Lords Sitting of 7 June 1991

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.

Hallmarking of Precious Metals
Lord Mulley Lord Mulley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they oppose any proposals to end or modify the well established system of hallmarking articles made of precious metals.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Government are not aware of any current proposals to end or modify the system of hallmarking. However, the Government have made it clear that they regard the compulsory marking of precious metals as essential to protect both the consumer and the trader and that this is best achieved through the British hallmarking system.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Viscount for that reply. However, is he aware that my information is that German interests are applying both to the Commission and to the European Court to have our system of hallmarking declared outwith the competition and regime of the treaty? I should be glad to hear from the noble Viscount that he will resist that. As he said, our system is greatly welcomed by both the trade and consumers in this country as a guarantee of authenticity and quality which is unsurpassed in any other country. I hope that the Commission will not consider that proposal because it has better things to do, but if it persists I hope that for once it will harmonise on our system and not on one of the others.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, is entirely correct to point out that an application for judicial review has been made by a German jewellery manufacturer in which, inter alia, it challenges the incompatibility of the Hallmarking Act with the EC treaty. This case raises complex legal issues and we are considering our legal position. However, I have already stated that the Government are firmly of the view that the British hallmarking system is best placed to protect both the consumer and the trader. We shall support any defence of it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that most of your Lordships will regard the Answer as extremely satisfactory, particularly for the reasons eloquently set out by the noble Lord, Lord Mulley?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, may I ask the Minister what is the situation on the different standard; for silver on the continent and in Britain? We do not recognise the continental standards. How is this situation being dealt with?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we recognise our own standards. We know that other countries have different standards but we are dealing with the standards required before items can be sold in this country.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I too welcome the firm position that the Government are taking. Can the noble Viscount clarify one point for me? He mentioned that a German company was considering, or was applying for, a judicial review on the hallmarking system. Is this a matter to be taken up before the European Court? Will the British Government make their own case or will the matter be taken up in a lower court in Germany?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, so far as I am aware, at present the application for judicial review is made in this country and nowhere else. A similar case was brought by the Germans in the Netherlands and it was unsuccessful.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Viscount's stand on this. Will he endeavour to keep both the trade and the House informed of progress? If it is possible for the government view to be presented to the court, as is often so in such cases, we would not have to go through the whole matter later. As the noble Viscount knows, silver must be of our standard to be sold here; though that is not strictly correct. The German interest is that Germany has a standard of 800 parts per thousand of silver whereas we have a standard of 925 parts. The Germans want it all to be classified for sale as silver, which would give them a considerable advantage.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is clear that at some stage in the future agreement must be reached on a Community-wide basis for a regime for precious metals. That will obviously happen; but, as I said, we strongly support our own system.

Adult Education: Funding
11.10 a.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy for the funding of adult education.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the Government's policy is set out in the White Papers, Education and Training for the 21st Century and Access and Opportunity—A Strategy for Education and Training. The White Papers make clear the value we place on the further education of adults for their own benefit and for the benefit of the economy.
From April 1993 the new funding councils for England and Wales will have responsibility for supporting the further education of adults leading to academic and vocational qualifications and a range of other important provisions. In Scotland, funding for further education provision in these areas will be the responsibility of the Scottish Office education

841
department. Expenditure on provision which meets the leisure interests of adults will so far as possible be met from fees.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the Minister referred to further education. There is a generally accepted distinction in education establishments between further education and adult education. I am asking about adult education. In the White Paper Education and Training for the 21st Century to which the noble Lord referred, paragraph 9.11 states:
"It is not intended that colleges should receive explicit funding from Councils for courses catering for adults' leisure interests".
Can the Minister tell the House whether that means that there will not in future be public funding for work done by organisations like the WEA and the extramural departments of universities?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the White Paper makes no distinction between the funding of non-vocational and vocational further education for adults. The further education to be supported by the councils includes that leading to academic qualifications, the acquisition of basic skills and access to higher education. It is support for leisure and recreational provision which in future will be provided by fees as far as possible.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I hope my noble friend will reconsider his reply. Both further education, which is a step on the road to qualifications and employment, and adult education, which is intended to broaden the horizons of people who are often in full-time employment, are vital elements in the British education pattern. I lectured on behalf of the extramural department of the University of Manchester some 50 years ago. The education provided by that department was considered an important part of the university's obligations towards the urban communities of the area. It is enormously unsatisfactory that such education should now be classed as a leisure activity. It is not a leisure activity. It is a broadening of people's educational experience. The muddle in the White Paper must be cleared up by Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, as regards the additional provisions that I have mentioned, apart from the obvious basic educational activities such as national vocational qualifications, GCSEs, AS-levels and A-levels, the funding councils support access to higher education, access to higher levels of further education, the acquisition of basic skills such as literacy and numeracy, proficiency in English for speakers of other languages and, in Wales, proficiency in Welsh. The funding councils will also support courses for adults with special educational needs.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the noble Lord has not answered the question that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, asked. The critical question concerns which activities are considered by the Government to constitute leisure activities and leisure interests. Will there be public funding not just for the study of German but also German literature? Will there be
842
public funding not just for the study of science but also the philosophy of science? Will public funding continue to be made available for the kind of liberal studies that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has mentioned?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I believe the categories mentioned by the noble Lord come under the heading of academic studies. Those studies are covered.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, academic studies are provided for. As regards recreational activities, I would refer to flower arranging as a typical example. Funding for such activities will continue through the local education authorities, if those authorities decide to subsidise local provision.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that what my noble friend Lord Beloff has said will command widespread support on this side of the House as well as elsewhere? I hope he will clarify the position of the City Literary Institute as regards these distinctions.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I believe the City Lit will be supported by the funding councils.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, it would be difficult to express more strength of feeling on this matter than did the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. The House is grateful to the noble Lord, who has vast experience in this matter, for commenting on it. It seems to me quite clear from the White Paper that adult education is now the Cinderella of the whole education service. Does the Minister agree that adults who wish to take university degrees and diplomas will in many cases be unable to do so? Adults who study at that level represent the best educational investment for this country. The result of their studies is good for the nation as a whole and not just for the individuals concerned.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am happy to agree with the noble Lord's final comment. But I believe the new framework encourages such studies. The noble Lord claimed that adult education is the Cinderella of the education service. However, the average increase in the standard spending assessment for education for 1991–92 is 16 per cent., which is well above inflation. The increase calculated in the SSA for adult education is 13 per cent. That again is well above inflation. Those resources should enable authorities to finance an education service of a high quality if they manage their affairs well. I do not believe that the noble Lord would suggest that we prescribe how local authorities manage their affairs.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is it not apparent that a measure of clarification is required on this important subject? I hope my noble friend will undertake to place a paper in the Library of the House which covers this important distinction so that it may be studied.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the whole matter is covered, admittedly at some length, in the White Paper. I shall make inquiries to see whether a summary can be produced and placed in the Library.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I must take issue with the Minister and contradict him as this matter is not covered at length in the White Paper. The White Paper is an enormous document in which two sentences are devoted to the subject. I regret to say that when most of us first studied it we did not even notice those two sentences.
With due deference to the noble Lord who asked the earlier question, we need to find out whether this is a distinction without a difference. The White Paper contains two cryptic remarks. It says that the Government can help people in their daily life as regards education but that they cannot help them as regards education and their leisure interests. We want to know where the distinction has been drawn. We have pursued this matter before and the Government always refer to flower arranging. That is the only example they use. Is the whole of adult education being determined by some antipathy on the part of the Department of Education towards flower arranging? We are trying to get to the bottom of the matter. If that is the best example the Minister can come up with, one has every reason to be worried about what the department is up to.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, there are such courses. It may surprise noble Lords to know that I am myself a lecturer in adult education on gardens. Those who wish to hear me are usually willing to pay. I agree that the matter is complicated but I think that the word "academic" covers it. All of the subjects mentioned by my noble friend and by the noble Lord who mentioned Greek or philosophy would be covered by the funding council.
Lord Peston: My Lords, like the noble Lord, I, too, have lectured to these people at the City Literary Institute, as many of us have. Will the noble Lord recognise what many of us are saying, namely that his lectures on gardening are valuable as adult education and that adult education should not be limited, for example, to lectures such as those of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, on history or my lectures on economics? We are asking the Government to think the matter through' again and recognise that gardening and flower arranging are perfectly good mind-broadening activities which it is in the public interest to encourage people to pursue.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I recognise that there is a strong feeling on all sides of the House that there needs to be greater clarity on the subject. I shall convey that to the department to see whether there cannot be a clearer definition of what the White Paper seeks to achieve.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I apologise for following my noble friend, but is the noble Lord aware that adult education is an old and respected tradition in Wales? It does not yet include flower arranging but there is a whole range of subjects. The
844
object is to enable young men and women to improve their position and to go on to further education. Many of them go on to university. Is the noble Lord aware that Coleg Harlech is the major college of further education in Wales? Can he give an assurance that the future of Coleg Harlech will not be prejudiced by the White Paper and that its funding will not be affected?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am pleased to be able to confirm that the councils will be responsible for public funding of long-term residential colleges—namely, Ruskin College, Plater College, Hillcroft College, Fircroft College, Northern College, the Cooperative College and, last but not least, Coleg Harlech.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, when the noble Lord is preparing the digest paper will he make sure —because he is obviously not clear in his own mind—that there is a clear distinction between vocational and non-vocational education? We are talking about non-vocational education. He said that that is to be left to the funding of LEAs. If he looks at the relevant paragraph again he will see that it refers to "public expenditure". That includes LEA expenditure. That is removed from the funding of adult education. Does the Minister not accept that it is an essential part of our democratic system that, without taking diplomas or degrees, people should be discussing economic, social and political affairs in order to raise the awareness of the public at large?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I recognise that last point, as do the Government. It would repay the noble Lord to look at page 8 of Volume Two of the White Paper Education and Training for the 21st Century, which amounts to more than two cryptic sentences. Where I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, is that the White Paper does not make a distinction between funding of non-vocational and vocational further education for adults. That is included within the funding council arrangements.

Blood Transfusions and AIDS: Compensation
11.24 a.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether public support for giving compensation to those infected with the AIDS virus at NHS hospitals has persuaded them to reconsider their policy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper):My Lords, the Government have no plans to extend the special financial help for haemophiliacs to people who have been infected through blood transfusions.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, perhaps I may first thank the noble Baroness for the correspondence that she has been gracious enough to send me on this matter; it is very much appreciated. Nevertheless, the Answer which she has just given the House is somewhat sad and almost devoid of understanding and compassion.

