Lords Sitting of 25 June 1991

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

Lord Judd
Frank Ashcroft Judd, Esquire, having been created Baron Judd, of Portsea in the County of Hampshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Jacques and the Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos.
Lord Hollick
Clive Richard Hollick, Esquire, having been created Baron Hollick, of Notting Hill in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Pitt of Hampstead and the Baroness Blackstone, and made the solemn Affirmation.

The Commonwealth: Human Rights
2.58 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they expect that human rights will appear on the agenda of the next meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we shall encourage discussion of good government, including human rights, at the next Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply. Will he accept that human rights should be just as important in the Commonwealth as they have been over the years in Europe under the Helsinki and CSCE agreements?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I go further and say that human rights are important the world over.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House what practical steps the Government will take to curb human rights' abuses in the Commonwealth and whether the steps will be described in a policy presented at the conference in Harare in October?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are funding a residential course in human rights law at Essex University specifically for the small Commonwealth states. Last year we helped to fund a seminar in Banjul. In this financial year we are planning to spend a substantial sum, currently £28 million, bilaterally from the aid programme on positive measures to promote human rights and good government. I can go further: a moment ago my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development announced that the target for next year, 1992–93, will be £50 million.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the noble Earl quite rightly said that human rights are important the world over—I think that those were his words. Can he say whether we are continuing our help and our aid to the Kurdish people?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, unfortunately the Kurds are not in the Commonwealth.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I warmly applaud what my noble friend said he is doing. Can he tell us how many takers there were for his human rights course in Banjul?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, alas, I cannot. However, I shall write to the noble Lord and put a copy of the letter in the Library.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Earl, on behalf of the Government, agree that one human right is the right to live? Can he tell the House whether at the Harare conference any initiative will be taken by the British Government to bring succour to members of the Commonwealth like Malawi and many others who are at present on the verge of starvation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord knows full well the amount of aid that we are giving to Africa to help in the difficult situation there. However, as he is aware, the agenda for the Harare meeting has not yet been finalised. Much depends on discussions with the Commonwealth Secretary General.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will approve the measures announced by the noble Earl in respect of human rights education. However, will the Government do all that they can in Britain to improve respect for human rights, as an example to the Commonwealth?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we shall continue our excellent standards.

St. Mark's Hospital, London
3.1 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there are plans to close St. Mark's Hospital in the City Road, London, without establishing an alternative postgraduate teaching hospital specialising in diseases of the intestine, colon and rectum.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, there is widespread recognition of the valuable specialist services and postgraduate training provided by the clinicians at St. Mark's. There are no plans to close St. Mark's but all parties are agreed about the need to relocate these services. It is also recognised that essential support service needs are best provided within a major hospital. In the Department of Health we welcome the continuing constructive dialogue

487
taking place between the region, City and Hackney District Health Authority and senior clinicians at St. Mark's.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she agree that it is unwise to close a national centre of excellence which serves patients from all over the country who have serious, dangerous and difficult conditions? The hospital trains senior registrars from all over the country. Will the Minister urgently consider setting up a committee to look into the special needs of such specialised hospitals before any decisions are taken?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, medical technology has become increasingly sophisticated. The problems associated with being a specialist hospital on a separate site have therefore increased. Although St. Mark's provides a wide range of high quality specialist support services, it lacks some facilities. I understand those facilities will be available at the proposed new site. However, no final decisions have yet been taken.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I strongly support the plea made by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that this hospital and its facilities should be saved. I have personal knowledge of the hospital. If the term "centre of excellence" had not been invented, it would be most appropriate to invent that term to describe the work that the hospital has carried out over many years. Its research facilities are excellent. As a result, bowel cancer, if operated upon in time, is no longer the killer it was. The work of Cuthbert Dukes and Basil Morson has been enormously important in this area. Does the Minister really believe that such facilities can be offered and such research carried out in two or three wards of Bart's Hospital with limited operating facilities? Will the Minister confirm that because of the uncertainty that exists, St. Mark's is having to refuse grants from the Imperial Cancer Research Fund to carry on invaluable research, particularly its research into the hereditary aspects of cancer of the colon? All of this work will be lost if St. Mark's is to be given only two or three wards in a big general hospital.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have already said that we recognise that St. Mark's offers valuable specialist services. There are no plans to close St. Mark's. No final decisions have been taken, but in the event of the district health authority deciding to implement any substantial change in services, which could include relocation, it will be required to consult with the community health council. Thereafter, there is the possibility of an appeal to the Secretary of State. We shall take account in the ongoing discussions of any offers of financial help from whatever source made to the hospital.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, does the Minister accept that we on these Benches fully understand that it is impossible to provide the highest standards of excellence in every specialty of medicine in every hospital in every part of the country? It is therefore essential that in certain narrow specialties, high standards of service should be provided in one
488
hospital. Is it not a fact that this hospital is unique in Britain, and perhaps even in Europe, in concentrating on diseases of the large bowel, the colon and the rectum and in training surgeons and nurses in the treatment and management of those conditions? The hospital takes patients from all over Britain, not just from Greater London. Is it not also a fact that if the hospital is merged into another, there is a danger that the high standard of excellence I have referred to will be diluted and that we will lose from the National Health Service a centre of excellence?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, if we were not aware of the dangers of such a relocation before, we certainly are now. Discussions have taken place over several years about the benefits of relocating facilities for this specialty within a multi-specialty acute hospital. Discussions have taken into account the need to ensure access to a full range of support services, the need to reduce overheads associated with operating on a second site, and the need to tackle the conditions of the present site.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a few years ago the conditions at St. Mark's were quite deplorable? I speak from personal experience. It is therefore very much to be welcomed that a new site with better accommodation and better support facilities is to be found.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. There is a need to do something about the facilities on the present site. There is a need to relocate those facilities. Every consideration is being given to the need to ensure that the identity of St. Mark's and the important work it carries out are preserved.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, the Minister has agreed that this important hospital is a centre of specialisation, teaching, training and research in colon practology. Does she not also agree that the hospital is a major national and indeed international resource? Will she ensure that its crucial importance as a national and indeed international referral, research and training centre in this field will be impressed upon the City and Hackney health authority? If the facilities of St. Mark's were to be transferred to the site of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, will the Minister endeavour to ensure that St. Mark's identity is preserved and its viability assured as a centre not just of high quality patient care but also of postgraduate training and research?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that both the district and the regional health authorities are well aware of the special nature of the services provided at St. Mark's. We believe that because this specialist treatment is so well known and recognised, St. Mark's will continue to attract patients and, as a result of the National Health Service reforms, the income will follow.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I hope that the Minister has been impressed by the breadth of concern expressed about the hospital. Does she accept that that concern is felt even more strongly by those who work at St. Mark's and whose future over the past few

