarantee that there will not be incidents in which police dogs injure people. That may be for a very good reason; for example, an action by a police dog to stop a criminal making good his escape from lawful custody. It is not impossible that accidents will happen. In any event it seems entirely right, as the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, suggested, that the police and those who use dogs in the service of the Crown should be given protection if their dogs cause "reasonable apprehension" of injury, or injure people.
We both had the same idea but the credit for the amendment must go to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, who has been concerned about this matter for some time. I beg to move.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I should just like to say how grateful I am to the noble Viscount and, indeed, to the noble Earl for their full response to the concerns which I expressed in Committee. Those concerns have borne fruit in the Government's amendment. I received a telephone call this morning from the chief inspector who is in charge of dogs for the Metropolitan Police area. He was overjoyed with the amendment because he was most concerned—as, indeed, were other police officers—about the problems they may have faced had such an amendment not been tabled by the Government. I am extremely grateful. I assure the noble Viscount that all those who are concerned with dogs that come within the ambit of the amendment feel likewise.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, while I agree that the amendment should be included in the Bill, there is no doubting the fact that the legislation will raise questions as to what dogs the police will be permitted to use. At present, so far as I am aware, the dogs being used by the police are not prohibited under the Bill. For example, I am not aware that the police are using pit bull terriers, and they are certainly not using Japanese Tosas.
However, the moment the police are allowed to use dogs that are prohibited—that is, if such a situation ever occurs—the issue arises as to whether the police should be allowed to use dogs which are so fierce and dangerous while the public citizen may never have one for his own protection. Having come into contact with police training of dogs and having witnessed a demonstration at Crufts by the police of their dogs,

337
there can be no doubt that, for sheer ferocity and danger, they are a very formidable form of police protection. They will even attack in riot conditions.
I believe that we may have to raise the question of using live animals in riot control. It is a savage way of dealing with alleged rioters. In many cases, people are not rioting; they are merely being crushed and swept along with the crowd. I utter the warning that I think the issue of the use of dogs by the police, in view of the terms of this Bill, may well arise in a future criminal justice or police Bill. For the present, we can leave police dogs out of the matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 7, line 14, at end insert:
("( ) The operation of this Act shall be subject to review not later than 30th November 1993.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the final amendment to be considered on Report. It is a peculiar Bill. I say that because it may not be an ongoing Bill. Its purpose is, in due course, to bring the dogs provided for in the Bill under control, to prohibit breeding and to encourage euthanasia. As I said, it is not an ongoing Bill; it is a Bill which will shortly have exhausted its purpose.
Unless new breeds of dogs are brought in which have a population within our boundaries, there will be no work for the Bill to do. The ban and the prohibition for the future can remain, but its operation among citizens will be redundant. None of us can foresee how the Bill will work in practice, how enforcement will be made possible, what problems will arise if enforcement is difficult and what problems may arise if there is a considerable amount of passive resistance.
All those aspects raise question marks over the future of the Bill. Therefore, it is important that it should not be allowed to linger on. Although I do not expect noble Lords on the Benches opposite still to be occupying those Benches in 1993, I think that they may nevertheless take and interest in the appropriateness of the Bill undergoing review. Quite apart from all else, by 1993 I shall be 95 and it will give me a purpose in life. I should like to see the end of this wretched Bill. If I can possibly survive to 95 to see it reviewed and abolished I might even live a bit longer. In those circumstances I have a personal interest to declare. I want to be here when this Bill is finally discontinued because it is of no further value to the nation. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am bound to say that I was not in favour of my noble friend's amendment, but I regard his final argument as a clincher.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I liked the noble Lord's final argument too. We all hope that he will be here in five years' time, but not to see the end of this Bill. He might not be here in five years' time if he goes on hugging Tosas. It really is a dangerous occupation. I somehow got the impression throughout this Bill that
338
the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is not greatly enamoured with it. It is a good Bill. It has a fairly limited effect, which is to try to deal with dangerous dogs.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, says that it will be finished in five years' time. Of course that is not so. Clause 1 deals with fighting dogs, and it may be that it will have had its effect. The reserve powers of Clause 2 will still exist for use in the future, should it be necessary that certain dogs ought to be muzzled or kept on a lead. Clause 3 refers to all the powers for keeping dogs under control. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, would like to see all that go. I think the noble Lord was in error to think that Clause 3 would be of no use five years' hence.
His method of dealing with it is to write into the Bill a requirement that the Government would review the operation of the Act by 1993. Of course the noble Lord does not say what the Government should do once they have reviewed the Act. I suppose he has in mind that they should let your Lordships know the outcome of the review. Of course the noble Lord knows very well that the Government keep all Acts continuously under review, and if he wants to know what is happening he can, as he knows only too well and as he does only too well, put down Questions to find out the position.
It goes without saying that we shall be keeping the operation of this Bill under close scrutiny. In doing this we are aware that at any time your Lordships can put down a Question and ask the Government to report on the operation of this or any other piece of legislation. That is the best way to ensure that the operation of the Act is kept under review. I can tell the noble Lord that we shall collect statistics of the prosecutions—we are great collectors of statistics—for the various offences under the Act, and we shall review its operation.
In five years' time if the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, cares to—and I do not invite him to do so —he can put down a Question as to how the Act is operating, and I hope that I shall be able to be here to tell him how it is working. I think that that is the best way to deal with it, and not to have his amendment in the Bill.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I do not know where this five years comes from, because 1993 is not five years' time, it just happens to be my 95th birthday that year.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I may say so, that was the confusion. The noble Lord used the number five in his argument, and that was why I inconveniently thought that it was five years' time, but of course it was the noble Lord's 95th birthday.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment, because I think that in all the circumstances I can take steps to get the workings of the Act reviewed before 1993 probably just as effectively as if I included it in the Bill. I agree that the amendment does not say what the Government should do. Usually when you ask somebody to review something they understand that

339
you want to take stock of how far it has gone, its purpose, how it is working, and then come to some conclusion about the future.