845
Is the Minister aware that there is a strong feeling throughout the country that the Government are not doing the right thing? Can she say that this will never happen again and that imported blood, from wherever it comes, will be examined thoroughly to ensure that no such disaster occurs again? Will the Government nevertheless recognise that the disaster that they caused by not having the American blood examined is almost one of the most criminal endeavours which has afflicted this country? Is she aware that the general public are very much aware of that fact and believe that our Government should now make some realistic approach to help those who have suffered so much?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord knows very well that in general the Government do not accept the case for no-fault compensation for medical accidents. We have considered the position very fully, as each individual case is clearly a personal tragedy both for the family and individual concerned. However, we believe that the circumstances of HIV-infected haemophiliacs are wholly exceptional and justify the special provision which the Government are making. We have been consistent in making that clear.
As to the safety of blood supply in future, action has been taken. For example, since 1983 information has been given to blood donors identifying who should not give their blood. Furthermore, as soon as properly evaluated HIV antibody screening tests were available they were introduced. Since October 1985 every single donation has been screened.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I have listened to Government Answers on this subject several times in the past in your Lordships' House. I have always been mystified as to the logic of the Government's position. Can the Minister clarify the situation? Essentially what seems to have happened is that some innocent people have been infected with HIV. The Minister used the expression "medical accident". As I understand it, the Government's view is that those people have to take the rough with the smooth; it was just bad luck, an accident, and that is it. Their lives have been ruined and their families' lives have been ruined but no case can be made. I should like to ask the Government two questions. First, can the noble Baroness explain why this particular class of accident is not being singled out? Secondly, more generally and wearing my Treasury hat I ask, is there not an overwhelming case for using public money to help these people? I speak as an outsider and an amateur, but the cases that I have read about in the newspapers are sufficiently appalling to suggest that the Government have not got this right.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I have said, in principle blood transfusion cases are no different from the cases of other people who have suffered medical accidents or the unintended side effects of treatment. In all of those cases the recourse is to seek the appropriate remedy through the courts upon proof of negligence. The wholly exceptional case of haemophiliacs, who are doubly disadvantaged by a serious
846
hereditary condition affecting their employment, mortgage and insurance prospects, and the additional disadvantage of HIV infection, has produced a combination of factors which we believe do not generally apply to blood transfusion cases, although, as I have said, we appreciate fully that they are tragic cases for each individual and family concerned.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may press the noble Baroness further on this matter. As I understand it, if I go into hospital to have an operation—and I see that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, is in his seat—I take a chance. The operation may not work out and I may end up dead. I hope that that does not happen, but I know the risk beforehand. That is a chance I take and I understand that. However, if I go into hospital for medical treatment and have a blood transfusion it does not seem to me a priori that I understand that one of the chances that I take is that I may end up infected with HIV. The difference in the two cases is that this is not a chance that I could have conceivably thought about or to which I should have been subject. That is why my noble friend is asking why the Government do not see that that is a medical accident in the sense that most of us understand it. I am still at a loss to know the answer to the question.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, perhaps we shall be privileged to hear some specific examples from my noble friend Lord McColl which may go some way to responding to the noble Lord. However, we believe that, if an exception were made in that case, we should head in a piecemeal fashion towards a general scheme of no-fault compensation which we believe would be unworkable and unfair.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, was one of the reasons why the haemophiliacs were given compensation that they ran a good campaign? It is difficult for individuals to run campaigns. Was another reason that Factor VIII, when it was infected with the AIDS virus, was still given to haemophiliacs? Might there be a little bit of guilt?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the reason is the one that I have described; namely, that there was a wholly exceptional combination of factors which do not generally apply in other cases.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that AIDS is a death sentence to any individual and therefore that the disaster is the same?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords, but the noble Baroness is missing the point that the general rule in all those cases is not a system of no-fault compensation. That has been made clear in recent debates on the subject and has resulted in a clear parliamentary decision not to introduce no-fault compensation for medical accidents. The exception was made in the case of haemophiliacs because we believed on all the evidence that this was a wholly different case.
Lord McColl of Dulwich Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords—
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the leave of the House we are now approaching the 25th minute of Question Time and we still have another Question which needs to receive an Answer from the Government. If we do not proceed to it, I do not believe that we shall have a chance to answer it properly.

Social Services Inspectorate
11.33 a.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, following the report of Mr Allan Levy QC, they propose to make any changes in the responsibilities of the Social Services Inspectorate.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as the House will be aware from the statement repeated by my noble friend Lord Henley on Monday of this week, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has instructed Sir William Utting, the Chief Social Services Inspector, to undertake a special review of residential child care, concentrating particularly on questions of monitoring, control and implementation in the light of the report by Mr. Levy and Mrs. Kahan. Sir William is expected to consider, in the course of his review, whether any changes in the role and responsibilities of the Social Services Inspectorate are required. His report will be published.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. However, is she aware of the statement made by Sir William Utting that only a minority of resources is devoted to our formal inspectorial work? That is the current position, as I understand it. That being so, in the light of Mr. Levy's report on the scandal in Staffordshire, can it possibly be right not to have detailed inspectorial reports on all children's homes in that category and for those reports not to be published in exactly the same way as the reports of the Chief Inspector of Prisons on 15 and 16 year-olds kept in prison accommodation?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we have introduced a number of ways to strengthen the controls and improve: the quality of training of staff and other aspects of this work, and we must wait to see their effect. As a direct result of the report, a circular has been sent to every local authority in the country requiring them to review their provision in the light of the Levy-Kahan report to ensure that no practices of the kind referred to occur in their districts, and requiring them to inform the SSI of the outcome of that review within one month.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that it seems curious that Sir William Utting, who presumably is the person who decided to apply only a minority of the resources available to him to inspection work of that kind, is now the person who is being asked to pass judgment on the situation? Is it not clear that it is necessary to have an independent person to look at the work of the Social Services Inspectorate and to deal with the situation as disclosed
848
in Staffordshire, which indicated that there had been a visit by inspectors and that they had seen absolutely nothing during their visit?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it is unfortunate that the noble Lord should suggest that the report being prepared by Sir William Utting would not be impartial. After all, he will consult independent experts in the course of his inquiry and the report will be published. It is not a normal SSI report, in the sense that it is one that he has been asked to carry out personally.
On the other point raised by the noble Lord, the Levy-Kahan report contains no criticism whatsoever of the SSI in visiting the two Staffordshire homes in the course of what was a wider investigation which was designed to produce a descriptive report of family centres. It was not a normal inspection of a specific home, which would have been more detailed and would have included an examination of log-books, for example.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that the suggestion that there should be an independent report in no way criticises or is intended, as I understood from what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said, to impugn or criticise the integrity or competence of Sir William? That is not the point. In these astonishing circumstances should there not be an independent inquiry which is seen to be independent in the same way that justice is seen to be done? That is the point. There is no personal animus about the matter.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am glad to have that reassurance from my noble friend, but, as I said earlier, a number of new ways have been introduced to strengthen controls and improve quality. New regulations and guidance are about to be issued. Until those things settle into place, we should not be forced into taking any other action.

Social Security (Contributions) Bill
11.37 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security, (Lord Henley):My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is a short Bill designed to address a deficiency in the national insurance system. Its single purpose is to require employers to pay national insurance contributions on company cars and free fuel made available for their employees' private use. This is a Budget measure and, as I shall explain later, should he seen in that context.
The background to the Bill is as follows. Under present legislation, the earnings on which employers' contributions are due are defined in such a way as to exclude payments in kind. That exclusion dates from the time when such payments represented only a very small proportion of people's earnings, were generally paid on an irregular or infrequent basis and often consisted of goods which were difficult, if not impossible, to value. But today the situation is very

849
different. It is necessary only to glance through the appointments page in any daily newspaper to see how widespread a practice it is for employers to offer remuneration packages which include substantial non-cash items. Of those, by far the commonest is the company car. There are now more than 2 million and the numbers have doubled in the past six years. In financial terms, they represent some three-quarters of all the benefits paid by employers. Because of the way our national insurance rules operate, employers have a financial incentive to pay their employees in cars rather than cash. That cannot be right. In our view, the time has come to extend the scope of our national insurance rules to include cars and fuel provided by employers.
Before describing the Bill's provisions, I should explain that in devising the new arrangements we have stuck very closely to Inland Revenue rules for income tax with which employers are already familiar. We have done so in order to make it as easy as possible for employers to understand and operate the new scheme. We are constantly asked by employers to reduce the differences that exist between the tax and national insurance systems and we have taken great care to do precisely that as far as the new contributions are concerned. Further, we have told employers that we will not settle the final details of the collection arrangements until they have had a chance to comment on our proposals. We shall listen carefully to their views and do our best to meet any particular concerns they may have. We have already had one round of consultation with the department's employers' panel and some helpful ideas have been put forward. As the DSS Minister responsible for deregulation I can assure the House that we are doing everything we can to see that the new arrangements do not place any unnecessary burden on employers.
Under Inland Revenue rules, employers are already required to report the details of company cars and free fuel that they provide to those of their staff who will pay tax on the basis of a scale charge. Broadly speaking, those are directors and employees whose earnings including benefits are more than £8,500 per annum. In order to match the Inland Revenue approach, the Bill is drafted so as to impose an employers' contribution in respect of those people only. Thus, contributions will be payable only where the employee or director concerned is subject to a scale charge.
The reporting of details about company cars takes place annually at the end of each tax year. We see no reason why employers should face any particular difficulty in combining that reporting process with the assessment of contribution liability. The Bill introduces the new contributions with effect from the beginning of the current tax year and they will be collected for the first time in 1992–93. We propose that, in order to follow Inland Revenue practice on the reporting of company cars, the new contributions will be due for payment in June of each year in respect of the immediately preceding tax year.
We have decided that employees will not be required to pay the new contributions. We have done
850
so for a number of practical reasons. First, more than half of all employees who have a company car are above the upper earnings limit for contributions. Secondly, employees are already required to pay income tax on the value of company cars so that, for them, the imbalance in the tax and contributions rules is not so manifest. Finally, the rules for assessing primary contributions make it difficult to integrate the new system with the existing NIC arrangements so as to produce a workable system for collecting the new contributions for employees. We believe that the additional complications for employers would be out of all proportion to the extra revenue raised and we therefore intend that employees should be excluded from liability.
We intend to use the Inland Revenue scale charge system to assess the value of cars and free fuel and thereby arrive at the figure on which employers' national insurance contributions must be paid. There will be no scale charge if there is no private use but, where the employee derives a benefit from using the car for private purposes, the value will be calculated according to the age, original cost or engine capacity of the car and business mileage. Reductions will be allowed if the car is unavailable for a continuous period of more than 30 days or if the employee makes a contribution towards the cost of the car. The scales distinguish clearly between new cars of high market value or engine capacity and older vehicles with smaller engines. This year, for example, a new car costing more than £29,000 has a scale value of £8,900, whereas a five year-old car with an engine capacity of 1300 cc is assessed at only £1,400. The rules on business mileage work as follows: "perk cars", or those which are used for fewer than 2,500 business miles a year, have their scale charge increased by 50 per cent. "Tool of the trade cars", or those which are used for more than 18,000 business miles in any year, have the scale charge reduced by 50 per cent. Thus, in the example I gave earlier, the brand new car used for only 2,000 business miles a year has a scale charge of £13,350. Where it is used for 20,000 business miles the scale value falls to only £4,450.
Having explained the circumstances in which the new liability will arise and the way in which it will be calculated, I turn now to the individual provisions of the Bill. I know that the Bill itself —despite its commendable brevity —is rather difficult to follow. That is because its purpose is to amend the Social Security Act 1975 and, in consequence, many of the subsections do little more than add a few words to the sections of that Act. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will find the following description of the Bill to be helpful in understanding how its individual provisions will work.
Clause 1 amends the 1975 Act to specify the circumstances in which the new contributions are payable and who will be liable to pay them. It also defines the amount on which the contributions will be calculated —those are the scale charge rules to which I referred earlier —and also the percentage rate at which they will be paid.
Subsections (1) to (4) introduce the new contribution which is to be called Class 1A. The

851
purpose of subsection (5) is to insert an entirely new section into the 1975 Act. It may be helpful if, in describing the rest of Clause 1, I merely use the numbering of this new section. Thus subsection (1) of the new section ensures that Class 1A contributions will arise only where an amount is chargeable under tax rules for the employment in question; and where that employment is employment for which national insurance contributions would be due. Subsection (2) identifies the person who is to pay the new contributions. Subsection (3) is merely definitional. Subsection (4) provides for the value of company cars and free fuel to be assessed using Inland Revenue's scale charges. Subsection (5) of the new section makes provision for the Class 1A contribution rate to be the same as the rate for the highest secondary earnings bracket —or put more simply the employers' main rate. As your Lordships will know, that is currently 10.4 per cent.
Subsection (6) contains further detailed rules about the calculation of liability. Paragraph (a) deals with reductions in liability allowed when a car is unavailable for periods of more than 30 days. Paragraph (b) provides that, unless the employer has information to the contrary, the cash equivalent on which contributions are due are set at the highest relevant level. Paragraph (c) deals with circumstances in which an employee is provided with more than one car.
Subsection (7) allows for this section of the legislation to be amended by regulation following any alteration to the main provisions of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. That power will enable us to ensure that our legislation remains consistent with the income tax rules for company cars and fuel; it is limited to such amendment as is necessary or expedient for this purpose. Subsection (8) is included for the avoidance of any doubt, to ensure that a person shall be liable to pay the new contributions in respect of different earners, different cars and different tax years.
Finally, subsection (9) includes a regulation-making power to except persons from liability in prescribed circumstances or to reduce the Class 1A contributions due. That power will be exercised only in limited circumstances. Its purpose is to make special provision for the employers of those taxpayers who benefit from extra statutory concessions operated by Inland Revenue.
I turn now to Clause 2. The clause extends the current arrangements for the collection of NICs to the new Class 1A contributions. It includes provision for deciding who should pay the charge when employers share the cost of a car; allows for refunds in cases where the contribution has been overpaid; and provides a regulation-making power in respect of record keeping. That parallels existing provisions for Class 1 contributions and will include, for example, the need for a record of the contributions to be kept on deduction working sheets. The penalty provisions which exist in respect of other Class 1 contributions have been extended to Class 1A contributions and Clause 2 also provides that previous non-payment of
852
contributions can be declared before a court in cases where legal proceedings are necessary to recover Class 1A contributions.
The remaining four clauses require only a brief explanation. Clause 3 extends the existing adjudicative system so that where there is a dispute over Class 1A contributions employers will be able to apply to the Secretary of State for resolution of the question. Clause 4 provides that, as for all other contributions, a specified percentage of the new contributions shall be allocated to the NHS. The effect of that will be to make over an estimated £50 million to the NHS from the new contributions. Clause 5 contains provision for Northern Ireland. Finally, Clause 6 contains consequential provisions and provides for the Act to have effect from 6th April 1991.
As I said at the outset, the purpose of the Bill is to fill a gap in the national insurance contribution system. It will ensure that employers no longer have a financial incentive to pay their employees in cars rather than cash. I know that employers are unlikely to welcome the Bill, but I have to say that that change in the contribution rules is long overdue. We estimate that some 300,000 employers —about one quarter of all employers —will be affected and that about 75 per cent. of them employ more than 25 employees. It must be right that, where employers are providing such a significant benefit on such a widespread basis, a liability to pay contributions should arise just as if the employees had been paid in cash. The National Insurance Fund will receive additional revenue of just over £600 million in 1992–93 but this represents less than one-fifth of 1 per cent. of employers' overall manpower costs. The Bill should he seen in the context of a budget which was good for business with measures worth some £750 million in 1991–92 and more to come in 1992–93.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Henley.)
11.50 a.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his usual lucid explanation of what is a quite complex, small Bill. As your Lordships will know, the Bill before us today was not opposed by the Opposition in another place; and it is not my intention to offer obvious opposition today. However, I cannot give it entirely unqualified support. There are a number of points that I should like to raise with the Minister.
As I understand it, one of the objectives appears to be to increase revenue to the National Insurance Fund. Of course with such an objective I am in total agreement. But I cannot help recalling that the present condition of the fund is largely due to activities undertaken by the Government in the past. It will be recalled that at one time there was an input from the Treasury to the fund. In 1979 I believe that it was of the order of 18 per cent. The concept originally was that the fund should be built up by contributions from employers, employees and the Government. As a result of successive pieces of legislation, there is, as I understand it, now no Treasury input.