489
years has been so uncertain? Does she further accept that a great deal would be lost by merging this fine hospital, with its specialisation, into a separate hospital?
Is the Minister aware of any proposals for a relocation within Bart's? The majority of the staff say such a relocation would be totally unsatisfactory and would not protect the identity of the hospital. The finance that has been mentioned for such a relocation is totally inadequate.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I do not accept that the identity of St. Mark's need be lost on relocation. After all, mere bricks and mortar, however well loved, are not the foundation on which the well-earned reputation of St. Mark's has been built. It is built on its history of excellent patient care, training and research. I am quite sure that that tradition will continue wherever the hospital is located.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister wish to comment on the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Mulley? Far from dragging on, the matter is extremely urgent. It is a matter of weeks before a decision will be taken and in the interim the hospital has had to refuse a major research grant, which is very damaging to the image of the health service as a whole.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have said that no final decisions have been taken and that discussions as to the preferred option are continuing. The proposals are under consideration by the regional health authority as part of its review of the region's capital programme. I understand that the results of those deliberations are due in July.
Baroness David: My Lords, have the Universities Funding Council and the Medical Research Council been consulted about this matter? If the hospital is to be relocated, will there be the same facilities for postgraduate visitors from overseas? I understand that last year there were 660 postgraduate visitors from 42 countries.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I said, the well-deserved reputation of St. Mark's is such that it will inevitably attract income, including, I hope, income from overseas.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, as it is common ground that St. Mark's is a unique centre of excellence with a worldwide reputation and that those surgeons, physicians and scientists whose practice and research currently sustain that reputation fear the consequences of loss of identity if the hospital is to be moved, will the Minister give an assurance that no hasty disruption will be imposed upon the centre in advance of discussion of the proper conditions for safeguarding its future?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I see no reason why there should be any hastiness about any changes and relocation. As I said, the regional health authority's plans are due out in July. There are various procedures which can be followed if any exception is taken to the authority's plans. However, in view of the extended
490
discussions which have taken place, we hope that everyone's interests will have been taken adequately into account.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Baroness has not succeeded in removing the disquiet which exists in the minds of most noble Lords on all sides of the House. Against that background, will she give the House an assurance that she will talk to her right honourable friend the Secretary of State about the feeling in this House with a view to ensuring that St. Mark's, with its present expertise, is not closed until a similar hospital is built in another location, but not as an attachment to another major hospital?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I should have thought that I had been able to give adequate reassurance in the course of this Question. However, I shall certainly convey to my right honourable friend all that has been said today.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that at one time we had problems, which went back into history, concerning regional specialties and that in the end it was decided that no district could carry the cost and that the RHA should fund them? In the case of St. Mark's, it is not a regional but a national specialty. Should the Department of Health not make it a special health authority and fund it centrally?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, under our reforms we offer the possibility that in the case of services which continue to attract patients, as a national resource of this kind can, the income will follow.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, finally, if St. Bartholomew's becomes a trust, will there be any assurance that St. Mark's, if lodged there, could not be shut?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we have to take it as read that all such considerations are being taken into account by the interested parties in their discussions.