However, I can excuse the noble Earl for having no particular concentration on this item; he may well be a Member of your Lordships' House but I doubt whether he will be sitting where he is now. Anyhow, there is no ill feeling anywhere on either side as to who will survive to review this Act. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Business
7.35 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I think it may be for the convenience of the House if the Third Reading of the Ports Bill be postponed and that we now take the Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill. Unless therefore any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Third Reading of the Ports Bill be postponed until after the Third Reading of the Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill
7.36 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. The Government believe that an industrial enterprise such as the Atomic Weapons Establishment, which deals with every stage in the life of a product from conception through manufacture to eventual dismantling, would be operated more efficiently in the private sector. The industrial management expertise which AWE needs is readily available in the private sector, and A private sector contractor would have greater flexibility to offer the terms and conditions of service necessary to deal with AWE's recruitment and retention difficulties. That is why we have decided to introduce contractor operation at AWE, and the purpose of this Bill is to provide the framework within which that process will take place.
I would like to thank all the noble Lords who have taken part in the debates on this Bill, which explored the issues associated with the Bill in considerable depth. Among my noble friends I would like to give particular thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, and also my noble friend Lord Strathmore who has valiantly acted as winged Mercury twixt Box and Bench. I also thank the noble Lords opposite, and in particular the noble Lords, Lord Williams, Lord Mayhew and, although he is not here, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, whose speeches, although robust, have nevertheless been considered and courteous. From the Cross-Benches, the noble Lords, Lord Chalfont and Lord Sherfield—whom I am pleased to see in his place and Lord Zuckerman, have given us the benefit of their considerable experience and expertise.
I would also like to pay tribute to the staff of AWE.
340
It is a great credit to their hard work and dedication that the Trident warhead programme remains on schedule to meet the entry into service of the first submarine in the mid-1990s. The fact that change is needed if the requirements of the later stages of the programme are to be met does not reflect on them. Although it is natural that staff will be concerned about the implications for them of the change in AWE's status, we believe that they will come to see the benefits of working for a major and successful private sector contractor with a secure programme of work.
We are convinced that the introduction of contractor operation will not only ensure that the Atomic Weapons Establishment meets the requirements of the Trident programme, but will also he the basis for an efficient, effective, and safe establishment for the foreseeable future. This short Bill provides the framework within which contractor operation can be introduced, and it therefore deserves the support of your Lordships' House. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill he now read a third time.—(The Earl of Arran.)
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, it will be no surprise to the noble Earl that I repeat what I said at Second Reading: we are opposed in principle and detail to this Bill. This Bill will now leave your Lordships' House unamended despite our efforts on this side to incorporate amendments on the face of the Bill. Our only comfort—and I say this as a comfort —is that the noble Earl in the course of our debates has indicated that the contract will not be let until the end of 1992. By that time certain events will have taken place and it may well he that the contract will never be let at all. I wish to leave your Lordships in no doubt whatever that such is our opposition in principle to this Bill that, should my party take office after the next General Election, we will not implement this Bill.
We have had discussions on a number of points. As the noble Earl said, we have recognised that there needs to be improved performance in the Atomic Weapons Establishment. We accept that, but we remain of the view that if the Government wished to improve the performance of the AWE, they could do so without contractorisation. The prospect of contractorisation has caused enormous anxiety and disturbance in the workforce. It has already led to resignations and, to date, even under phase 1 it has not led to any improvement in the performance of AWE. Furthermore, the Government have produced no hard evidence that contractorisation will improve that performance. All experience in the United States of what are known as GOCO operations points to major problems in store.
If we are going down the route of GOCO operations in AWE, a second question arises: are the Government right in making sure that foreign ownership in the contractor is allowed? We had a debate on the matter in Committee and we divided on it. We remain unrepentant about our view. We believe that there is British expertise, properly managed and properly run, which could make AWE a successful and sensible enterprise. After all, it produces the weapons of mass destruction on which our nuclear

341
force is based. I have said before to the noble Earl and I have no hesitation in repeating that I find it extraordinary that the Government are prepared to allow foreign ownership of the contractor that will run our nuclear warhead production. It is not only production, but research into the effects of the warheads that will be produced.
We have had debates on the role of the compliance office. We still have no information about its size, how it will be staffed, what its precise functions will be. We do not even have an assurance that it is to be brought into existence with a full complement in sufficient time for contractorisation. The main argument of the Government for not including the role of the compliance office in the Bill seems to be constitutional, that they do not wish to bind the Secretary of State. However, as I pointed out, there are many areas where the Secretary of State is bound by Acts of Parliament and by organisations set up under Acts of Parliament. So we are still left in the dark about the compliance office.
We have no further information about the contract. We have only discussed it in so far as the noble Earl told us that the contract would not be available and anyway it is classified. Nevertheless, there must be some idea of what will be in the invitation to tender. By now it must be drafted in a reasonable form. I believe that the House of Lords and the House of Commons—if I may use those expressions—the Houses of Parliament, should be entitled in this important matter to see what the invitation to tender contains.
After our previous debates the noble Earl will be aware that there is considerable anxiety in the workforce about pensions and redundancy and the conditions of employment under contractorisation. My advice to the noble Earl is that there is considerable bitterness on the part of the workforce that they may well be forced out of their existing pension arrangements. Despite the assurances which have been given on the creation of a new funded pension scheme, it is still perfectly possible that the pension scheme could become underfunded and thus unable to meet its commitments. That could easily happen in a position where there is a high rate of inflation or a low rate of return on investments, which is prejudicial to the fund. For that reason, we pressed strongly that there should be a guarantee that pension provisions should be no worse than at present under the legislation.