853
We then had the "bribe" to people to come out of SERPS and to join personal private pension schemes. I understand the figures vary but I believe that the correct figure is that it has cost of the order of £6.75 billion; and we have yet to see the real cost when, some years hence, people realise that they would be better off with SERPS and seek to opt back again.
Therefore it is not surprising that the Government should be looking around for ways in which to boost the fund and should have decided that it would be appropriate to treat the company car as if it were a cash benefit, and that employers should pay what amounts to another tax upon it.
However, there are some problems. First, it may be difficult —the CBI has already made the point —to distinguish the genuine tool of the trade from the perk. I should declare an interest. For many years I was assistant general secretary of a union which had within its ranks large numbers of those who were once called commercial travellers but who are now, of course, sales representatives. They once had their own organisation —the United Commercial Travellers Association. UCTA merged with my own union some 10 years ago. Those people are most vehement that the car is for them a tool of the trade and decidedly not a perk. Indeed, they tell me that the pressure to sell is now so great that they have little time or inclination for private use. As the Minister explained, the employee is already taxed in regard to private use. But the Government appear to think that 18,000 miles a year constitutes a dividing line beyond which a car is obviously used for work but that is not necessarily so if the mileage is below that figure. Reference to any sales representative who works, say, in London will produce a very different impression. It is possible to use one's car almost solely for work but still to undertake mileage substantially below that figure.
The recession is now hitting many people who hitherto have escaped. Smaller firms may find in this Government proposal a reason to cut down on sales staff, although one hopes that that will not be the case. There is a case for arguing that during a recession one should try to sell even harder than before. But I am seriously concerned about a possible knock-on effect as regards people employed in such capacities.
There is then the reference to the figure of £8,500 below which there will be an exemption for low paid personnel. I need hardly say that that is not a very high figure. It is about two-thirds of average earnings. Will the Government be prepared to look again at that issue?
There is also a possible effect upon the motor industry. Most large firms buying car fleets tend to buy British cars. The motor industry in this country is a substantial employer of labour. In a situation in which manufacturing industry in this country has been in decline, it is important that the motor industry should be maintained. Of course I understand that it is a question of balance. Environmentalists will argue that the Government are right to attempt to restrict the number of cars on the roads; and I would agree
854
with that if only we had a better public transport system. However, the fact remains that at present we have not.
On this side of the House we do not disagree with the Government's intention of endeavouring to ensure that payment in cars rather than cash should be discontinued or, where it is not, that a contribution should be paid by the employer to the National Insurance Fund. However, we urge that a real attempt be made to distinguish between those for whom it is a real "perk" and those for whom the use of a car is as necessary for them as the word-processor for a secretary and without which they would not be able to make a living.
Finally, what do the Government intend to do with the extra money? Will there be improved benefits, or at least will some of the restrictions placed on access to benefits that we have seen in the past few Social Security Bills now be reviewed? I believe that it is necessary to have an answer to some of those questions. We shall of course be able to pursue the matter further in Committee if we are not satisfied with the answers.
11.56 a.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I was impressed by the Minister's statement when introducing the Bill in another place. He said:
"The purpose of the Bill is to fill what I believe to be an important gap in the national insurance contributions system, as a result of which employers do not pay contributions to the national insurance fund if they pay their employees in cars rather than in cash". —[Official Report, Commons, 9/5/91; col. 849.]
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, said something similar this morning. I agree with him and I support the Second Reading of the Bill.
We on these Benches support the Bill for the following reasons. First, Britain's roads are already crowded and the forecasts of future road use are frightening. In 1987 road traffic churned out into the air that we breathe the following: 98 million tonnes of carbon dioxide; 1.03 million tonnes of nitrogen oxides; 4.47 million tonnes of carbon monoxide; and 0.66 million tonnes of hydrocarbons. The most toxic of those emissions is carbon monoxide, a colourless gas which combines with haemoglobin in the bloodstream and makes the blood less efficient at carrying oxygen.
Secondly, we must do all that we can to encourage a move to the use of public transport; yet even after this Bill we shall have, as I understand it, the most favourable tax regime for company cars in the world. We do not even have a neutral system between cars and public transport —cars are actually encouraged.
Thirdly, it is not only in order to allow everyone to travel at a reasonable speed that we need to encourage public transport. It is also environmental suicide not to tackle our transport problems.
Fourthly, the National Economic Development Council estimates that 90 per cent. of cars entering London between 7 a.m. and 1 p.m. are subsidised by companies.
As the Minister explained, under the Bill it is only employers who will pay national insurance. Therefore,

855
there is still a tax advantage to having a company car. We believe that employees should also pay national insurance so that they pay 34 per cent. on both car and income rather than 25 per cent. on the car and 34 per cent. on the income.
The Minister in another place and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, have explained that the Government are not introducing the measure for employees because of the complications. They say that it would be impracticable. That may be so under present arrangements but it would not be impracticable if the income tax and national insurance systems were integrated. That is of course our policy. Perhaps it is a reform for the future.
The integration would mean that people would pay 34 per cent. —that is 25 plus 9 —up to a taxable income of approximately £23,000 and 40 per cent. thereafter.At present income tax works out at 34 per cent. up to £20,000; 25 per cent. between £20,000 and a taxable income of £23,000; and 40 per cent. thereafter. That occurs because national insurance is currently paid only up to £20,000, which is below the higher rate tax band. We would raise the level of contributions in the higher rate band thus eliminating the present position.
In addition, there is room for improvement of the structure of the scale. For example, the mileage that one needs to cover to qualify as driving a works car as opposed to a perk car is 18,000 miles per annum. That is a high figure for someone working in London but not for someone working in a rural area. That point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. Therefore the formula must be flexible. Public employees such as district nurses should no longer have contracts which oblige them to have company cars and thus sell their own cars. When left to themselves they would simply use their own cars for work. As an immediate step they could be exempt from car tax as the Royal College of Nursing has asked. I understand that at present a district nurse makes a contribution to the local health authority to cover the private use of the car. Therefore any tax that those nurses pay relates to the working use of the car.
I approve the Second Reading of this Bill.
12.2 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend on one issue: this is a complicated Bill. For a short Bill which has only one particular objective it is about as complex and difficult to understand as one can imagine. We are not particularly indebted to the draftsmen; the Bill could have been drafted more clearly and plainly.
Furthermore, it is misdescribed as a Social Security (Contributions) Bill. It has nothing to do with social security; it is an attempt by the Government to raise an additional net sum of about £410 million per annum. That is a perfectly respectable objective. However, it is a misnomer to describe the Bill as a social security Bill when no corresponding benefit is given as a result to the contributors and when no additional benefit to the beneficiaries of national insurance are provided by it. It would have been more frank to insert the provisions in the Finance Bill as a straightforward tax measure because that is their
856
purpose. In his usual elegant style my noble friend had to wrap that up a little, but it is plainly the purpose of the Bill.
In that respect the Bill bears a considerable resemblance to the previous measure to emerge from the same department; that is, the Statutory Sick Pay Act. It has a similar effect in two ways: it contains two provisions which enable the Bill to be amended by statutory instrument if the Government so wish. That is the effect of Clause 1(7) and Clause 2(2). Your Lordships will remember that we had a considerable discussion about whether such a provision was acceptable in respect of the Statutory Sick Pay Act. Your Lordships decided to take that provision out of the Bill and that decision was accepted by another place. Therefore, I find it difficult to understand why we are now presented with a similar provision which my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale describes as a Henry VIII clause. I have never understood why his late majesty should be given the discredit of that particular provision; he has suffered enough discredit for his matrimonial activities.
It is in principle difficult to justify asking Parliament to give the Government powers to amend whenever they think fit —and up to a certain extent this is work that they wish us to do —a statute that we are asked to put on the statute book. I shall be interested to hear my noble friend deal with that matter in reply. When one looks at the precedent of the attempt by the Department of Social Security to do that in the Statutory Sick Pay Act it appears as though the department is trying to slip a similar provision into this Bill. I hope that in Committee your Lordships will feel that the issue merits full discussion.
I do not share the obsession of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, with company cars. Of course some use of some company cars is a perk and is probably acceptable. Companies provide cars largely in order to facilitate efficient working. If one is a senior executive of a company one does not want to have to rush out to find a taxi in London or to struggle onto a train in the country when one is working through a highly complicated day. When I was chairman of a large cement-making company the use of the car was absolutely essential to enable me to do the job that I was set to do.
That leads one to the difficult question which the Bill will pose; what is private use? If one is a senior executive of a big company one will have all kinds of activities which can be looked upon as private use or as being part of one's duty according to one's point of view. So much depends upon personal contacts. For example, if one goes to what appears to be a lunch party with the purpose of meeting the operators of another company with whom one hopes to establish dealings, is that private use or is it use as part of one's work? I warn my noble friend that in practice it will be enormously difficult to determine what is private use. A company executive, for example, may have to visit one or two establishments, competitors and sales organisations outside his company and at the end of a full day's work his car will take him home. Is the latter private use or is it, as common sense suggests, a proper and sensible use of the car? It would be silly if he