ECOFIN Meeting: Confidentiality
3.15 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the confidentiality rule applicable to all meetings of the Council of Ministers applied to the ECOFIN meeting in Luxembourg on 10th June 1991.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, meetings of the Council of Ministers are not open to the public but the outcome of discussions is reported to Parliament. For the outcome of the meeting of ECOFIN on 10th June I refer noble Lords to the Answer given in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 13th June.
Lord Bruce Donington: My Lords, that is all very well, but is the noble Lord aware that, according to press reports which appeared on the day following the

491
meeting of ECOFIN on 10th June, the French Finance Minister and, for some obscure reason, the Budget Commissioner presumed to give partial accounts of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in the Council? That is hardly consistent with the secrecy which is alleged to apply to all proceedings. In those circumstances would it not be best, in the interests of democracy both in Europe and in the United Kingdom, if the press were in future invited to the Council of Ministers in order that they and the world can see exactly what happens behind closed doors?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the press are not allowed in meetings of the Council of Ministers. I have heard of no proposals that there should be a change to that procedure. However, I shall look into the press reports to which the noble Lord referred to see whether it would appear that there has been a breach of confidentiality. If there has been, it is reprehensible and should be taken up appropriately.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, is it possible for my noble friend to update the House on ECOFIN's current position on the proposed minimum excise duty on alcoholic drinks? Is it the case, as reported in today's press, that the Chancellor has taken a strong line? Has he made it plain that proposals which would result in an increase of 40 per cent. on the price of a bottle of Scotch whisky in many member states while wine would continue to attract a very low duty or even a zero rate of duty will devastate the Scotch whisky industry in its major markets? Will the Government stick to their guns on that issue, bearing in mind the implications for jobs in Scotland and the balance of payments?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, at the meeting of ECOFIN yesterday we agreed a set of minimum rates which would apply to indirect taxes from 1993. In the case of spirits we argued strongly that the rates proposed were discriminatory and would have an adverse effect on one of our main exports. The Commission has been asked to report further on that whole issue. In the meantime the rate for wine is only provisional. EC ministers agreed to defer the decision on the minimum rate for spirits.
Lord Peston: My Lords, if ever there was a question which was wide of the Question on the Order Paper, the noble Baroness's was. However, I found the answer extraordinarily interesting but I shall not follow up the point.
In relation to the Question which is on the Order Paper, is not the situation rather bizarre? Am I not right in saying that the meetings are confidential but that any Minister can give a briefing on what happens? Therefore there is competition between Ministers to say what they think has happened. It is not just a matter of democracy but also of efficiency. Should there not be some access, preferably by the press or someone else, so that it was clear what happened, as much for the sake of our Ministers as any other? The present position is very strange indeed.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, perhaps the present situation is not satisfactory but that is how the situation has always been handled by the Council of Ministers. As I said in my original Answer, of course Ministers give press briefings following meetings. In our case a full account is given to Parliament, normally in the form of a Written Answer shortly afterwards.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that confidentiality at meetings of the Council of Ministers has long been observed about as rigorously as it sometimes was at Cabinet meetings in Sir Bernard Ingham's golden days? Is he also aware that there is no great reason why those meetings should take place in an atmosphere of bogus privacy? The problem at issue is that there are already far too many people in the room—between 200 and 300. Nonetheless, does the noble Lord agree that it would be sensible that the meetings should be regarded as being in the public domain and that one or two people should be able to report what happened?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is a suggestion, but to give an answer now as to whether I thought that it was a good idea would not be a good idea for me.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that, as pointed out by my noble friend Lady Carnegy, a proposal was put forward at those meetings to raise substantially the duty on spirits and lower the duty on wine to the competitive advantage of our European friends?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said, we argued strongly against the proposed rates on spirits. I take issue with the noble Lord opposite. The question refers to ECOFIN. The matter was discussed at ECOFIN only yesterday and on 10th June.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I ask the noble Lord not to take issue with me because, if that question is not wide of the Order Paper, I am perfectly prepared to ask a number of technical questions on VAT which I am sure would waste your Lordships' time. Although we obviously accept that the Minister cannot answer the question, we are approaching a period when major decisions will be taken both in that council and in the Council of Ministers. Would it not be a good idea to convey the view of your Lordships' House to the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Prime Minister that this might be a moment to break free, precisely as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said, and let us have some objective reporting of what goes on? After all, it will affect the whole future of our country.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I accept that major decisions are taken both in ECOFIN and in other councils. That has been so for many years, although decisions taken formerly were perhaps not as important as they are now. I shall certainly pass on the views of the noble Lord and of one or two other noble Lords, but I cannot promise that there will be any change in the procedures.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I must preserve the interests of the noble Lord who has tabled the next Question.