Another question worries the workforce which I have to express to the noble Earl. Neither the Government, in any form whatever, nor the Ministry of Defence in the narrow form will give any guarantee that individuals who wish to remain with the Ministry of Defence will be able to do so. Those who are on mobile grades who would formerly have moved around the Ministry of Defence have now been trapped in AWE. If we are to believe the noble Earl, they are now to be forced out of the Civil Service and will be unable to pursue wider careers. If he can give us any assurance about that, I should be grateful.
In general, I regret the Bill. It is a bad Bill, the operation is a bad operation and one that we shall not implement if we come into office. Having said that, I must return the compliments that the noble Earl paid and thank him very much for his courtesy and that of the noble Earl, Lord Strathmore, in making sure that the Opposition was kept fully informed about developments. They communicated with us on a courteous, sensible and constructive basis. I only wish that the noble Earl had a better Bill to support.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, we on these Benches also consider the Bill to be a bad one. Whether we shall implement it if we come to power, I am not at present in a position to say; but we share the strong misgivings of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. We have expressed them throughout all stages of the Bill.
It is ironic that we should be passing the Bill the day after the Russians and Americans have agreed to reduce their strategic nuclear warheads by 30 per cent. to 6,000 each. In the meantime, we are passing a Bill to fulfil the Government's extraordinary aim of doubling and redoubling the number of our strategic nuclear warheads by the mid-1990s.
What, we may ask, has happened in the world to require Britain to double and redouble her strategic nuclear capability in the mid-1990s? Perhaps it is some small reassurance to us on these Benches that if the Bill does not succeed in expediting the production of Britain's nuclear warheads, it may be that the Government will find themselves in the mid-1990s with a smaller number of nuclear warheads than they plan, nearer the number we believe appropriate to the country at the time.
There have been no amendments to the Bill. It should have been amended on the subject of foreign share ownership. It should have been amended to spell out the status, constitution and size of the compliance office. It is a great shame that the powerful arguments made on those points did not yield an amendment from the noble Earl. However, in his defence I must say that as the Bill proceeded his language improved a little on one or two of the points. As regards foreign ownership he gave us the assurance that there would be an examination of the shareholdings of the contracting company before a contract was signed. The noble Earl added that the Government would have to he informed before any significant share transfers took place. It is not clear to us on these Benches how that process would work. Nevertheless, the noble Earl went a little further towards meeting our worries than had been the case at the earlier stages of the Bill. We were not given sufficient assurances about safety. Yet in Committee the noble Earl went a little way to reassure us about the time of establishment of the compliance office.
However, the main reservation we have on the Bill is the dilution of ministerial responsibility. On that point, the Minister has made no concession either in words or in amendments from the Government. We base our real opposition to the Bill on the point of the dilution of ministerial responsibility. It is not right that private, profit-making companies should be

343
responsible for the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction. I believe that principle enjoys enormous support in the country. I believe that as the Government go on they will find they have made a great mistake on that matter. Even if private companies can manufacture these weapons, it is not right that weapons of mass destruction should be in the Lands of profit-making companies. It raises the whole question of the motivation of the contracting company in matters of safety. We discussed that matter in some detail, but we did not receive a satisfactory reply.
Nevertheless the noble Earl has treated us with courtesy. He has written to me (and I understand he has written to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel) on some of the points we have made. He has tried to meet our anxieties—at least in his language—during the course of the Bill. Unless the next election is won either by the Labour Party or by the party I represent, I regret there is every prospect that a contract will be signed and that the provisions of the Bill will be implemented.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it will come as no surprise to noble Lords opposite when I firmly defend the Government's position on this Bill and refute the points that have been raised this evening.
First, I must say that the Government believe strongly that this Bill, in common with other Bills, should only address those issues which need to be dealt with by legislation. We have therefore been unable to agree with those noble Lords who wished to expand the Bill to cover other issues, some of which we have debated in your Lordships' House. That does not mean that we feel these issues are unimportant, but rather that there are other more effective and appropriate methods of dealing with them, such as through the contract.
The matter of overseas ownership is an example of what I have been talking about. I repeat, as I have done frequently throughout the various stages of the Bill, 1 hat the Government have no intention of letting the AWE contract to a foreign firm. I have assured your Lordships that the contractor will be a UK-based and UK-controlled company. There is no doubt about that. We believe that nuclear weapon information is best protected by the rigorous application of security procedures rather than by statutory provisions which could never be wholly effective.
Furthermore, the Government are also committed to providing safeguards through the contract for safety and security as well as pension and redundancy rights. We have said categorically that pension and redundancy terms will be at least as good as at present. Individuals' terms and conditions of service will also be safeguarded on transfer to the contractor through TUPE 81.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred to an increase in resignations. I can assure the noble Lord that there has been no increase in resignations at AWE in response to the Government's plans. Staff recruitment and retention have, if anything, improved. As regards pensions, we have already guaranteed that no employee's pension will suffer as a result of contractorisation.
344
Similarly, the Government will ensure that the compliance office—noble Lords have mentioned that today—has the powers and resources necessary to regulate effectively the contractor, and in particular to enforce environmental, health and safety standards and compliance with the terms of the contract. It is very much in the Secretary of State's interests to ensure that this is done and that specific legislation is not needed.
As I have already said, we are convinced that the introduction of contractor operation will not only ensure that the Atomic Weapons Establishment meets the requirements of the Trident programme, but will also be the basis for an efficient, effective and safe establishment for the foreseeable future. This short Bill provides the framework within which contractor operation can be introduced. It therefore deserves, as I said before, your Lordships' support. I ask your Lordships' House to give the Bill a Third Reading.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed.