857
should suddenly have to abandon the car at his last business meeting and then seek with considerable delay, and possibly additional physical strain, to work his way home. I suggest to my noble friend that the provisions will create enormous difficulties.
As the noble Baroness said, this is taxation. I do not know whether she has observed that, moreover, it is retrospective taxation. If your Lordships look at Clause 6(5) you will see that the charge is to run during the current financial year which began at the beginning of April. We are now more than two months past that time and the Bill is far from being law. And yet, the liability of companies to pay this money is already accumulating in the current financial year as a result of that provision. Therefore, to the charge that this is taxation, I add the more damning charge that it is also retrospective taxation. That seems to me highly undesirable both in itself and as a precedent.
I ask your Lordships to consider whether the cost to companies, which is fairly admitted at the beginning of the Bill will amount to £410 million per year net, is sensibly imposed at this moment. We are in a state —and I shall not use the word "recession" —of trade difficulties. Companies are being quite rightly adjured by the Government to keep down their costs. They are advised to remain as competitive as possible by having reduced costs. Yet this Bill proposes to impose upon companies a net excess of payment of £410 million per year. As the matter is arguable one may take a different view of this matter if we were in a time of high prosperity and boom, when this measure could be imposed without causing companies too much difficulty. However, to make this provision with effect from the current financial year seems to me a matter which calls for a great deal of explanation.
Finally, there is the effect on the motor car industry. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, did not worry about that. He would rather like to see fewer cars. In fact, the motor car industry in this country is an extremely important industrial activity giving a good deal of employment at very good remuneration. It produces excellent products.
The motor car industry is very much down. If one refers to The Times this morning one can see that the sale of new cars in this country last month was only two thirds of the figure for May 1990. Alas, it needs no emphasis from me for it to be seen that the motor car industry is going through a very bad time. If one takes the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, one does not worry about that. It is good that cars should be restricted because they pollute the atmosphere. However, I take a different view. I take the view that the motor car industry is extremely important and has been so for a great many years. I remember, as a boy, when my father was a Member of another place for Coventry, which then as now was a great centre of the motor industry, one was convinced of the great economic importance of the motor car industry as an exporter in this country. There is no doubt that this provision would have adverse effects on that industry.
858
Therefore, there are two reasons which make the timing of this measure particularly inappropriate and surprising from a Government who appear in general to understand well and clearly the economic necessities of the time. I repeat that it is a mistake to add £400 million to the costs of industry just like that. Surely it is a mistake to add increasing discouragement to the purchase of cars by industry and business generally which is a very important element in the market of cars.
Therefore, with regret I believe that this Bill is misconceived. It should receive the same careful examination as that received by the Statutory Sick Pay Bill with similar satisfactory results by way of improving it. It seems a pity that at this moment the Government —a Government which in general I fully support and for which I have the greatest respect and regard —should produce a measure which in a modest degree, for I do not wish to exaggerate, is damaging to the economic objectives which Government policy seeks to support.
12.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I welcome the partial support which I have received for this measure from the Benches opposite. I take note of my noble friend's points. I hope that I shall be able to answer some of them in the course of my speech.
First, I turn to the allegations made by my noble friend that this Bill contains what may be termed a Henry VIII clause. I do not accept that it is such a clause. Also, in my view, there is no need for anxiety on this score. I am referring to subsection (7). First, the regulatory powers can be exercised only following an amendment to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act; that is, following primary legislation.
Secondly, the content of such regulations is limited to matters which are necessary or expedient in consequence of any alteration to that legislation. Thus, the powers can be used only to amend the new section following the introduction of the primary legislation which makes necessary such a change.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if that is right why are not those amendments, if they are necessary, made in the forthcoming legislation? Why is the thoroughly bad precedent being used of amending primary legislation by regulation?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend alleges that this provision should be contained in a finance Bill and not in a social security Bill. It is not possible to use the Finance Bill to amend the national insurance system. I do not accept that the new contributions are a tax. It has been a long established principle that employers should contribute to the balance of the National Insurance Fund. Therefore, necessary amendments should be made in this social security Bill.
If we take out the clause to which my noble friend objects, we shall not be able to amend this legislation to keep it in line with the Income and Corporation Taxes Act. Therefore, any budget changes would

859
necessitate a social security Bill every year or the two systems would fall out of line. That would not be in the interests of employers operating this system.
Also, I do not believe that we have breached any principle as regards retrospection, as my noble friend alleged. As I said in introducing the Bill, this is a budget measure. Budget measures are normally introduced from the beginning of the tax year and before the necessary legislation has been passed.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, surely the difference is that budget measures are introduced before the beginning of the financial year. The Budget is before the beginning of the financial year.
Lord Henley: My Lords, yes. I have explained to my noble friend that this is a budget measure. The announcement to introduce this provision was made in the Budget. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced these measures in the Budget. The Bill followed later. Liability will not arise until next year.
I turn to some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden. She asked about the state of the fund and whether this Bill is merely designed to prop up the fund. The measures in the Bill are not .solely aimed at revenue gathering. I have made it clear in opening this debate that we are principally adjusting an anomaly which has grown up by virtue of the now widespread practice of employers providing what is essentially remuneration by means of cars and free fuel for their employees' personal use. We believe that that should attract liability for national insurance contributions.
With regard to the balance of the fund mentioned by the noble Baroness, as she will be aware it is in a healthy state. The balance will be £11.2 billion at the end of 1991–92, which is equal to 33 per cent. of annual benefit expenditure. As the noble Baroness is aware also, the Government Actuary recommends a minimum balance of two months' benefit expenditure, which is 16.7 per cent. However, it is expected that the expenditure from the fund will exceed income over the next few years and the balance is therefore projected to fall to around the minimum recommended by the Government Actuary.
In fixing any future rates of national insurance contribution my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, as he is obliged to do by law, will take into account the balance in the National Insurance Fund including any additional revenue raised by the Bill. The benefit rates are fixed in the light of all the relevant Factors at the time of the uprating. My noble friend alleged that it should not be a social security Bill in that there is no benefit to the contributor. As I said, my right honourable friend will take into account the balance of the fund in fixing future contribution rates. To that extent there may be some benefit. If my noble friend had listened to me he would also have noted that the clause allows some of the money to be paid to the National Health Service, as happens with contributions from the National Insurance Fund.
The noble Baroness was worried that there was insufficient distinction between those cars used as essential tools of the trade and those given purely as
860
perks. The scale charge rules recognise that distinction. As the noble Baroness is aware, within each of the five bands of types of car —decided on either price or engine capacity —there will be a standard charge for those used between 2,500 and 18,000 miles. Those that are purely perk cars that is, used for less than 2,500 business miles and therefore mainly for private use —will pay an extra 50 per cent.; the scale will be 50 per cent. higher.
Those who use the cars over 18,000 miles will pay 50 per cent. less in that they are largely cars used as tools of the trade. However, I must emphasise that a large amount of private use takes place even for those cars that do more than 18,000 business miles. If there is private use it should be treated as a perk and therefore there should be some contribution liability. If they are not available for private use there is no liability at all. These rules are exactly the same as those operated by the Inland Revenue. I accept that there may be concern in deciding what is and what is not business use —a point raised by my noble friend —when calculating the number of miles done over the year on business use. That is why, when opening the debate, I stressed that we intend to consult with business interests and welcome their comments on the best way of operating the system.
I turn to the effect on employment. The noble Baroness suggested that firms will cut down on their sales staff. I simply do not accept that. It is ridiculous to believe that firms will cut down on the one way that they can survive in difficult times by getting rid of their sales staff. I do not accept that this measure will have a deleterious effect on the manufacturing industry. We recognise that the car industry is currently experiencing a difficult time. My noble friend quite rightly mentioned the figures for last month. We know that demand is falling and that the recession has proved to be much deeper than expected. However, the industry has prospered under the Government's economic policies and will continue to do so in the future. The reduction in inflation and falling interest rates will have a beneficial impact on United Kingdom car sales. Recent budgets have seen a steep rise in scale charges without reducing the growth of new car sales.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the Minister accept that when employers or firms buy fleets of cars they tend to buy British cars rather than cars from overseas? That was the point I was making. I was referring to the effect on the British industry of reductions in the size of fleets.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I note what the noble Baroness says. I do not believe that it is always the case that firms tend to buy British. I can certainly think of a great many perk cars that are foreign imports. I do not accept that it is a valid point that we should artificially support a company car system so as to artificially support the car industry. What will support the car industry best is producing the best cars that people will wish to buy. I am sure that the car industry in this country will eventually achieve that. These measures should be seen in the context of the Budget as a whole. That was good for business as a whole, including the car industry.

861
The noble Baroness asked about the figure of £8,500 and why we chose it. Again, we deliberately chose that figure to have exactly the same threshold as that used by the Inland Revenue. That will keep the system as simple as possible for those who operate it and enable them to understand it. I confirm that there are no plans to increase that threshold.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, made a point in regard to district nurses. I confirm that there is no tax or national insurance contribution if there is no private usage. The scale charge is designed to reduce the contribution made by the employee to the cost of private motoring.
The noble Lord felt also that employees should pay. I do not accept that. As I said in opening the debate, I do not see that it would serve any practical purpose and it would be difficult to operate. Over half of the employees who are provided with company cars are above the upper earnings limit and would not be affected. We would have to introduce a very complicated scheme to bring in relatively small amounts of money.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said that this was the wrong time to impose an extra burden on employers and the industry, and I know that some employers will resent the imposition of this new contribution charge even though it will represent only a tiny fraction of industry's overall labour costs of some £300 billion a year. However, the Bill must be seen in the context of the Budget as a whole. It is a way of correcting an imbalance in the contribution system. The Budget itself was good for business with changes in corporation tax and VAT worth £750 million with yet more to come in 1992–3.
As part of the Budget judgment the measures before the House today are a matter of fairness producing a less distorted choice between paying in cars or in cash. It is right that employers who choose to pay their employees in cars and fuel should face the same obligation as those who feel that they have to pay with cash or have no alternative but to pay with cash. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Badgers Bill
12.29 p.m.
Lord Houghton of SowerbyLords, it gives me particular pleasure to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Noble Lords will see that there are two Bills before the House today. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and I have formed a harmonious partnership on the two Bills. They are compatible, complementary and they do not overlap; each has its part to play in amending the Badgers Act 1973. I was not in the House when the principal Act was passed in that year. I came a year later. I was here in time to deal with the tragic aftermath of the Bill to protect badgers which arose from the discovery of the infection that could be passed from cattle to badgers or from badgers to
862
cattle. Authorised persons had to be admitted to badger destruction on a very large scale. That was much too soon after we passed the first Bill to give badgers any protection at all.
It is worth recalling for a moment or two that your Lordships' House was the pioneer of badger protection. A Bill from your Lordships' House was sponsored and skilfully piloted through this Chamber by the late Lord Arran, the father of the present Earl. It is to him that all badger lovers pay tribute in the cover which his Bill first gave to badgers and from which has flowed an enormous public sentiment in favour of the badger. It is the best loved, most easily recognised and perhaps least known of all our wildlife mammals. We have gone a long way since 1973 in the wave of public interest in the badger. I can tell the extent of that from a collection of Christmas cards, birthday cards, and others, portraying the badger which I have found in the shops over the years. The volume of those cards is simply astonishing. The badger has supplanted cats, dogs and foxes and become the nation's favourite mammal. That is an augury which we can all feel happy about.
The Bill comes from the House of Commons. The original Bill went from here to the other place on 1st May 1973. It received Royal Assent on the very last day of the Session before the Recess, on 25th July 1973. Another noble Lord mentioned in the history of the Badgers Bill is the late Lord Cranbrook, the father of the present Earl. It was his parliamentary skill and knowledge which was placed at the disposal of the rather amateur band of lobbyists and supporters of the Badgers Bill who wanted some guidance to deal with the intricacies of parliamentary procedure and convention.
We now have to thank those who have sent the present Bill here. We owe the Bill to the persistent and devoted work of two members of another place, Mr. Tony Banks and Mr. Roy Hughes. My Bill came to grief in the last Session over the problems to which I shall refer in a moment or two. We hope that we shall overcome them in your Lordships' House. When Mr. Roy Hughes came out of the ballot with a sufficiently high place in this Session, he chose to reintroduce the Bill of Mr. Tony Banks. It is that Bill which we now have before us, having gone through all its stages in the other place. We are grateful to both of them for the persistent work that they have done.
Perhaps I may also say in passing that the experience of the last Session and the desire and determination this Session to get an agreed Bill has led to what is called the "coalition", which has been in frequent session and consultation. It consists of the main interests connected with the badger; namely, the animal protection societies, the hunting committees and others who have an interest in the Bill. To establish a sufficient accord between the diverse elements in this controversy and to get them together in the same room talking to each other about the same Bill and the same subjects, is quite an achievement. On this occasion that has been made possible.
The main thrust of the Bill is quite clearly Clause 1. It is an attempt to make the protection of the badger as complete as it is possible to do by statutory law.

863
From the definition of a lawful activity noble Lords will sec that the Bill seeks to preclude almost any activity which might be a disturbance to a badger. Clause 1(3) states:
"If any person shall interfere with a badger sett by doing any of the following things, that is to say,

(a) damaging a badger sett or any part thereof;

(b) destroying a badger sett;

(c) obstructing access to or any entrance of a badger sett;

(d) causing a dog to enter a badger sett: or

(e) disturbing a badger when it is occupying a badger sett intending to do any of those things or being reckless as to whether his actions will have any of those consequences, he shall be guilty of an offence".