Power Station Desulphurisation: Costs
3.23 p.m.
Viscount Mersey Viscount Mersey asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will subsidise power stations such as Drax which are fitting flue gas desulphurisation units, bearing in mind the inevitable loss of efficiency and increase in cost of electricity generated thereby.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the costs of fitting and running flue gas desulphurisation units, necessary to comply with the emission limits placed on the generators, should properly be met by the companies concerned. That obligation was recognised in the capital structures with which the generators entered the private sector.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that rather disappointing reply. I am as green as the next man, but is he aware that the cost of fitting the FGD equipment at Drax power station is £658 million, and that it will make the power station 2 per cent. less efficient? Might there not be a case therefore for regarding Drax as part of the non-fossil fuel obligation? Might that not have the added benefit of encouraging other coal-fired power stations to clean up their acts?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am aware of the considerable costs of FGD and of the efficiency results. I must tell my noble friend that I do not think it would be appropriate to include a coal-fired station in the non-fossil fuel obligation. It would run counter to the, objective of encouraging non-fossil fuel generation with all its attendant environmental benefits. The industry does not need such incentives. It is obliged to comply with emission limits as set out under the national plan which in turn implements the large combustion plants directive.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, will the Minister tell us whether the original programme for desulphurisation of those power stations including Drax, which was set in motion under the Conservative Government and the CEGB when the electricity industry was still in the public sector, is being adhered to, or whether there has been a diminution in or abandonment of the programme since privatisation to the detriment of us all?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: Yes, my Lords, there has been a diminution, and for very good reasons. A figure of 12 gigawatts was the early estimate made by the CEGB of what we needed to meet the requirements of the large combustion plants directive by FGD alone. However, the reality of competition brought about by privatisation obliged the generators to find the most economic means of achieving SO2 reductions. In addition, the scope developed to build combined-cycle gas turbine power stations which emit virtually no SO2 and roughly half of the CO2
494
equivalent of coal-fired power stations. It was a mistake to think that to go from 12 gigawatts to 8 gigawatts would necessarily reduce SO2 emissions.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in view of the importance of the desulphurisation process and of its high cost, will the noble Lord indicate whether the Government are stimulating industry to undertake research and development which will bring down the cost of the process?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the generators were always aware of the costs—both capital costs and revenue costs—that would result. It is up to the industry to develop that technology.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his reply that the Government will not subsidise the installation of gas desulphurisation plant at Drax is welcome? However, does he agree that the Question this day is most insensitive bearing in mind that the chairman of National Power has been awarded an increase of 59 per cent. in his salary and that the electricity industry was sold to private investors at knock-down prices in order—this was apparently one of the reasons—to install that equipment for the betterment of mankind?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, both those questions are wide of the Order Paper.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord to confirm his first Answer. Am I right in thinking that the costs of desulphurisation have already been included in the capital structure of the new generating bodies and therefore what is happening here, whatever else it does, should not lead to any increase in the price of electricity to the consumer? Is there no way that the producers could argue along those lines?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, will the noble Lord say what incentive there is for other power stations to install desulphurising equipment when, if they do nothing, they are much better placed for the bids and are more likely to be used?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, there are now rules under the national plan to meet with the directive.

Social Security (Contributions) Bill
3.28 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Henley.)
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, before the House moves into Committee, perhaps I may point out that the Opposition Dispatch Box appears to be decorated

495
with pale pink ribbon. Is that some kind of political statement or has someone given a present to the Opposition?
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Class 1A contributions]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 9, leave out ("18,000") and insert ("10,000").
The noble Lord said: I am advised on this amendment by the CBI which tells me that its members oppose the Government's proposals to impose liability on employers for national insurance contributions on company cars and fuel. In particular, the Bill will add over £400 million to employers' costs at a time of recession; it discourages the motor industry by unfairly penalising the company car; and it fails to distinguish between cars used as business tools and those given as perks.
The present banding system does not reflect the real boundaries between cars that are provided as a perk and those that are provided as tools of the trade. While the 2,500 mile threshold (mentioned in the paragraph immediately below the one to be amended by my amendment) is acceptable, the 18,000 mile threshold is far too high. The Government's figures, provided by a Ministry of Transport survey in 1975–76, suggest that the average business mileage is around 10,000 miles a year. That figure is supported by business from practical experience. It is for that reason that I seek to amend the Bill and replace the figure of 18,000 by 10,000 in the relevant subsection.
An 18,000 mile threshold is obviously inequitable. It will hit hardest those companies which are already suffering most in the recession. Examples are small companies and construction companies which will have sales and other personnel who need to visit sites and firms within inner cities and high density population areas and who therefore do not cover a high annual mileage.
I understand from the CBI that this has been a fairly long-standing battle with successive governments. From all my experience in industry and at present, it seems to me that 18,000 miles as a mark of a business journey is much too high and quite out of line with practical experience. No doubt there are some people who travel long distances in unpopulated areas but in this country they are the exception. Certainly it is not right to have such a high figure. I trust therefore that the Government will be extremely sympathetic and will agree to my amendment. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I rise to support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. During the Second Reading of this Bill I made it clear that on these Benches we did not oppose what the Government intended in principle but that we had a number of points to raise. We were concerned that it would be very difficult—this point
496
was made by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone—to distinguish between people who had a car simply as a perk, as part payment, and people who needed to use a car in the course of their business. In particular I drew attention to people employed as sales representatives in an area such as London, where it would be difficult to assert that 18,000 miles a year represented a reasonable marker. It is possible to use one's car entirely for business in London and do very substantially less than 18,000 miles a year.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is valid. Ten thousand miles a year is the recommended figure and the CBI has already drawn attention to that figure as normal for business use. Therefore I hope that the Government will reconsider their attitude to this matter and will be prepared to make this small concession and accept the amendment.
Lord Banks: I too should like to support this amendment. I do so for the reasons that were put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden. I also mentioned this point in the course of my Second Reading speech. I thought that the figure of 18,000 was too high. I still adhere to that position and therefore support the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: On Second Reading I ventured to suggest that the whole Bill would have an adverse effect on industrial costs at the very moment when it was necessary above all to keep costs down. This amendment would have the effect at least of reducing quite substantially the damage which the Bill otherwise would do. As the noble Baroness opposite said, there are many hard-working people who use their cars for work over the relatively short distances involved in, say, the Greater London area or other metropolitan areas in this country. After all, it is possible to travel quite short distances between a large number of customers or clients or people with whom one is concerned industrially and be unlikely to come anywhere near the figure of 18,000. That figure may not be reached unless one is operating mainly in the open country where distances between places are longer.
Therefore it seems to me that my noble friend has done a very good service not only to this Chamber but to the Government in proposing an amendment which will quite substantially reduce the damage which otherwise the Bill would do. I am sure that whatever views this Chamber normally takes about the opinions of the CBI, it is realised that on this kind of issue the CBI speaks with the authority of experience. I should certainly be most disappointed should my noble friend not be prepared to adopt a flexible and reasonable attitude on this amendment.
Lord Carter: There is a point arising from the remarks of the noble Lord who has just spoken regarding the costs of employers. The last time that there was an assessment of the National Insurance Fund, as the noble Lord will know, it was felt able to reduce employers' contributions from 10.45 per cent. to 10.4 per cent. at the higher rate—a reduction of 0.05