Ports Bill
7.56 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 5 [Control by appropriate Minister over exercise of authority's functions under Sections 3 and 4]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 13, leave out ("a substantial part") and insert ("at least 10 per cent").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 7 and 8. This is a matter that I pursued with the Minister by way of a quick-fire exchange. That exchange is recorded at col. 1533 of Hansard of 11th July at the Report stage of the Bill.
I asked the Minister at that stage to define the words "a substantial part". I did not do that idly. I asked that question because the courts have to define and interpret legislation. I should not have thought the response the Minister gave to the figure of 10 per cent. I mentioned would necessarily be interpreted by the courts as a substantial part. I am trying to be helpful to the Minister by defining the issue in his terms. I beg to move.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, I must confess that I cannot appreciate the magic of the figure of 10 per cent. as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. To my mind 10 per cent. is not a substantial part of anything. If I were to lose 10 per cent. of my not inconsiderable bulk, I would still be a fairly substantial person and that which had been lost would not be considered a substantial part of me.
I hope that in the event more than 10 per cent. of the new companies would be owned by the staff of the companies. When I spoke on Second Reading, I mentioned my association with the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. That port authority is responsible for what is now the second largest port in the country. After consultation with that port authority, I was happy to be able to support the Ports Bill.

345
The proceedings of the Bill through your Lordships' House have caused moments of anxiety to a number of port authorities and their managements. However, I am happy to inform the House that Tees and Hartlepool port authority is content with the position as it now is. That authority has consulted its workforce, its unions and its customers at each stage of the Bill's progress. That port authority now stands ready to enter the private sector. It is particularly important that the local element is maintained especially as the Government have already highlighted during the passage of the Bill the objective of encouraging the disposal of the whole or a substantial part of the companies' equity to the managers and employees. The Bill as drafted supports that objective.
Such a route opens up a great many opportunities within the area, not only for the managers of the concerns but also for the workforce, and is in line with the continuation of the tradition of wider share ownership. I am certain that these measures will allow employees to purchase or to be awarded shares in the companies. I hope, therefore, that the words "a substantial part" rather than a figure will remain on the face of the Bill.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I do not know whether his attention was drawn to the exchange which took place. The difficulty is that to leave the words "a substantial part" for the courts to interpret is extraordinarily vague. I was simply taking up what the Minister himself said in defining the words.
8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, the figure of 10 per cent. goes back to remarks which I made during Report stage when the noble Lord pressed me hard to say what was meant by a "substantial part of the equity". On the basis of the somewhat hurried advice which was available to me at the time, I said that a substantial part would be at least 10 per cent. That means that in the cases in which the courts have been asked to rule on what figures could be attached to the term "substantial" where it appears in legislation, as it does frequently, they have in some cases accepted figures as low as 10 per cent. The interpretation of the courts has depended on the particular context in which the term has been used in each case and on the particular circumstances before the court at the time.
In dealing with the issue in a case which went to this House in 1948, Lord Simon said:
"The questions involved are to be answered by common sense considerations rather than by any formula which can be laid down by this House".
He also said:
"'Substantial' in this connection is not the same as 'not insubstantial' i.e. just enough to avoid the de minimis principle. One of the primary meanings of the word is equivalent to considerable, solid or big. It is in this sense that we speak of a substantial fortune, a substantial meal, a substantial man"—
I turn to my noble friend—
346
"a substantial argument or ground of defence. Applying the word in this sense, it must be left to the discretion of the judge of fact to decide as best he can according to the circumstances in each case".
I hope that what I have said is sufficient to demonstrate that a full answer to the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, put to me at Report stage would have required something in the nature of a learned treatise. The real questions are' whether the Bill should incorporate something more precise than the term "substantial" and, if it did, whether the figure should be 10 per cent.
Amendments Nos. I and 7 relate to the obligation placed on Ministers in Clause 5 and in Clause 26 of the Bill to have particular regard to the desirability of encouraging the disposal of equity share capital of the successor company to managers and employees of the company. I believe that it would be unrealistic to try to specify in the Bill in any precise way what proportion of the equity share capital that should be. Circumstances will differ from port to port and in some ports employees will be more interested in acquiring a stake in the port than in others. I believe that the wording already in the Bill adequately expresses what Parliament intends and I believe that any attempt at further precision would in this case be damaging. In particular, I do not believe that it would be right to accept amendments which would lead to the belief that anything over 10 per cent. is all right and anything below 10 per cent. does not meet the case.
Amendment No. 8 deals with a rather different situation. It is concerned with a company which a management and employee buy-out team might set up to acquire share capital in a port. Management and employee buy-out is a familiar term, but it can take a number of forms. The balance between capital contributed by the management and employees and that contributed by their financial backers can vary a very great deal. It has been said that, like the elephant, a management buy-out is easy to recognise but impossible to define. So here again I believe that it would be a mistake to try to define how much of the equity share capital in the company should be owned by managers and employees. Certainly, there is no particular reason for adopting the figure of 10 per cent. which the amendment proposes.
I recognise the entirely laudable desire of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, to see the provisions in this Bill defined as precisely as possible. However, I believe that in these cases it would be a mistake to try to express what is intended in numerical form. I hope, therefore, that with that explanation the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I was somewhat misled by the Minister's response to the cross-examination which took place. However, I understand his position. In seeking to withdraw the amendment I merely say that by no means can this Bill be defined as a substantial one. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [The annual turnover requirement for the purposes of section 10]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 8, line 35, leave out ("£5") and insert ("£10").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2, with the leave of the House I shall speak also to Amendment No. 3. The amendments relate to the proposed provision that a trust port with an annual turnover of at least £5 million shall come within the compulsory provision for privatisation. Similar amendments brought forward in Committee proposed that the turnover criterion be changed to £20 million instead of £5 million as in the Bill. In proposing those amendments I pointed out that some major trust ports were near the £5 million turnover threshold and had emphasised that the figure was far too low. I welcomed the support of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who suggested that a £5 million annual turnover represented a relatively small enterprise.