The draftsmen feel that that is just about 100 per cent. protection of the badger that can be put into statute law. It follows that for permission to authorise persons to be free from prosecution under this Bill it is necessary to be more precise than ever before in defining what is the range of activity that an authorised person can undertake without the mischief of the Act coming on him. That is what we are doing in the rest of the Bill and that is where the main trouble has arisen. Incidentally, we have stiffened the penalties under the 1973 Act. Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 we put the onus of proof on a suspect to prove that he was not digging for badgers.
The main problem that has arisen in many decided cases where prosecutions took place has been the excuse of the suspected person that he was digging for foxes and not badgers. We all know that foxes and badgers are compatible and are to be frequently found in adjoining setts. I have a thriving colony of badgers within a three-minute walk of my house. I have been watching it for the past 30 years. I have found large open setts which divide a few feet down. The badgers go down one and the foxes go down the other. They can be as close together as that. Therefore, it is not only this compatibility between foxes and badgers that has provided the excuse for those accused of badger digging, it enters into the provisions of Clause 3 when we come to deal with one of the authorised licences under what is called "stopping out" in hunting jargon.
The onus of proof was changed to make it more difficult to use the excuse of digging for something else. The law was changed to provide that if any trace of a badger is found on an accused person that should be regarded as prima facie evidence that they were seeking to destroy that evidence. I have said enough about Clause 1. I hope there will be no controversy about it. If anyone can make it 101 per cent. complete then that is worth consideration.
I turn now to Clause 3. If one is to define in statute law conditions of immunity from the mischief of the law for certain activities by certain persons, the problem of definition arises. Hitherto, guidance has been given to those employed by the hunts in the process known as "stopping out". Indeed, the hunts have operated under guidelines which have kept them free of the conditions of the 1973 Act; but now the clearer assertion of what is unlawful requires that we should be equally clear about what is not unlawful. Therefore, one of our problems is to define a badger sett. We shall come to that later in the Bill —and neither is that free of difficulty. The problems of definition are very tiresome, as your Lordships know.
864
The licences that can be issued give rise to some difficulties which were acknowledged in the House of Commons when this Bill was passed and on which we might have to do a little sorting out. The first problem will be to define the materials which may be used to stop up a badger's sett for the purposes of the hunt. That is found in Clause 3(5). It may be rather amusing but, to other people, the inference is rather sensitive. The materials which may be used are:
"clean loose straw or hay, or leaf-litter, or bracken, or loose soil placed in the entrances on the day of the hunt, or … a bundle of sticks or faggots, or paper sacks either empty or filled with clean loose straw, or hay, or leaf-litter, or bracken, or loose soil."
Do we need the word "clean"? If we take it out, what inference does one draw from that? Those are very fine points; but important decisions hang upon them.
Having mentioned that, the definition in Clause 3(5) of what may be used for "stopping out" has to be considered. Under the same clause a record must be kept of persons authorised to act on behalf of the hunt. The words appear a little further on:
"the person is so doing with the consent of the landowner".
Should it be the landowner? Should it be the occupier by reason of his hounds marking a sett? That is the second point. The third point, which we find in Clause 5, is the definition of a badger sett.
Those are the three points that are likely to receive attention during Committee stage. I hope that out of the partnership of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and myself, and the consultations we had together with the so-called coalition representing all interests, amendments can be tabled early next week which can provide the basis for our final judgment when we come to the Committee stage. I understand a provisional date has been fixed for Friday 21st June. That represents the sum total of what we may have to deal with. Other points may arise and obviously we shall listen to all speakers. I am grateful to all noble Lords who are taking part in the debate.
Finally, I have just a little note of personal pride. I am the only Member of your Lordships' House with badgers as supporters in his coat of arms. Only two other coats of arms contain badgers; one is a municipality in County Fermanagh in Northern Ireland and the other, believe it or not, is Tesco. I have badgers as supporters for two reasons: I am warmly devoted to them and have been watching them for years before I came to your Lordships' House, and they are my favourite wildlife. The name "badger" is also sometimes applied to collectors and inspectors of taxes, with whom I was so long associated in my professional life. Tesco decided that it could not be motivated by either of those aspects and therefore its badger is a symbol of good housekeeping. There we see what virtues a badger may have.
In all the circumstances, I believe that your Lordships will receive the Bill with approval and approach the Committee stage in the spirit of accommodation which is now prevalent among those interested in the provisions of the Bill. If we do that we will have carried much further the protection of the badger. We shall then all feel very happy that we have done a good job of work in rather a dismal fortnight of animal prominence.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
12.48 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, after the proceedings on this Bill, I shall formally move the Second Reading of the Badgers (Further Protection) Bill. The two measures before us today are the next valuable steps forward in the area of animal conservation in Britain. They extend the already unique degree of protection enjoyed by the badger to the badger's habitat and hamper the convicted criminal's ability to re-offend by removing his most vital tool, his dog.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in moving his Bill has covered the whole subject at slightly greater length than I intend to, but then he is far more eloquent and has, if I may say so, slightly more experience. Although his remarkable track record is longer and better proven than mine, I should like to assure him and the House that as a passionate fox-hunter my commitment to conservation and animal welfare is every bit as deep as his. Though I cannot guarantee that I shall be around to debate in your Lordships' House in the year 2057 —by which time I shall be the same age as the noble Lord is now —if I am, however, I can also assure your Lordships that I shall be present on November 1st at the opening meet of that season's fox-hunting.
The noble Lord has given the House much of the background and so it would be superfluous of me to repeat it. However, it is important to remember why this legislation is desirable. The badger is not an endangered species. Indeed, the population, estimated at about 250,000, is probably greater than it has ever been. Some West Country farmers might even suggest that there were too many badgers, but that is definitely a debate for another day.
Nor indeed is badger baiting the greatest threat to the badger. That dubious distinction is held by the motor car, which accounts for 45,000 badgers each year, and urban and road development, both of which destroy more badgers and badger habitats than anything else; they destroy more of the 47,000 main badger setts. But there is something especially repugnant about the practice of badger baiting that invites the condemnation of all Englishmen and particularly of field sportsmen. Too often the fox-hunting community has been blamed for delaying legislation aimed at protecting badgers. Today's debate will put paid to that notion for ever.
The Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, replaces one sponsored by my honourable friend Sir Nicholas Bonsor, chairman of the British Field Sports Society, who is also a main supporter of my Bill. Indeed the British Field Sports Society and the Masters of Fox Hounds Association welcome both these measures, though of course the noble Lord's Bill will, as he said, require a little amending to make it more workable. Fox-hunters have long been the preservers of habitat, long before it became fashionable, and it is no coincidence that where fox-hunting is practised in the finest tradition and earth stopping is most intensive, there too the badger
866
concentration is greatest. Similarly, where there is little fox-hunting and little earth stopping in places like East Anglia, there are fewer badgers.
I am delighted that the sponsors of the noble Lord's Bill were able to recognise this by accepting the amendments tabled in another place to Clause 3 of the Bill. The Masters of Fox Hounds Association and the other organisations were extremely pleased that the voluntary code of practice on earth stopping is now to be enshrined in law, along with a register kept by the hunts, so that no badger baiter can ever again use the defence that he was in legitimate pursuit of foxes. For too long legitimate field sportsmen and farmers have been tarred with the same brush as the badger baiters. That brush can now be thrown away for ever and field sportsmen will be seen as the friend of the badger that they have always been.
The Bill put forward last year by Mr. Banks failed primarily because the promoter was unable to satisfy farming interests that they would be able to continue their legitimate and very necessary fox control. As the noble Lord said, the definition of a badger sett in Clause 5 has already been amended in another place. However, I think that we shall probably need to look at that again. Dr. Stephen Harris, in his excellent report for the Nature Conservancy Council, suggested that it was only desirable to protect main setts. After all, it cannot be Parliament's intentional desire to make sacred every hole in the ground. Further amending of this clause will undoubtedly be necessary at Committee stage. But whereas last year the many interested parties were so intransigent as to cause the Bill to fail, I detect a new air of compromise. There is every hope that agreement can be reached.
There will also need to be amendments to Clause 3 to allow fox-hunters to continue their sport according to their strict traditional rules, but those will be only technical amendments. There cannot be very much disagreement about them. There is one area, however, that gives cause for concern. I refer to Clause 4. There is a fear in the farming community that the proposed licensing procedures will not work. Farmers and others concerned with fox control need reassurance from the Government as to whom and in what circumstances licences will be issued. The proposers of the Bill likewise need to know who will not receive licences and in what circumstances. I wrote earlier to my noble friend Lady Trumpington but as yet have received no satisfactory reply.
Licensing plays a major part in the Bill. It is the Government's responsibility to reassure those involved that the licensing system will work. If the Bill were to fail because the Government had not reassured farmers on this point, the Government would not easily be forgiven. I implore my noble friend Lord Astor to make sure that the issue is resolved before we reach Committee stage. If these issues can be resolved —I believe they can —we shall be able to send the Bill on its way knowing that we have done much useful work and with the confidence that it can reach the statute book this Session.
Perhaps I may now turn to the Badgers (Further Protection) Bill. It was introduced at a later stage in another place and has been closely supported by my

867
honourable friends Sir Nicholas Bonsor and Sir Charles Morrison and by Mr. Roy Hughes. It is, as are all things with which I am concerned, delightfully simple It prevents convicted badger baiters from owning or keeping a dog. If one does not have a dog, one cannot dig for a badger.
Under the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 1954, courts have the power to disqualify persons convicted of cruelty to domestic or captive wild animals from having custody of any animal specified for arty period they think fit. Breach of the disqualification order results in a fine or up to three months' imprisonment, or both. This legislation clearly has the purpose of ensuring that a person who abuses animals is not only punished but is not given the opportunity to abuse them again. It is anomalous that offences under the Badgers Act 1973 are not covered by those provisions. At present a person convicted of baiting a badger can be barred from having custody of a dog only if he is also convicted of an offence of cruelty to the dog. Courts have powers to confiscate particular dogs used for baiting, but unless cruelty to the dog can be proved it is open to the defendant to acquire another dog at any time. Yet the general power of the courts to disqualify has existed since 1954.
The Badgers (Further Protection) Bill therefore extends the powers to disqualify to the most serious offences under Sections 1 and 2 of the Badgers Act 1973 —taking, injuring or killing badgers and offences of cruelty to badgers. It should be noted that if the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is passed, these powers will also extend to all offences of interfering with a sett where a dog has been used or is present at the commission of an offence. The Badgers (Further Protection) Bill goes further than equivalent legislation for domestic or captive wild animals by giving courts powers to order the destruction of a dog. While many of us hope that this will not be necessary, it is a useful new weapon in the courts' armoury to wield against the most evil and determined badger baiters. I hope that it will be a powerful deterrent.
These new powers will not only strengthen the ability of the courts to punish and deter offenders but will aid he prosecution of disqualified people who are found to have carried out cruelty to badgers again. The Bill is an important measure which I am sure will command widespread support in the House.
Perhaps I may go through the Bill quickly. It is basically a two-clause Bill, the main part being Clause 1. Subsection (1) grants courts new order-making powers where a dog has been used or is present at the commission of an offence under Section 1(1) or Section 2 of the Badgers Act 1973. In such cases courts may order the destruction or other disposal of a dog and/or the disqualification of the offender from having further custody of a dog for such period as the court thinks fit. Subsection (2) provides that the court may appoint a person to undertake the destruction or other disposal of a dog and require that the dog be delivered up for that purpose. It further makes the offender liable to pay the costs of destruction or disposal of the dog and of keeping it in the interim.
868
Subsection (3) provides that where the offender is not the owner of the dog, the owner may appeal to the Crown Court against a destruction or disposal order. Subsection (4) provides for a delay in the implementation of a destruction order pending notice of an appeal given to the Crown Court; and if such notice is given, until the appeal is determined or withdrawn. Subsection (5) allows for an application for the termination of a disqualification order after one year. Subsection (6) provides that, on application under subsection (5), the court may grant or refuse the application or order the applicant to pay all or any part of the costs involved. If the application is refused, no further application can be made for another year. Subsection (7) makes it an offence to have custody of a dog if disqualified or to refuse to deliver a dog up for destruction or other disposal. The maximum penalty is set at level 5 on the standard scale. Subsection (8) provides that an order for costs under subsection (2) (b) shall be recoverable as a civil debt. Subsection (9) refers to the application of these provisions to Scotland. Clause 2 is the Short Title, saving, commencement and extent. I do not think that I need go into that further.
In conclusion, the Badgers (Further Protection) Bill has received the whole-hearted support of the British Field Sports Society, the Masters of Fox Hounds Association, the National Farmers' Union and the entire badger coalition. It was supported unanimously in another place and reached your Lordships' House unamended.
Your Lordships' House is the revising Chamber. I cannot advise your Lordships otherwise than to give the Bill the closest scrutiny and the benefit of your undoubted expertise in this area. However, should any noble Lords see fit to press an amendment and return the Bill to another place, it would be most unlikely ever to reach the statute book. I think that that would be a great pity.
These two measures are vast leaps forward both, as I said, in the area of animal protection in our country and because all interests have come together to put them on the statute book. With the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, I shall do my best to ensure that we come to an agreement on the details of this Bill. I hope that noble Lords will —as, indeed, they usually do —play their part. I commend the Bill to the House.
1 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, having just listened to the speeches made by the two previous speakers, I find myself in a position where, even if I wanted to disagree with anything in this Bill, I should not dare to do so. The coalition which has been formed to ensure that these measures actually reach the statute book seems to me to be one of the most impressive that I have ever encountered. When field sports interests and conservation interests are prepared to get into bed together, I suggest that we should bless any issue from the union.
As regards the actual issue of badger-baiting, my only experience of it has been watching the odd piece of film on the subject. I thought that it was probably the most repugnant thing I have ever seen. Therefore,