497
per cent.—and have a reduction of 0.4 per cent. on the lower rates. This Bill adds £610 million to the National Insurance Fund. In fact it reverses the action and takes back all the cut in employers' contributions. I ask the noble Lord when he replies to tell the Committee whether the previous assessment was wrong.
One should remember that that was all part of the deal on the Statutory Sick Pay Bill. I remind the noble Lord of what he said on the Second Reading of that Bill:
"Nevertheless, side by side with that package of SSP changes, the Government propose to make substantial reductions in employers' national insurance contributions liability. Although those reductions extend across the whole spectrum of national insurance contributions, they have been particularly weighted to help smaller employers".—[Official Report, 11/12/90; col. 392]
What has changed?
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may deal first with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. He knows perfectly well that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has to consider the state of the fund each year. He looks at the outgoings and then has to consider at what levels national insurance contributions can be levied. As a result, at the time of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill my right honourable friend was able to make such a reduction. On this occasion, he is seeking for completely different reasons to increase the contributions made by employers because it is only fair and equitable that they should make contributions on benefits that are paid in kind rather than in cash. Therefore, when he next comes to review the state of the fund he will find that there might or might not be extra resources available to enable him to make changes to other levels. Obviously I cannot predict the outcome of his consideration. My right honourable friend has to consider each year the state of the fund and then fix contributions accordingly.
I understand perfectly well what lies behind my noble friend's amendment. I well understand the disquiet that has been expressed from all sides of the House. However, I believe that the amendment is based on a false premise. On page 2 of the Bill subsection (4) sets out the basic provision for charging Class 1A national insurance contributions on the cash equivalent of the benefit of the car to the earner. Paragraph (i) of subsection (6) (b)—which is the paragraph that my noble friend seeks to amend—deals only with special cases where the employer does not have the necessary information about business miles. In that case the benefit will be deemed to be chargeable at the higher rate.
I have to say that I am not sure of the effect that my noble friend's amendment would have. Certainly it will not have the effect that he desires; namely, to reduce by 50 per cent. the national insurance contributions chargeable on those who drive 10,000 business miles as opposed to the 18,000 miles proposed. If my noble friend wishes to do that he would have to seek amendment to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 which subsection (4) ties into. Nevertheless I understand the concerns that he has put forward. Although the amendment is totally
498
and utterly defective and achieves nothing whatsoever so far as I can understand, I should deal with some of the anxieties that my noble friend mentioned.
It might help if I explain that the present system already gives special treatment to the heavy business user. Where business mileage is substantial—18,000 miles or more a year—the main scale charge is halved. Taken together with the 50 per cent. addition for cars with little or no business mileage, employers of very heavy business users pay one third of the charge faced by those whose company cars are used very little for business, i.e. the perk car, those below 2,500 business miles. Given the substantial average private mileage of cars which are heavily used for business, it is clear that this reduced charge is not an excessive measure of the value of the private use. For example, cars used for business mileage over 10,000 miles a year are frequently used also for large amounts of private mileage. Figures from the National Travel Survey, from which my noble friend quoted, show that employees in the middle band—2,500 to 18,000 business miles—average over 11,000 private miles a year. There is no evidence that this private usage reduces in any way where the business mileage moves into the highest band—18,000 miles or more.
I believe that that is sufficient reason for showing that the intention behind the amendment is inconsistent with the purpose of the Bill. I invite my noble friend to withdraw the amendment. Nevertheless, I appreciate that the amendment is defective in what it seeks to achieve. If he wished to make such amendment it should be to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: I hold up, just—I am hardly strong enough—the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. I am advised that it is the biggest Act that has passed through Parliament. By its nature I imagine that we did not have a hand in it. Perhaps we did not have a chance to consider it.
I appreciate what my noble friend said about my amendment not achieving what I set out to achieve. I am glad that he understands what it seeks to achieve. At a late stage of framing the amendment I was on the telephone to the CBI and its lawyers. They could not put the wording right because it is terribly difficult to amend the Act, let alone the Bill before us.
I take the points my noble friend has made. I hope to return with an amendment at the next stage of the Bill which achieves what I seek. However, at this stage it has been useful to have had the matter aired. I am grateful to Members of the Committee on all sides of the Chamber who supported the amendment. I am sure that they supported the principle even though the CBI and I recognise that the amendment as presently worded does not achieve what is required. I hope that at the next stage we shall bring forward a more perfect amendment.
It would have been even nicer if my noble friend, having understood the aims of the amendment, had said that he would bring forward a government amendment. That would have been even more helpful. It is a serious point. It might be important to have a Report stage in order for that to be achieved. I believe