In rejecting the amendments, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, said, at col. 666 of the Official Report of 26th June:
"If a threshold of £20 million were adopted, only four ports out of 100 covered by Part I would fall within it. The present threshold of £5 million brings in some 14 ports … The opportunity to consider seriously the arguments for and against privatisation for each of the larger trust ports would be lost under the amendment, and an important element would be removed from the Government's longer-term strategy for progressively exposing the ports industry to market forces".
The Minister added that it would be wrong to exclude ports with a turnover of between £5 million and £20 million from the list of ports which the Secretary of State might decide to direct to enter the private sector.
Those statements by the Minister reflect clearly a doctrinaire attitude towards the proposal rather than a concern for the progressive interest of the ports. There is a desire to include the maximum number of ports in the privatisation provisions.
It may be recalled that at Second Reading I referred to the fact that a number of the 14 major ports are very unhappy at the compulsory provision. A group of seven of those 14 ports—half of the 14 major ports to which the Minister referred—and one other near the threshold, making eight in all, expressed their anxiety. It is not necessarily a question of opposition to privatisation but a concern that any such change of status should be at the discretion of the port concerned. That is also the view of the British Ports Federation. I have mentioned the point before but for some reason the Minister has not commented upon the Federation's statement.
The Minister, to his credit, has not attempted to criticise the operation of those 14 major ports, which are generally regarded as being well run, efficient and profitable. The British Ports Federation stated in a briefing:
"All the 14 ports above the £5 million threshold are successful and profitable".
The federation has pointed out that the 14 ports differ in many characteristics.
As the Minister rejected the previous proposal to raise the turnover to £20 million the present amendments suggest that the threshold be raised to £10 million from the £5 million proposed in the Bill. We believe that that will be in the best interests of the major trust ports. It will not in any way affect the
348
Government's intention to move towards privatisation, but it will give the ports' administrations full time to consider their intentions—I believe that that is what the Government want to do—and not leave it to ministerial diktat. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, since the Bill was introduced in another place, Members both of this House and the other place have been inventive in their proposals for setting the turnover limit at different levels; the highest in another place being £50 million and the lowest £1 million. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, noble Lords opposite proposed £20 million in Committee; but now, on reflection, have evidently decided that a more modest figure might be more popular, so they have cut the figure in half to £10 million.
The Government have consistently taken the view that the privatisation of the larger trust ports is an important element of the long-term strategy of opening up the ports industry to market forces. The question then, of course, becomes: what constitutes a larger port? The figure of £5 million was not chosen at random and the House may find it helpful if I go briefly into the details. As the noble Lord said, a table of trust port turnover figures shows that, below the largest ports with annual turnovers in excess of £25 million, there is a group of 10 ports whose turnovers range from about £16 million down to just over £5 million. Below that, however, the pattern changes: only two ports—Great Yarmouth and Shoreham—come anywhere close to £5 million. No other port, on the most recent figures available, has a turnover of even as much as £2 million.
It therefore seemed that there was a significant dividing line just below the £5 million mark and that that effectively constituted the divide between the larger ports —comprising about 15 per cent. of the total number of trust ports—and the rest. The turnover limit was therefore set at £5 million and that figure was index-linked to avoid gradually bringing in numbers of smaller ports over time.
I hope that that explanation of the Government's thinking has been helpful—it is certainly not doctrinaire—and that it will be accepted that a level of £5 million is appropriate for defining the larger trust ports. On that basis, I do not believe that it would be right to exclude those ports of between £5 million and £10 million turnover from the list of ports which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State might decide to direct to enter the private sector. However, as I said on a number of occasions in debates on the Bill in this House, we appreciate that the circumstances of individual trust ports vary considerably. We shall not on 31st July 1993 go along to each of the ports above the £5 million line, or even those above the £10 million line, which have not already sought privatisation, and tell them that they are to be privatised. Before we decide to apply the power of compulsion to a port we must first consult the port and consider whatever arguments it puts forward as to why it should not be privatised. However, I do not believe that we should take ports with a turnover of

349
over £5 million, which are an important part of our ports industry, out of the field of consideration for compulsory privatisation.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I should be obliged if the Minister would explain to the House why it was that in 1988 the then Secretary of State, Mr. Channon, had fixed on a figure of £10 million which at current prices would be about £13 million? Why has there been a change of heart as from that date? The Government now seek to adopt a completely different criterion from that of the Minister who was in office at that time.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, there is nothing sinister about that. My right honourable friend the then Secretary of State, Mr. Channon, was offering what he termed "a working definition", a long time before the Bill was introduced or even drafted in order to give the ports industry an idea of the general order of magnitude that the Government would have in mind if they chose to include a reserve power in such a Bill. He did not make any kind of promise about what would be in the Bill, if and when it was eventually introduced. In the event, it was decided that £5 million provided a more sensible division between larger and smaller ports. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the Minister said that in bringing forward this new amendment we have been inventive, but that is not the case. We are considering the interests of no fewer than seven of the 14 major ports to which the Minister referred in Committee and again today. No fewer than half of the major ports would support the amendment. As I made clear, they are not necessarily opposed to privatisation, but they want to be able to take the decision in their own time and at their own discretion. The Bill seeks to state that, after a period of two years, the Minister might approach any port over the £5 million threshold and persuade it to be privatised. Half the 14 major ports do not want that procedure, nor does the British Ports Federation. We are working in the interests of the major ports.