869
anything which stops such a practice should be given full support. If we are to ensure that the measures work, we must make sure that all those concerned who have any legitimate worries over the steps which need to be taken to prevent badger-baiting are given as much help as is necessary, while still achieving the prevention of such practices.
I have read through the proposed compromises. I cannot pretend to have any expertise on the subject. They seem to me to be practical, straightforward and necessary. If such steps are taken, I suggest that we should fully support them. By the same standard, I believe that we should accept the fact that if any amendments need to be made to the Bills, they should be made quickly and with the least fuss possible. I hope that the two measures will go through properly. I shall give my personal support to any measures which are agreed and regarded as being necessary.
I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, on his Bill. I believe that it cuts new ground and takes a very strong stance against the abuse of a domestic animal. That is effectively what we are talking about when we speak about using a dog for this type of activity. In its own way, his Bill is breaking even more important new ground. I hope that it will be used as a precedent for any further activity in the field. I say that because when a dog is encouraged —and it is mainly dogs that we are talking about —to fight either other dogs, other animals or even, undoubtedly, people, ultimately one has to prevent those people who have perverted the nature of the dog, or encouraged it to change its nature beyond what is normal, from owning a dog. Unfortunately, a dog which has been that warped often has to be destroyed.
Not only are we dealing with a very difficult problem here; I hope that we are also taking steps towards future control and action to safeguard domestic animals. This can be seen as a step towards future developments in the area. I take on board the point that, no matter how savage we have been about badger-baiting in the past, it is urban development and the way we live in the modern world which is ultimately the greatest threat to wild life. It is to be hoped that that is something of which we shall not lose sight once we have passed this or any similar legislation. It is modern farming and development, not systematic hunting, that has put paid to the existence of many animals which have inhabited this island. If you destroy the environment in which something lives, you will ultimately destroy it far more surely than you would by shooting it or by exercising any other form of control. Having said that, I wish both measures well.
1.5 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, unlike the honourable member for Romsey and Waterside who spoke in another place for one hour and 19 minutes on the Second Reading of the Badger Bill, I shall be extremely brief. In supporting the two Bills, I speak as a landowner in South Wales, where, until recently,
870
there were reports of badger digging and baiting in the area. Thanks to the vigilant work of the local Badger Watch Society, this has been halted.
Although it has been accepted that many of the statistics on badgers are inaccurate, I feel that it is noteworthy —and this point has already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft —that badgers are not an endangered animal. Indeed, there are an estimated 250,000 adult badgers in about 43,000 clan groups in Britain. Moreover, almost 105,000 cubs are born per annum. However, the deaths of badgers are most worrying. Figures have been quoted which show that deaths by digging and badger-baiting are in the region of 9,000 to 10,000 per annum.
It is also worth mentioning that up to four times that number —that is, up to 45,000 badgers —are killed on the roads each year. I am concerned by the fact that 700 badgers, nearly all in the South West, are trapped and shot each year by agricultural ministry veterinary officers to prevent the suspected spread of TB to cattle. I have used the word "suspected" and I shall return to it later. Other figures claim that almost 15 per cent. of active main setts have had some holes artificially blocked.
I support the Bill's amendments in its endeavours to stop the loophole in the 1973 Act by specifically dealing with badger setts. However, I accept that there is validity to the criticism that there needs to be a clearer definition of "badger sett" in Clause 5, even though this point has been clarified since the Second Reading in another place. Clearly, there are many vacant, unoccupied setts. It has been pointed out that vacant badger setts are often occupied by foxes and rabbits, which obviously harm crops. Although Clause 4 provides for the granting of licences to remove foxes from badger setts, farmers need to be assured that such licences will, within reason, be swiftly granted.
There has been much speculation on the extent to which badgers are a probable source of bovine tuberculosis in cattle herds. To my knowledge, there is no scientific evidence to prove that badgers are carriers of bovine tuberculosis to cattle. It has been suggested by several sources that the cause of tuberculosis in dairy cattle could well lie in modern farming methods.
Central in my view to the objectives of the 1973 Act and the Bills before us, is the fact that the penalties imposed for those found guilty of infringing the law should be harsh. I welcome the inclusion in the Criminal Justice Act of the provision that those found guilty of badger offences can be sentenced to up to six months' imprisonment and that level 5 fines can be increased from £2,000 to £5,000. I also support the penalties included in the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for further protection.
In conclusion, I hope that during the course of the passage of these Bills a workable solution can be reached between the badger coalition wildlife campaigners, the farmers and the British Field Sports Society. Clearly these Bills are not designed to give badgers unique protection; more specifically, they are designed to protect them from cruelty. It is my hope

871
and belief that with the tightening of the legislation and more stringent penalties, badger baiting and digging will be substantially wiped out.
1.10 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, I wish to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said with my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Mancroft on the excellence of his Bill. It has my unreserved support, I have no reservations about it and I hope that we shall see it on the statute book.
However, I have some worries about the Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I am confident that if we put these worries on the record today, the spirit that he has shown of compromise and agreement will prevail and we shall be able to find a solution to the problems at the Committee stage. However, it is important that we should have these reservations listed and recorded as a result of the debate.
I support the principal aim of the Bill, which is further 10 protect badgers against digging. I accept that there is a case for extending the new protection to badger setts, provided —and this is the main proviso —that farming, field sports and pest control activities are not restricted. Some of these anxieties were met in another place, but not all.
The Bill will still make some normal agricultural operations unlawful. It will severely hinder the ability of hunts farmers and gamekeepers to control foxes and —more important than that —to control rabbits. I am one of those people stupid enough to believe that England is an excellent place when there are plenty of rabbits. I know that that is an old-fashioned view, but rabbiting is a cheap and plentiful sport which many people can enjoy. Rabbits give the farmers and foresters a legitimate reason for complaining. They give our wives a legitimate reason for being belligerent when they get into our gardens. They ensure that the foxes are well fed. However, we must realise that the rabbit population in this country is once again expanding. I do not know of a single case where a vacant badger sett is not immediately occupied by rabbits.
As has been said, badgers are not rare animals. The badger population, particularly in the West Country, is exploding, and rabbits are prolific. Badgers already receive unique protection under the Badgers Act 1973, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, agreed. Nevertheless, we must admit that the 1973 Act unfortunately has a loophole and there is a case for extending the protection still further, in order to tackle badger digging, which is a continuing problem.
On the other hand, the Bill proposes a level of protection for badger setts which is in excess of the protection given to the habitats of other rare animals. I refer in particular to the protection of the otter and its holts under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Therefore as badger setts are now so numerous, it is important that we should have a defence to allow normal countryside activities. At present, the badger is protected, its sett is not. It will be an offence under the
872
Bill for a person who recklessly or intentionally damages, destroys, obstructs the entrances of, disturbs a badger in or allows a terrier to enter, a badger sett.
As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said during the Committee stage in another place, the promoters accepted that it would be legitimate for hunts to stop setts and for packs of hounds to mark at a sett where a fox had gone to ground, provided they were removed from the scene as quickly as possible. I agree that the stopping problem has been dealt with. I see no mention of the problem of stinking. It is no good just stopping foxes into setts, one has to stink them out 24 hours before one wants to hunt the country. I hope that in the negotiations the problem of stinking out will be covered, because it is just as important as stopping.
Despite the Commons amendment to the definition of "sett", in my opinion it is still far too wide. The definition in the Bill means that a sett is described as any place which shows signs of use, and it will have to be protected. It is not just the big badger sett at the end of the garden of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, it is any drain that is used by a badger or any wood pile occupied by a badger. There are masses of those throughout southern England as a result of the gales. Any of those drains, wood piles or other warrens which show signs of badger occupation will be totally protected.
Badgers rarely abandon a sett. It may become vacant, but it is never totally abandoned. During the time when it is vacant and is taken over by rabbits or foxes it will, as I understand it at the moment, still be an offence to put a terrier in to bolt a fox or to dig the sett in order to get the rabbits out, even though the sett is not being used by the badger community at the time.
I shall certainly press an amendment at the Committee stage to insist that protection is given only to those setts which show signs of current occupation by a badger. In this House, we all realise that current occupation by a badger is one of the easiest things to prove because, of all the British mammals, none has a more distinct pad mark than a badger, quite apart from his habit of having his local lavatory nearby. It is extremely easy to see whether or not a sett is vacant.
The tightening up of the law in 1985 reversed the question of guilt of an offence at a badger sett. It also tightened up the loophole by making it an offence to cause a dog to enter a badger's sett. I believe that we must ensure that hunt terriers are allowed into badger setts, because the use of terriers is essential for fox control.
Perhaps we may take the example of the hill farming areas and consider those which are subject to the less favoured area payments in the extremities of the realm —England, Wales and Scotland. What is the position? It is quite simply that no fox will stump breed, the weather is too bad. For years and years, throughout the hill farming areas, fox earths have been well known. They have been looked after because they are extremely valuable. We know perfectly well that by March the resident vixen will take up her territory and occupy one of the well known setts.

873
There will probably be a vixen, who has been squeezed out, living round the outside. She will not come because she has no house, no earth to which to go.
What happens to cause the trouble is that those valuable fox earths, about which we all know and which are worked over every year before lambing, are taken over by the badgers. This disturbs the fox population, pushing it out in many cases to rabbit holes and other places which are not generally known. It increases the work of finding and destroying them before the lambing season starts.
My noble friend Lord Mancroft pressed the noble Viscount to comment when he winds up on the point that the Ministry of Agriculture will issue an open general licence for people to put terriers into fox earths that may be occupied by badgers. I am not absolutely certain that the noble Viscount can give this undertaking because any form of licensing will require expenditure. I believe that we shall find ourselves putting down an amendment which, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, knows, will be classed by another place as a privilege amendment. There is no certainty that such an amendment will be accepted. It would not even have to be debated. It would be sent back to this Chamber as a provision that has not been included in the Bill because it involves expenditure. The provision would increase the expenditure of the Ministry of Agriculture and therefore the House of Commons would not have to provide a reason for rejecting it. An amendment on licensing could be removed from the Bill as it would be considered a matter of privilege and the Bill would then be returned to this House. I shall take a lot of convincing that a licensing system would work, would be implemented and will be added to the Bill. However, if there is no prospect of some form of licensing system, I shall have grave difficulty in agreeing to give the Bill a Second Reading.
We have dealt with the stopping of badger setts. I am disturbed by the fact that the Bill imposes conditions on earth stopping. Some of those conditions are reasonable and are in line with the code of practice laid down by the Masters of Foxhounds Association —for example the prohibition on the use of foreign objects. However, that does not deal with the problem of all the unregistered packs. After all the writ of the Masters of Foxhounds Association does not extend to the whole of Wales and it certainly does not extend to the whole of Scotland. The writ of that association does not recognise the many gun packs that exist in Wales. That is another serious problem. We must consider who will license or control the recognised diggers. I seek an assurance from my noble friend Lord Mancroft that he is aware of this problem and that it will be considered in Committee.
I believe this Bill, as presented by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is absolutely fair. It is well intentioned but I regret to say that it is poorly targeted. Legislation should be directed at badger diggers and badger baiters, who cause appalling cruelty to badgers. It should also be directed at those who interfere with setts in a way that can harm badgers. The Bill has in some ways already been
874
approved before it left another place. I hope I have made it clear to your Lordships today that I shall seek further amendments in Committee. Unless legitimate countryside activities can be protected, I shall have the greatest difficulty in agreeing to give the Bill a Second Reading. In its present form the Bill is not acceptable to many of the interests involved in this matter.
1.23 p.m.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, it is customary in this House to make some comment on the speeches of the preceding speakers. I have listened to all the speeches made so far in the debate and I have no intention of referring in great detail to any amendments that may be proposed for the Committee stage. Those will be considered in Committee. My comments will be of a general tenor. I hope noble Lords will bear in mind the fact that this Bill has come to us from another place and it is quite obvious from the Hansard records of the debate in another place that great consideration has been given to all the issues involved. Another place took a constructive attitude towards the Bill in the hope that noble Lords will also consider the Bill in a constructive fashion.
I hope both Houses will consider this issue fairly. I also hope that both Houses will be willing to reach a compromise on certain issues, if necessary, and will not be too rigid about any of the measures in the Bill. I am a consultant to the charity, Care for the Wild. The name of the charity is an apt description of the work it carries out. The driving force behind the trustees of the charity is William Jordan, who directs the charity's activities. Care for the Wild has shown great interest in the establishment of a national federation of badger groups. Care for the Wild has given financial support to those groups. That support is justified by the universal acceptance of the fact that badgers need to be protected from cruelty. William Jordan is also a member of a national commission which is considering the international implementation of rules on whaling. Therefore he is an expert in animal matters. He is also a fully qualified veterinary surgeon. He has great experience of the cruelty suffered by badgers over the years and he is very concerned about the present situation.
William Jordan is greatly interested in reducing the incidence of cruelty to badgers. He hopes that the Bill will receive careful consideration in this Chamber and that we shall come to an understanding on this matter. I hope that we shall produce a Bill that will improve the situation in general.
1.27 p.m.
Lord Davies: My Lords, the Bill in its present form causes considerable worry to those who live and make their livelihoods by working in the countryside. Of course, we are all against badger baiters and for the badger, but this Bill protects badger setts to an unnecessary extent. Among those who have promoted this Bill are many worthy people who believe that it is wrong to kill or exploit any animal and who carry that principle to its logical conclusion and become vegetarians or vegans. If such views were to gain general acceptance, the sheep and cattle rearing