499
that it is being suggested that we shall go straight to Third Reading if none of the amendments is accepted by the Committee. Without a Report stage, if I were to put down an amendment at the next stage of the Bill, there would not be time for my noble friend, having considered my amendment, to bring forward an amendment of his own at Third Reading. Perhaps he can comment on that.
Lord Henley: I said that I understood what my noble friend sought to do; I gave no commitment that I supported it. I then set out why I thought the intentions behind the amendment were misguided. I am certainly not prepared to offer the help that he seeks.
Lord Mottistone: I do not suggest such help at this stage, but when we have put forward an amendment that is not faulty, perhaps my noble friend will have a different view.
I do not wish to prolong this debate or to offend the doggie people. However, let us not forget that we picked on 10,000 miles because that is what a government report in the mid-1970s stated as the average business mileage. I am sure that it will be roughly that figure. It might be 11,000 or 9,000, but we base the mileage on the Government's own figure. Although my noble friend may be against the amendment because of what one might call the money side of his job, from the point of view of keeping business going we must make fair provision. Having said that rather firmly—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Before my noble friend withdraws the amendment, with reference to a Report stage, I have been assured this morning by the authorities of the House that there will be a Report stage.
Lord Mottistone: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, leave out lines 26 to 30.
The noble Lord said: I understand that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 3 since it raises the same point. Like my noble friend, I am anxious not to cause the dogs to bark in vain for too long.
Both amendments deal with what appear to be Henry VIII clauses; that is, provisions in a statute under which that statute can be amended, not by another statute but simply by regulation or order made by Ministers. Members of the Committee will recall that we had considerable discussion on the matter on the Statutory Sick Pay Bill. I am sorry to see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is not in his place today because he is the acknowledged authority on a subject on which I am no more than a toiling amateur. I understand that these provisions are both measures of that kind.
At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that one had to have such provision because one
500
could not otherwise adjust the current legislation to some forthcoming legislation. I pointed out that the forthcoming legislation could perfectly well be used to make the necessary adaptation in the ordinary way by way of statute. The only answer that my noble friend gave is one with which, frankly, I disagree. He stated in the Official Report of last Friday at col. 858 that one could not use a Finance Bill to amend a national insurance Bill. With respect, that is absolute nonsense. One could perfectly well put a provision in a Finance Bill for amending other statutes. All one has to do is to provide that the Title of the Bill is wide enough to permit that. If that is the only objection, with great respect to my noble friend, it is a wholly bogus one.
The proper, sensible and civilised way to deal with the matter would be to drop these provisions in the Bill and announce that whatever amendments are needed to bring the Bill into line with a future Bill which we have not yet seen will be contained in that future Bill.
Lord Renton: I had hoped and believed that I had added my name to these two amendments. But the piece of paper on which I did so, and which I put into the appropriate box in one of the offices, does not appear to have reached those who make such matters effective. However, I support my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter in what he said, and add a very few words.
Henry VIII clauses are obviously prima facie undesirable. In my opinion the only time when it is justifiable to make changes in a statute by regulation is when the circumstances are changing, perhaps with inflation. The amounts then mentioned in the statute may have to be changed without troubling Parliament with re-laying a Bill and going through the whole palaver when it is obviously necessary that the change should be made to keep pace with inflation. That is clear enough and it is a point that one concedes.
However, as my noble friend has pointed out, that is not the circumstance which now exists. The proposed amendments are undesirable because they amend previous statutes which are in themselves most complicated. There will be no opportunity to amend the regulations. We must take them or leave them and hope that we have got it right when, by recourse to the Library, we see how the previous statutes which are so complicated have been amended. That is not a satisfactory way of amending legislation; nor is it a satisfactory use of regulations. Therefore I support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
Lord Elton: I join the discussion with hesitation. First, I do not like joining issue with two such senior legislators as my two noble friends. Secondly, I do not like to limit in any way the restriction of the use of what we have come to call Henry VIII clauses. However, my noble friend Lord Renton has said that there are circumstances in which such clauses may be justifiable. He gave an example of the change in economic circumstances which could clearly be indexed. That is another way of saying that the power should be useful when there is a limiting factor clear for all to see which operates upon it.