I do not intend to divide the House but, on the other hand, this is such an important matter that neither do I intend to withdraw the amendment.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 15 [Information for purposes of levy]:
8.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 12, line 21, leave out ("£300") and insert ("£3.000").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this amendment in order to enable the Minister to announce the results of his trip to the Treasury, but it does more than that because there is a serious point behind it. Although I shall certainly not press the matter to a Division—much to the Minister's surprise —I should like to have an assurance from him that it is important to draw a distinction between fraud and
350
negligence and that this matter will not simply be pigeon-holed but will be considered in the future because, as it stands, it is nonsensical. The penalties are derisory. The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, took that view too; though, in fairness to him, he also took the view that it would have been wrong to use this piece of legislation as a vehicle for the change. However, I seek to secure from the Minister an assurance that his department will not drop the matter and that the absurdity of those provisions as regards the scope of the penalties and drawing a distinction between fraud and negligence will be reviewed, perhaps not now, but in the future. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as the noble Lord said, this is the third time that we have debated these, or similar, amendments. The House is by now quite familiar with the fact that those penalties derive ultimately from the Taxes Management Act 1970, as amended by the Finance Act 1989, which lays down standard penalties for failure to supply accurate information in respect of liability to taxation, and that those Acts also provide for similar penalties in respect of both negligence and fraud.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has criticised those precedents, but I hope I have in previous debates convinced the House, first, that they are indeed correct precedents to follow for offences which involve a failure to provide accurate information where a person's liability to taxation or, as in this case, to a Government levy is involved and, secondly, that it would be inappropriate, as well as unjustified, if, in this particular case, those persons contravening the provisions of the Bill should be required to pay 10 times as much as other persons who incur penalties in respect of, for example, corporation tax returns.
The noble Lord, however, together with my noble friend Lord Geddes, asked me to consult my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the possibility of the penalties being raised in respect of the Taxes Management Act and of a distinction being made between penalties for negligence and for fraud. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, seemed to suggest that the prospect of a confrontation between myself and my right honourable friend would be for him one of the highlights of the Bill's passage. Therefore I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord in that respect.
It has been a matter of amicable correspondence and not confrontation. I have drawn the attention of my right honourable friend to the points made by noble Lords in the earlier debates on this subject. I do not as yet have his reply. I understand that he has this week been engaged in discussions on matters of almost equal importance to those which I raised with him. But I have no doubt that he will give full consideration to the points which have bothered noble Lords and to which I have drawn his attention. I shall let the noble Lord know the result of our deliberations.
That is as far as I can go this evening on this amendment. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am much obliged to the Minister for writing to the Treasury. I had

351
expected that he would make a trip to the Treasury, but he has been a little tardy about it. However, correspondence has clearly replaced that necessity.
I have a message from President Gorbachev that he feels that I am right on this point; but then, he has not emerged from the Summit with very much either. Having regard to the Minister's reply and as this is a matter which we can perhaps pursue elsewhere, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.]
Clause 26 [Powers of disposal in relation to the company]:
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Clause 40 [General interpretation]:
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I should like to take the opportunity of raising what appears to be a very small matter which has been brought to my attention regarding the Port of Inverness. The Minister has already been kind enough to write to the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, and copied the letter to me. Perhaps it would ease the mind of the Inverness Harbour Authority if he could give some further assurances as to what is likely to happen. It did not spot the fact that the lights might be transferred to it at a cost of some £30,000, which is a great deal of money for the Inverness Harbour Authority. Although for others it may be insignificant, it is a large sum to that authority.
In his letter, the Minister states that some ports have their lights paid for by the General Lighthouse Authority out of funds collected by it and that other ports pay for them themselves. He writes:
"This creates a competitive distortion between harbour undertakings which we think should be corrected".
I ask the Minister why it is not corrected the other way by getting the General Lighthouse Authority to pay for all the port lights. I understand that it has plenty of money. The Minister continues—it is rather comforting—that:
"The Inverness Harbour Trust will have a full opportunity to comment on any proposals which the Northern Lighthouse Board may draw up".
Can the Minister give me his assurance that the Secretary of State will take account of these representations, and that he will be able to modify any proposals put by the General Lighthouse Authority which might be far too onerous for a small harbour authority such as Inverness? The position is a little complicated by the fact that the Caledonian Canal runs through it as well.
I know that these are small points, but I should be grateful if the Minister would give me some reassurance on them.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne: My Lords, before we leave his Bill, perhaps my noble friend will bear with me once more while I mention something about the Port of Poole. We have heard much about the port of
352
Poole during the proceedings of this Bill. I make no apology for that, and I thank the noble Lords who were kind enough to support me.
As I said before, the Bill does not bring me too much joy. On the other hand, I do not object to the privatisation of those ports which wish to be privatised. However, I feel some distress about those ports which are reluctant, at least at this stage, to accept the reserve powers of the Secretary of State. I should say that the commissioners in Poole made a careful study of the potential benefits vis-a-vis the disadvantages of the Ports Bill, but they were unable to reconcile any real advantages to the harbour or to its users if the port were to be privatised. On studying the Bill, it will be generally realised that any benefits which would accrue to the purchaser of any port, in course of time, possibly in view of the fact that land is mentioned so often, would come from asset-stripping it or obtaining a change of use in planning terms for port land which would achieve a greater personal return for the company or an individual if he were prepared to buy it.
In the case of Poole, the total port area—or perhaps one could call it the income generating area—responsible for maintaining a harbour of 10,000 acres is only 55 acres. The port area is ecologically restricted in any event. As I said before, it is a site of special scientific interest; a RAMSAR wetland (to use that technical expression); a heritage coast; and it has various other designations. In the case of Poole it is not necessary nor is it desirable to obtain cheap investment money to expand or develop it further. In fact, local people are united in wanting to exercise restraint on the commercial activities in the harbour to what they are at present. If the port were to be privatised, the conservation restrictions on the cargo and passenger handling business would dictate that, in order to satisfy shareholders, the new owner would significantly have to increase the harbour, leisure and fishing dues in the hope of achieving a reasonable rate of return for the shareholders.