875
uplands, particularly in Wales, where I come from, would totally devastated. The farming community, and indeed a whole culture, would be destroyed. I realise that to ask such people to consider the difficulties that this Bill will cause to farmers and forester; making a hard and precarious living in the Welsh countryside, is likely to be a waste of time, and I must address my arguments to the very many other noble Lords who are attracted to the objectives of this Bill, but who do not hold such extreme views.
Let me take first the situation of the sheep farmer. During the Bill's consideration in another place, my honourable friend the Member for Montgomery listed many losses of lambs caused by foxes that his constituents had suffered this spring. A similar pattern is followed all over Wales. Farmers who are losing lambs to foxes call the local hunt or fox destruction society, which comes to their fields in the very early morning and follows the scent to the fox's earth, which, in very many cases, is shared with a badger. The fox is dealt with without damage to, and with very little inconvenience to, the badger.
I have records going back to 1905 of this happening in badger setts which are still in full and active use today. If such help is not available to the farmer or it becomes unlawful under this Bill, he may use snares, which will not differentiate between foxes or badgers. He may even, heaven forbid, use poison. That is an occasional and illegal practice which has caused much concern to the RSPB, and indeed to all concerned with the conservation and the well-being of the countryside. These hunts and fox destruction societies do not consist of the toffs who so irritate the anti-hunting lobby; they consist of farmers and their friends following an age-old method of pest control under which the badger continues to thrive, and under which, I am bound to admit, the fox also is doing pretty well. However, by lambing time the fox population is smaller than would otherwise be the case.
The farmers regard this matter as of great importance, as can be affirmed by the Farmers' Union of Wale., and National Farmers' Union representatives for the area. Perhaps I may quote extracts from some of I he many letters which I have received on this subject.
Mr. Jones of Llanfyllin, Secretary of the Dolanog and District Fox Control Society, writes:
"I write on behalf of the above-mentioned Society, asking for your support in your good office in the House of Lords, to get some issues in the Bill amended.
As a Society, we are a responsible organisation whose aim is to protect livestock which is the farmers livelihood. So whilst we appreciate the spirit of the Bill, we feel that special dispensation is needed for organised fox hunts, which will not require the badger setts to be blocked, and another issue which needs to be solved is whether the terriers should be allowed to capture foxes from within if they take refuge in badger setts. During the last fortnight of March and the beginning of April, members were having losses from foxes killing lambs, so we organised four hunts in those areas where the losses occurred and accounted for another seventeen foxes".
Mr. Edwards, Chairman of the Llanarmon Dyffryn Ceiriog Foxhounds, wrote:
"With regard to the Bill, shortly to be presented before Parliament, which if passed would prohibit the digging of fox earths, this would have a devastating effect upon the economy
876
of this rural area. We operate a pack of hounds in the Berwyn Mountain area and accounted for 172 foxes this past season… This is mainly a sheep farming area and this pack of hounds is supported and maintained mainly by sheep farmers in order to reduce lamb losses. During April and May we answer about two lamb calls per week and find that the majority go to ground and have to be dug out. We are anxious that terrier work should not be restricted at all in this mountainous sort of area. We consider that our method of fox control …. is by far the most effective and humane method of containing these predators".
Mr. Iolo Owen of Llanbrynmair said:
"As Secretary of Llanbrynmair Foxhounds Society I wish to inform you that we are not happy about the arrangement taken regarding the protection of badger setts".
The hunt deals with a large number of foxes.
Mr. Evans, of the Upper Banwy Foxhounds, wrote:
"As a working man amidst the Welsh hills, I very much regret the recent turn of events affecting the digging of foxes. For some twenty-five years I have been responsible for the Upper Banwy Foxhounds. This has been mainly due to repeated requests by local farmers to help subdue the relentless attack by foxes on their lamb crop. As Ron Davies of Caerphilly will tell you the technique of employing hounds to drive foxes into a line of guns is found to be acceptable to him, however there are sometimes occasions when we are denied a kill due to the fox having 'gone to earth' and due to the big increase in the badger population, 60% of the foxes go to ground in badger setts. Our normal hunting season … and some 15 lambing calls results in the humane despatch of around 130 foxes. This is the feeling among local farmers that the loss of this facility would seriously reduce their already meagre difficult income".
I have also received a letter from the Farmers' Union of Wales and perhaps I may read a small portion of it.
"the pressure is still with us to protect the lawful and legitimate hunt and terrier men who are truly after foxes in order to control vermin which cause so much havoc and losses to the livestock farmer. What one must try to do is to strike a balance between the needs of the farmers and those who want to protect the badgers.
As I have already made it quite clear the Farmers' Union of Wales and its policy is totally against badger baiting but one cannot allow those unlawful people to destroy the livelihood of farmers who become victims of political issues. If farmers and alike are denied the control already experienced alternative methods will far likely cause more trouble for the badger and its protection".
The Welsh countryside abounds with holes which a badger may use, all of which are classed as badger setts by this Bill as currently drafted. An offence will have been committed if any one of them is damaged by the lawful acts of farming or forestry operations if such damage could reasonably have been avoided, even when no harm is caused to a badger.
Badger baiting is illegal, and so it should be. So is burglary and rape, yet unfortunately those offences continue to be committed and some offenders go undetected. Yet we do not impose a curfew on sexually active men or make it illegal to ring a doorbell to see if someone is at home. It may well be right that we provide the badger's home with greater protection than we give to our own homes, but I ask your Lordships to pass those sensible amendments which I hope will be brought forward in Committee, particularly in relation to the definition of badger setts and licensing arrangements — and I join the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in his request to the Government to clarify their intentions and their

877
arrangements for licensing—which will enable those of us who live in the countryside to continue to live in harmony with the badger.
1.34 p.m.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships' House is grateful both to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and to my noble friend Lord Mancroft, not only for the introduction of these important measures but also for the considerable work which has gone on in the corridors of power in order to achieve a broad measure of agreement.
I support the Bill, as a keen but albeit not very accurate shot and as one who ran a shoot for many years. Certain problems are posed in the running of a shoot.
We have to face the fact that badgers are not at risk. They are not only the largest British native carnivore and have no natural enemies but they are great survivors. They are extremely durable animals. Not only are their setts sometimes extremely ancient but also their routes of passage.
Indeed, during the construction some years ago of the M.4 motorway the contractors were unwise enough to build their motorway, a comparatively new method of transportation, immediately across the route that had been taken by badgers for many thousands of years. Notwithstanding the earthworks and concrete, within a matter of weeks, before the construction of the motorway was complete, the badgers had reopened the route. After repeated efforts, the construction company was finally obliged to provide a special tunnel in order for the badgers to continue in the same immemorial fashion.
I have a more personal anecdote of their persistence and durability. My keeper was riding home on his bicycle along a narrow lane one evening when he noticed a badger ahead of him. He speeded up; the badger speeded up. They went faster and faster. Suddenly, without any warning, the badger turned round and grabbed the front wheel of the bicycle in its jaws. The bicycle stopped dead, the keeper flew over the handlebars. Brock walked up to him, sniffed twice, grunted and disappeared into the night.
Badgers are prolific builders and prolific miners. They move accommodation frequently and like many prolific builders, including the ancestors of a number of your Lordships, they build more accommodation than they need at any one time. One of the problems that we face in Clause 1 of Lord Houghton's Bill is that the accommodation that they construct is not specified in any way. Badgers rest up in drains, in disused buildings and even in disused farm implements. Are we to say that a disused farm implement which shows some evidence of having housed a badger for an afternoon's sleep or for part of a night's rest is to become a sett and therefore the farmer is unable to move that piece of machinery?
Farmers, keepers and small-holders must be allowed to stop up empty and unused setts, particularly what one might call the dower house setts, while leaving the main seat of residence inviolate. There is the possibility that unwittingly a dower house
878
sett which is occupied may be stopped up. That will not stop the badger. She will dig her way out in a matter of moments. The badger's ability to move earth would do credit to many of the great construction companies of our country.
Finally, the point which has been raised by many of your Lordships is that without one or two discreet, subtle and I believe important amendments the Bill runs the risk of confronting many of the traditional practices of agriculture, small-holding, shooting and hunting. It runs the risk of bringing the Government into direct opposition with those groups within the countryside community which the Government most need to support.
I am happy that they will be debated in Committee and I am sure that a consensus will be reached. I am therefore happy to support the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and my noble friend Lord Mancroft and I welcome this significant measure on animal conservation which I commend to your Lordships.
1.40 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, all those involved in country matters will welcome the two Bills before your Lordships' House today. Although badgers are protected under the Badgers Act 1973, as we have heard, there are still many cases of abject and appalling cruelty to those harmless animals. At my home in Staffordshire I have a large group of setts —dower house, hall and everything—inhabited by badgers, foxes and rabbits. It was only two years ago that I found evidence of illegal digging at the entrance to one of those setts. Happily, I have had no more problems since then. I have been more vigilant and so have my staff at home and the situation has not since arisen. Badger-baiting is a vile and immoral practice and everyone will welcome the moves being addressed by both noble Lords further to protect the badger.
However, although I broadly welcome the Badgers Bill and agree that setts should be protected, there are some aspects that give me considerable cause for concern. For instance, the Bill states that setts will be protected until they are abandoned. That is impractical. As we have heard many times today, badgers use many holes—drains, fox earths and suchlike—and thus the definition of a sett is wide-ranging and certainly needs amendment. The impracticality is that such protection of all setts until abandonment would make it difficult effectively to control foxes as to do so often means the use of terriers. It is an efficient way of control and infinitely more preferable than the use of snares, which sadly often end up around a badger's neck in error. I can assure your Lordships that it takes a brave person to release a badger from a snare.
Living in the countryside as I do and having a small farm with a breeding flock of sheep, I know that the fox population is expanding rapidly; indeed, it is exploding in my part of the world. There is also the problem that we have at home with urban foxes being taken live in towns and then released into rural areas. That compounds and aggravates the situation, which is already difficult. Contrary to beliefs in certain quarters of the animal protection organisations, foxes