501
I regard a true Henry VIII clause to be one which gives the Secretary of State or other Minister the power to act regardless of outside circumstances. As regards the first amendment—that which I am addressing—the outside circumstances consist of precedent legislation. Not merely is there a circumstance controlling the Minister, but that circum stance is an expression of the will of Parliament, albeit the other place.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said that it would be possible to provide for this power to be exercised in an amendment to the Finance Bill in question—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My noble friend has misunderstood me. I did not say that it would allow for the power to be exercised; I said that any necessary amendment in this Bill could be effected in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act. That is an entirely different point.
Lord Elton: I am obliged to my noble friend but the consideration that I have in mind still applies. It is for the Minister to tell me whether I am right and it is for him to answer the point. I suspect that if one were to widen the Long Title of the Finance Bill to the extent of permitting this Bill to be altered, one would extend it to include almost every other statute on the statute book. I am glad to be reassured by the Minister that the urgent shaking of the heads of my two noble friends on the Treasury Bench below me is right. The only point that I wish to leave with the Committee is that this is an exercise in the use of what we have come to call Henry VIII clauses under limited circumstances, flowing from a conscious act of the other place.
Lord Cockfield: All I shall say is that there is a longstanding resolution of this Chamber relating to "tacking".
Lord Mottistone: An important point about the amendments is that during the past year I have detected that not only has business been faced with a recession but also with a lack of consultation. I remember that during our discussions on the Social Security Bill that issue was much to the fore as between the relevant department (that of the Minister) and the CBI. When business is under pressure it is not good for systems of legislation to be available which can preclude consultation with interested parties. I am against the kind of powers which my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter seeks to erase from the Bill. Apart from the general principle of Henry VIII systems, I should object to providing a way in which departments can slip through measures without consultation. There is too much of a tendency to do that and I do not know why it exists. I do not know why the Department of Social Security believes that the fact that British business is under great strain does not matter and that the wealth of the country, upon which it depends for doing its job, is threatened. I do not know why the department takes that view but it appeals to have done so, at least for the past 12 months. It would be better if the department did not seek these extra powers in order to continue its unpleasant practices.
Lord Carter: The Committee will be familiar with the argument against Henry VIII clauses, but repetition does not reduce the cogency of the argument. Not only do we have government by regulation in the Bill but in Amendment No. 5 there is a de facto retrospection. We have seen a great many such provisions in recent Bills. The Statutory Sick Pay Bill was governed by a Henry VIII clause, although Members of the Committee improved the Bill in that respect, and the provision appeared in the Child Support Bill.
We on these Benches are pleased to support the amendment. We believe that the Government should come back and justify their policies. The fact that the power in Clause 1(7) is related to another Act is not sufficient reason to give the Government wide-ranging powers to amend legislation as they see fit.
Lord Henley: As my noble friend explained on Second Reading and has repeated today, the purpose of the two amendments is to remove from the Bill a provision which he contends enables the Government to amend provisions once they have been enacted by statutory instrument. The first question that we must address is: are they Henry VIII clauses? Secondly, if that is the case are they justified? As was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Elton, such clauses are justified on certain occasions and I intend to deal with that matter in time.
As regards the first question, I said on Second Reading that I did not accept that Clause 1(7) was a Henry VIII clause. On subsequent reflection I am now prepared to accept that in its widest possible definition it could be interpreted as such. Therefore I shall in time argue that it is a justifiable Henry VIII clause.
I do not accept that to be the case in respect of Clause 2(2), which is the subject of my noble friend's second amendment. The provision does not give power to amend primary legislation but merely to modify its effect in certain rare cases. If we accept that subsection (7) is a Henry VIII clause—albeit a very little Henry VIII clause —the second question is whether that is justifiable. For the interest and possibly the amusement of my noble friend I shall begin by citing a precedent from the National Insurance Act 1959 which was passed when he was Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. My noble friend will know that the Act gave the Minister powers to amend it by means of delegated executive powers. I refer to Section 1(2) which enabled my noble friend who was then Minister to amend the rates shown in that section by delegated powers.
Secondly, I wish to refer to the answer given by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on 19th March in reply to a question tabled by my noble friend Lord Renton. In that answer my noble and learned friend explained that the exercise of powers under secondary legislation to amend Acts of Parliament can on occasion be a useful means of effecting consequential amendments or repeals of an entirely subsidiary character without the need to require Parliament to consider yet further primary legislation. He confirmed that the Government would continue to propose such powers where they seemed appropriate.