In fact, less than 10 per cent. of the total revenue received by the harbour commissioners for maintaining the harbour in all its forms comes from those leisure and fishing dues. A trust port can live on a relatively low rate of' return of 7 per cent. or 8 per cent. on capital employed. But if a company were to be involved rather than the commissioners, those dues would have to be considerably increased. I am afraid that that would cause a storm of protest in Poole because the burden would have to be borne by the shipping interests, the yachting interests and those who have moorings. All in all, it has been said that Poole is a textbook trusteeship. I hope that it will be left alone. I have a feeling that perhaps we may be fortunate in that respect.
In closing, perhaps I may quote from The Ancient Mariner:
Instead of the cross the albatross About my neck was hung".
With due respect to him, perhaps if the Secretary of State were to exercise the reserve powers at least in the case of Poole, he would find them to be a frightful albatross because there would be a great storm of

353
protest not only in the harbour itself but from the surrounding population which depends very much on the profitability of the port as it is now.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Murton, encapsulated some of the anxieties that we sought to express about the powers of coercion which are held in reserve and which threaten Poole and ports like it. They are proud of their record and have done a great deal to establish very successful attitudes and policies in respect of environmental matters. In our judgment, it is quite wrong that ports of that kind should be held in any doubt at all. The Minister should declare that he will not consider Poole. I join with the noble Lord in his declarations which I know he makes on behalf of people who were formerly his constituents and with whom he still retains close contact.
It will not surprise the Minister to hear that the Opposition believe that the Bill—in respect of which in this House the Minister has made few concessions —is miserably irrelevant to the transport needs of this country. It ignores the central problems which face British ports. It ignores the need for a national strategy in which port development plays a significant part alongside inland waterways and other modes of transport consistent with the overall economic policies and objectives of this country. The Bill reflects a totally incoherent approach to transport planning and policies which is characteristic of this Government.
The Bill, whatever emollient words may have been used by the Minister today, threatens to undermine the role of the trust ports. No one on the Government side has declared that the trust ports have failed to prepare themselves successfully for 1992. They have managed to combine such preparation with the needs of the localities with which they have been integrally connected for a long time. The Bill is all about the man in Whitehall knowing best. I said so on Second Reading. I have heard nothing from the Minister to cause me to depart from the view.
The Minister's case is based upon assertions and conjecture. The trouble is that the Government are not best placed to put forward evidence that is credible. Asked to make assessments about hard economic facts, in particular the consequences of the abolition of the dock labour scheme, they have significantly failed to do so. Government estimates of the cost of the abolition of the dock labour scheme were in the region of £24 million. The true cost is £141 million. I know that the Minister says that it is all worthwhile. But what a way to calculate costs! There were to be about 1,500 to 2,000 redundancies. The truth is that there are nearly 5,000, and more to come. Therefore, the Government's predictions, calculations and track record cannot be taken seriously.
Over and again in the course of debates, the Minister rejected anxieties that we sought to express about environmental damage. Another point was made today by the noble Lord, Lord Murton of Lindisfarne. The Minister has used the words that the Bill is "environmentally neutral" whatever that may mean. It is an extraordinary phrase that he has conjured up and used over and again.
354
We are told that the Government are dedicated to the improvement of the environment. One would have thought that in their document. Transport and the Environment, they would have found some meaningful words to express that anxiety. I have searched hard in that document and in the White Paper for anything worthwhile that they have to say about the environment and the ports.
The Government have had little to say about maintaining and improving standards for workers in the ports. They say that the Bill is simply about the change of ownership and that those matters are not of concern. Reputable environmental organisations such as English Heritage, the National Trust and the RSPB have continued to express anxieties and have been singularly unimpressed with what the Minister said. Similarly, many workers feel that it would have been appropriate for the Minister to have expressed the Government's anxiety about safety in what is still an industry with a high record of injury and even death. The Minister said nothing about the rights of the workforce to training, medical welfare or influencing policies which affect their day to day life. Those are matters of major concern to the workers, and they are entitled to express that point of view.
The position on compulsory powers is far from satisfactory, as the noble Lord, Lord Murton of Lindisfarne, said. However, the Government are proceeding on their way. Unfortunately considerable doubt therefore overhangs the position of a number of the trust ports.
It is significant that the subject of management employee buy-outs was omitted from the Bill as originally drafted—an extraordinary omission because it has now become the Government's flagship. Why was it omitted? Never for one moment has the Minister been able to explain that to the House. Was it an oversight, a mistake or a matter of disinterest? Eventually the concession was wrung from the Government by an alliance of the Opposition and the Government's own Back Benchers in Committee. The Government then took the issue on board. But even now, despite the language of the Bill, and despite the assertions made by the Minister, I believe that the dice is still heavily loaded in practice against successful employee buy-outs. We have tried to introduce additional incentives and additional protections. They have been dismissed by the Government. Time will tell. We hope that employees who wish to go down that route will be able to do so. But the Government have to show in practice, not simply in legislation, that the employees will be given every encouragement, help and information to do so, and every incentive with regard to legal assistance.
In making complaints about a Bill which the Opposition believe to be essentially irrelevant, I nevertheless thank the Minister for his courtesy throughout all stages of the Bill. That is characteristic of the Minister, to whom in some respects I could easily refer as my noble friend. I have known him for a long time. I have always felt that the facility for courtesy and pleasant debate was characteristic of him.