879
are a serious menace to outdoor lambing ewes. I have had first-hand experience of lambs being taken by foxes, nit only shortly after birth but a few days later when they are larger. The control of foxes is essential. The wording of the Bill regarding setts therefore certainly requires amendment and will need to be addressed in Committee, as will licensing by the Ministry of Agriculture, with which I am not altogether happy.
I should like to give my warm congratulations to both the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and my noble friend Lord Mancroft on bringing forward these Bills today for Second Reading. They are good Bills. Although the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, needs amendment, I support it provided that we can amend it in this House. My noble friend's Bill is essential and has my full support.
1.44 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I must first make it clear that, although I speak from the Dispatch Box, as these are Private Members' Bills, I speak on my own account and not on behalf of my colleagues. However, a number of my colleagues support both Bills wholeheartedly.
I congratulate both noble Lords on the clear way in which they have introduced their Bills, not leaving us in any doubt about what they intend. Before I deal with the Bills themselves, perhaps I may comment on one point made by the noble Lords, Lord St. John of Bletso and Lord Kimball, and by the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, that the badger is not an endangered animal. Indeed, it is not, although badgers are scarce in East Anglia and I have not seen one for a long time. Under the Berne Convention, which the United Kingdom ratified, we are required to take measures to maintain the population of flora and fauna at, or adapt it to, a level which corresponds in particular to ecological, scientific and cultural requirements. That means that the species does not have to be in danger before we take action to protect it.
With regard to international legislation, it is likely that the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, anticipates the directive on habitats which is about to come forward. I believe that yet another draft is available in the Printed Paper Office. We may well need to implement that directive, but this measure may steal a march on it.
We have heard about the backing by many organisations of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in particular. I understand that it is not opposed by the National Farmers' Union or the Country Landowners Association, both of which see it as a useful Bill to reduce the number of people who enter illegally onto private land in order to commit damage. That is another positive aspect from the farmers' and landowners' point of view.
In Northern Ireland badger setts have been protected since the 1987 Act. Although there is a lively fox-hunting community there, I understand that there has been little difficulty between the fox-hunters and the badger protectors. As we heard, the amendments already made to the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord
880
Houghton, indicate the willingness of those supporting it to recognise the legitimate needs of those who live and work in the countryside, and that is as it should be. My noble friend appears willing to accommodate some of the remaining difficulties and I understand the main difficulty that has been outlined about the definition of what constitutes a badger sett. However, we must not amend the Bill too much, not only because we may weaken it but because its life might be in great danger if we send it back to the Commons. As your Lordships know, even the smallest amendment means that it will have to go back to the Commons, whereas the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, which no one appears to want to amend, will go straight from here to become law.
The Masters of Foxhounds Association issued a code in October 1987, to which a number of noble Lords referred, which gave advice on methods of earth stopping and damage to setts. If that code of practice had been followed, there would be no need for the legislation with which we have to deal today, or the need for it would at least have been lessened. As we heard, the Bill gives statutory backing to that code and I understand that it is welcomed on that account. The British Field Sports Society opposes my noble friend's Bill in its present form, but the Society, inter alia, represents working terrier clubs, which are no doubt affected by some of the provisions. However, the need to close the loopholes in the existing law is widely recognised, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, and it is supported. I am hopeful that the law-abiding members of the Field Sports Society will wish to be seen on the side of having clear and effective legislation.
An estimated 9,000 badgers are killed by illegal methods each year. We have heard the horrendous figures for the other methods of killing. The Bill is necessary and I wish it well.
Perhaps I may now turn to the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, which introduces greater powers of punishment for those caught in illegal badger-digging. I welcome the Bill wholeheartedly. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about its importance and I hope that it will pass speedily from your Lordships' House. I support in particular the clause which bans such offenders from keeping dogs in the future, but there is a great deal of popular support in the country at the moment for ensuring that all dog owners are responsible. This is yet another aspect of that issue.
My only reservation about the Bill is that, without a national dog registration scheme, it will be almost impossible to implement. The principle is good and I shall be interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, says in summing up about whether he believes that it is possible to make it work without the backing of a national registration scheme. It will be extremely difficult to prevent an owner who has lost a dog from obtaining another dog to take its place unless he is on a register and we can clearly follow his progress. With those few remarks, I reiterate that I support both Bills and wish them well.
1.50 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we have before us two Bills, one of which the Government are happy to support while, on the other, we are neutral. Perhaps I may take the Badgers Bill first.
The Government have, of course, for a long time taken a neutral stance towards legislation which might affect traditional field sports. They believe that such issues should be decided by Members according to their own beliefs and consciences. In accordance with that practice, therefore, the Government will be taking a neutral stance towards the Bill. That is not to say, of course, that the Government are neutral as regards the protection of badgers. It is a sad fact that that beautiful creature, the sight of which gives pleasure to so many people, is also the target of brutal abuse and degradation. That is why the Government are giving wholehearted support to the Badgers (Further Protection) Bill, which in my view is a valuable measure which will help in the fight against the badger digger. We are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Mancroft for the lucid way in which he described the Bill.
Badger baiting is illegal under the Protection of Animals Act 1911. Indeed that Act makes the baiting of any animal an offence and the maximum penalty is a fine at level 5, currently £2,000, or six months' imprisonment, or both. Under the Criminal Justice Bill, it is proposed that level 5 fines should be increased to a maximum of £5,000. Badger digging is an offence under the Badgers Act 1973, which also makes it an offence to kill, injure, take or in any other way ill-treat a badger, or attempt to do so, except under licence or in certain particular circumstances defined in the Act. The maximum penalty is a level 5 fine. That Act has been strengthened by the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1985 under which the burden of proof has been reversed so that a defendant is presumed to have committed an offence unless he can show otherwise.
The badger is also protected by the general prohibition in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 on the taking or killing of any wild animal by certain specified methods. That offence also attracts a maximum penalty of a level 5 fine. That means that badgers already receive considerable protection in law. Indeed, the extent of such protection is probably unique for an unendangered animal. Additionally, the Government have announced their decision to increase penalties under the Badgers Act. Any offence under Sections 1 or 2 of the Badgers Act 1973, for taking, injuring or killing badgers or causing cruelty to or digging for badgers, will be punishable with a maximum sentence of up to six months' imprisonment as well as a level 5 fine. That will bring maximum penalties under the 1973 Act in line with those which can be awarded under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 for other offences of cruelty to animals.
However, despite the wealth of legislation aimed at protecting the badger, offences against badgers continue. The Government are aware of the concern which is felt about that and it will be seen that the law has been significantly strengthened in recent years to enhance the protection afforded to those animals.
882
However, there is one area in which the law might be said to be deficient at present, and that is the subject of the Badgers (Further Protection) Bill. Although the law currently allows courts to disqualify convicted badger baiters from having further custody of a dog or, indeed, of any animal, there is a significant lack of such a power in the case of convicted badger diggers and other offenders under the Badgers Act 1973. That is because the Protection of Animals Act 1911, under which badger baiting is an offence, already provides for the making of a disqualification order against offenders. The proposal contained in this Bill will bring the Badgers Act 1973 into line with the 1911 Act in that respect.
It is well known that the main tool of the badger persecutor is his dog. Badger diggers send their terriers into setts to locate the badger and, having dug it out, may bait the poor creature there and then with their dogs or sell it or arrange for it to be sold to others to bait. Taking away the right to have a dog is a key step in tackling that problem and it will allow action to be taken against a disqualified person in whose custody a dog is found, whether he is actually engaged in further offences against badgers at that time or not.
The Bill also allows courts to order the destruction or other disposal of a dog which is used in the commission of an offence and to appoint a person to undertake that. In such cases the offender will be liable for the costs involved in that destruction and of keeping the dog in the meantime. That is in line with legislation currently in place regarding dangerous dogs in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989.
This is a relatively small Bill, but because it is so accurately focused on its target, its value will, I am sure, outweigh its size. Badger digging is such a pernicious activity and the ill-treatment of badgers still goes on despite the weight of legislation against it. The Government accept that it is right for further action to be taken and we have been impressed by the wide support for the proposed measure. We are therefore happy to give it our full and unqualified support.
I shall turn to some of the points raised in the debate. I am delighted to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and my noble friend Lord Mancroft are in agreement and, as the noble Lord said, in partnership over the Bills. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, pointed out that his supporters were two badgers. I have also to point out, with some trepidation, that my two supporters are a North American Indian and a North American fur trapper; each habited, accoutred, and holding in the exterior hand a rifle, all proper. I can assure your Lordships that that will in no way affect my view or the Government's view of the Bill.
My noble friends Lord Mancroft and Lord Kimball talked about licences. We recognise the problems that individual farmers can face with losses of lambs to foxes. However, the Bill provides for licences to be issued where control of foxes is necessary. We do not issue general licences for badger control under existing provisions and see no justification for granting general licences. With regard to the length of time taken before licences are issued,

883
the Government are happy to look at any particular instances of delay, and, if it appears necessary, to consider how the process can be accelerated.
I am happy to commend to the House the Bill moved by my noble friend Lord Mancroft on what, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will recognise is another good day for animals.
1.57 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, and much appreciate the friendly spirit in which my Bill has been received. It was much more friendly than on previous occasions when we have gone to this length to try to give the badger greater protection. I hope that we have taken the point fully —I believe that we have—that the Bill is designed to make it more difficult to harm, ill treat and kill a badger by the unlawful interference with its habitat or way of life.
The Bill is not aimed at the hunt. The hunt comes into it only because with the closer definition of the crime we define more carefully what immunity from the law is afforded to those who had a non-statutory right to enable them to continue their practices. I say nothing against the hunt in that respect, because I want to retain its goodwill. It is up to the hunt to decide whether what it does is necessary or desirable in the interests of the sport. Stopping is done merely to maximise the sport in the field. It is designed to stop foxes darting down badgers' setts with which they are familiar and find to be nice, big and open. They can dart into the badger sett and disappear. It will be unlawful to dig them out but not to stop up the sett to prevent them going down it. All right, let the hunt carry on. I am a countryman. I know all about hunting. Some estimable people hunt. The most difficult thing to do is to accommodate the extraordinary sentiment about the badger that exists and has grown up with the public. Television programmes have done enormous good in enlightening people about wildlife all over the world. I am sure that we have all enjoyed programmes by David Attenborough, for example, who is well informed on the subject.
I have in my hand 45 letters from children from a school in Stanmore in Middlesex beseeching us to pass the Bill. They are not stereotyped letters; the children, aged abut 13 or 14 years, have written them individually. They have an interest in the subject. I wonder how many of those children have seen a live badger; I did not see one until I was about 40 years of age. One can go for a long time without seeing a live badger even though there are plenty of badgers. Although most people have never seen one, there is sentiment for the badger. It is part of the mythology and sentiment of human beings in their natural environment. That is estimable. We want to support such sentiment.
Conservation is part of that concern. Happily, the badger is not an endangered species; otherwise measures for protection would be greater still. However the badger needs the amount of protection that the Bill provides. We can make whatever
884
adjustments are reasonable to the definitions in relation to the interests of the hunt, and of a badger sett. That applies for general purposes as well as to the hunt aspect.
Finally, in recent years there has been an enormous increase in county badger protection societies. In Surrey I am patron of such a society which is vigilant and active. It obtains all information about planning applications and planning provisions, and generally keeps an eye on the welfare of the badgers in the area. That is part of enforcement measures.
A development is now taking place which increases the need for vigilance. My planning authority has notified that it has six applications for new golf courses. With the set-aside of agricultural land, and the search for alternative uses that are acceptable in the countryside, golf courses are not a bad idea. Indeed, most golf clubs are very expensive to join and more courses would probably beautify the country. However, badger setts occur on golf courses and have to be attended to.
I am much obliged to all noble Lords who have spoken. I look forward to Committee stage when we shall be able to dispose of outstanding matters and pass on to more controversial matters. I am sure that in this field of animal welfare they will arise.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Badgers (Further Protection) Bill
2.3 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. Perhaps I may take a moment to thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. In particular perhaps I may remind the House of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury, about the farmers' problems relating to fox control and about the licence.
I heard what my noble friend on the Front Bench said on the matter. I was not enormously encouraged by it. I believe that the Ministry of Agriculture will have to go much further to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury. It is not good enough simply to say that general licences will not be given. The House will need to know what licences will be given. The proposers of the Bill will equally need to know to whom licences will not be given. That is very important.
I should also like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for her kind words and the support of her noble friends for the Bill.
I remind your Lordships that, although my Bill may be a little less controversial than that of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, it is a desirable measure. The Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, should follow mine on the statute book. I hope that we shall be able to make the necessary changes to allow that to occur.
I thank noble Lords for their support for my Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at five minutes past two o'clock.