355
I wish also to thank those who have helped the Opposition. It is important that all oppositions are given assistance in these difficult matters. We are very busy. We have many duties to undertake and it is not easy 10 extend one's time to the difficulties of drafting complicated amendments without such help. I thank those people very much indeed.
Perhaps I may also say—as I have done regularly throughout the Session—that I have had the privilege of conducting transport matters with the great support and experience of my noble friend Lord Underhill to assist me. He is widely respected in this House, not only on these Benches but on all Benches on all sides of the Chamber. I thank him enormously.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ezra, who unfortunately is unable to be present today, I too thank the Minister for the customary courtesy and good humour with which he has handled the Bill. My noble friend Lord Ezra has two principal regrets about the Bill. The first is that noble Lords were unable to persuade the Government to introduce environmental safeguards into the management of ports. My noble friend feels very strongly that that is a flaw in the Bill. He also feels strongly that the power that the Secretary of State retains to compel ports such as Poole—which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Murton —to pass into private hands is another flaw in the Bill. In the case of Poole, the local outcry would be considerable. There is great satisfaction locally with the way that that trust port is run.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, apologises to the House that he is unable to be present. He wishes to thank the Minister for all that he has done, bearing in mind the reservations that he still holds.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I wish to extend my thanks to all noble Lords who have contributed to the constructive and well-informed debates that we have heard. From these Benches I wish to thank in particular my noble friend Lord Howe for his assistance from the Front Bench. I also thank my noble friends Lord Wade, Lord Geddes and Lord Oxfuird who made helpful and supportive contributions on various matters. I wish to thank my noble friend Lord Stockton who made a helpful contribution to the debates on this Bill. I hope that he will feel that its successful passage through this House is in some measure recompense for the very substantial efforts he had already made on behalf of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority in sponsoring its Private Bill in this House. My noble friend Lord Murton, had special interests to put before us, which he did most eloquently and which he repeated tonight.
I wish to make two points which are worth repeating. If we believed that after two years we should privatise all ports above the £5 million threshold, we should not have introduced the five-year moratorium into the Bill. Secondly, if we had intended to privatise? all ports with a turnover of more than £5 million, we should have introduced a Bill which did exactly that.
I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Green way, who has apologised to me for his absence
356
tonight, and the noble Lord, Lord Napier, for the valuable and knowledgeable interventions which they made on a number of occasions. I thank noble Lords opposite, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Underhill. It was too much to hope that they would accept the basic objectives of a Bill such as this whose fundamental purpose reflects principles on which there is bound to be disagreement between Members on the Government Benches and Members opposite. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to the Bill as a Bill about the man in Whitehall knowing best. He then went on to talk about a planned transport strategy and central planning of the ports industry. I am afraid that we shall differ in our views about that.
Nevertheless, noble Lords opposite have made important contributions to the debates on the detailed provisions of the Bill. The views put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra—who I am sorry is not present this evening—have naturally commanded respect, even though we on these Benches were not able to accept the reservations which he expressed on some features of the Bill.
I wish to respond to the points made this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. During the passage of the Bill through this House this is the first time that any issues on the clauses in question have been raised. Certain points were raised by my noble friend Lord Gray and I have written to him about the matter. The proposals in the Bill about lights, buoys and beacons relate only to those navigational aids which are at present provided by the general lighthouse authorities and which are required chiefly for the purposes of local rather than general navigation or, as Clause 32 of the Bill expresses it, those which are of benefit solely or mainly to ships within, or entering or leaving, the harbour authority's area. The provisions in the Bill are intended to correct an anomaly under which some ports at present provide and pay for all their local navigational aids while others have these provided by the relevant general lighthouse authority. Therefore, they are paid for through light dues paid by commercial shipping and the fishing industry in general and not merely by shipping using the port in question. This creates a competitive distortion between ports which we believe should be removed. The noble Lord said that the general lighthouse authorities had plenty of money. They will be delighted to know that that is the noble Lord's view, but they may well disagree.
In the case of the Inverness Harbour Trust the relevant general lighthouse authority is the Northern Lighthouse Board. The harbour trust will have a full opportunity to comment on any proposals which the Northern Lighthouse Board may draw up for transferring navigational aids to the port. If the Secretary of State wishes to make any changes in the proposals put to him by the Northern Lighthouse Board, he will first be obliged under the Bill to consult the harbour authority. In putting forward any proposals to transfer navigational aids to the Inverness Harbour Trust the Northern Lighthouse Board will need to demonstrate that any aids which it

357
proposes to transfer are used solely or mainly for local navigation in the terms set out in the Bill. If this cannot be established a transfer will not be possible.
I hope that that explanation of the purpose of these provisions and of the opportunities which the Inverness Harbour Trust will have for putting its own view on any proposals put forward by the Northern Lighthouse Board will be of some reassurance to the harbour trust and to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie.
This House has made a number of amendments to the Bill which have undoubtedly improved it. Most of them have been of a technical nature but we have also introduced into Clause 10 a five-year moratorium during which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be unable to compel a port to privatise itself after he had taken an earlier decision not to do so. That measure was welcomed by all sides of the House.
Our debates have covered many important aspects of the Bill, and I am certain that they have greatly contributed to a fuller understanding of it on all sides of the House. We now have before us a Bill which I am sure will prove to be of substantial and lasting benefit to all those trust ports which take advantage of it and ultimately to our ports industry as a whole. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Birmingham City Council Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee.
Foreign Corporations Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Coal Mining Subsidence Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Llanelli Borough Council (Burry Port Harbour) Bill [H.L.]
A Message was brought from the Commons, That they have made the following Orders—
That the Promoters of the Llanelli Borough Council (Burry Port Harbour) Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
That the petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to private business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these orders be Standing Orders of the House.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before nine o'clock.