503
I believe that we should have close regard to that important statement of policy by my noble and learned friend in discussing these amendments. The Government see no need to proscribe provisions of this sort in Bills. They can on occasion serve as a useful means of implementing consequential amendments without requiring Parliament to consider further primary legislation. Secondly, there is no general rule that such provisions should specify affirmative resolution. It is a matter of judgment as to whether there are more important matters for parliamentary attention.
On that basis, I believe that it was perfectly proper to make the provision that appears in the Bill at lines 26 to 30 on page 3. And, as I explained on Second Reading, the powers can only be exercised following an amendment to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act. Moreover, this is no blank cheque that the Secretary of State is being given: the content of any regulations is confined to matters which are necessary or expedient in consequence of any alteration to Sections 157 or 158 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 or Schedule 6 to that Act.
It may help the Committee if I explain in more detail the circumstances in which we envisage using the power to make such regulations. We would not need to invoke the provision whenever the scale rates—the cash equivalents of the benefit of a car or fuel referred to earlier in Clause 1 of the Bill—are altered, as they may be each year as a result of the Budget. So if next year the scale rates for cars and fuel were altered from their present values, set out in Schedule 6 to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, the cross-references in our provisions would mean that they would refer to the amended provisions without further legislation. If, on the other hand, some amendment was made to Sections 157 and 158 of, or Schedule 6 to, the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 which was not immediately capable of working in our provisions, then we would need to amend by regulation.
It is not easy to describe such circumstances because, of course, I am having to guess at possible future change. However, perhaps I may be rather more specific as to the circumstances in which we may need to make an amendment by regulation. One instance would relate to the mileage thresholds of 2,500 and 18,000 miles which are incorporated in the text of the Bill at subsection (6). If those figures were altered by the Income and Corporation Taxes Act, I am advised that because they are not cross-referenced, the Bill's provisions would need amendment so as to have similar effect. In such circumstances we would make regulations to amend the figures. That would be the extent of our secondary legislation. I hope that my noble friend will agree that it would be wholly disproportionate to require that that should be done by means of social security primary legislation or by means of widening the scope of any future Finance Bill so as to cover those points.
That was a point made by my noble friend Lord Elton when he asked whether the scope of the Bill could be widened. I am advised that if that was done,
504
one would dramatically increase one's problems as regards the management of the Bill and that that would not be the right line to follow. I suggest that in those circumstances it would be a questionable use of Parliament's time to require it to consider a further set of consequential changes in primary legislation where the principle of the change has already received consideration in this Bill. I hope therefore that my noble friend will withdraw the amendment and not proceed with that being discussed with it: first, because the second amendment is not the Henry VIII clause which he thinks it is; and, secondly, because, even if the first amendment relates to a Henry VIII clause, in the circumstances of its use it would be justifiable.
4 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am glad that the Minister has now acknowledged that which he refused to acknowledge on Second Reading; namely, that it would be perfectly possible to do what the Government want by embodying the provision in the subsequent legislation and that the only pity from the Government's point of view was that widening the scope of the legislation—and he delicately did not go further—would allow more amendments to be tabled which would be highly inconvenient for Ministers conducting the Bill.
I am glad also that the Minister acknowledges that the provision contained in subsection (7), dealt with by the first of the amendments, is in the colloquial sense a Henry VIII clause and that that is beyond dispute. As I understand his argument, it is much like the lady who produced an illegitimate child and argued that it did not matter because it was only a little one. That was my noble friend's line of argument.
Lord Henley: I believe that my noble friend is slightly unfair. I was arguing that although it may be argued that it is a Henry VIII clause, it is justifiable in the circumstances.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, but my noble friend will recall, or Hansard will remind him if he does not recall it now, that he was arguing that it was small in scope. That is the point of the fairly light-hearted reference which I gave.
I cannot pretend that I find the position satisfactory. However, it is useful that the Committee has had the opportunity, which I hope it will always take, of challenging such clauses. I do not propose to delay the proceedings in connection with the little one by seeking to divide the Committee. A useful purpose has been served by discussing this matter and by making it clear to the Government that similar clauses will always be discussed. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Computation, collection and recovery]:
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Short title, commencement, financial provision and extent]:
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 6, line 1, leave out ("Contributions") and insert ("Employers' Contributions").
The noble Lord said: This is an attempt to assist the Government by securing that the Title of the Bill reflects what the Bill does. That may seem a rather revolutionary view in certain circles. I am sure that the parliamentary draftsman would be horrified at the idea. Some of their recent work suggests that the contrary is often their intention.
The Bill imposes a contribution solely on employers. Therefore, it is quite distinct from the normal run of social security contributions Bills which impose liability both on employers and employed. It is more accurately described in the words of my amendment than it is in the Title of the Bill. One can search the Bill with great zeal before finding any direct benefit conferred by it on any person in the social security or national insurance systems. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I do not accept what my noble friend says. I am amused that he believes that he is assisting the Government. Should my noble friend wish to refer to employers' contributions, it would not be appropriate to refer to them in the Title. The liability to pay Class 1 A contributions is on,
"persons is liable to pay the secondary Class 1 contributions or certain other persons".
My noble friend accepts, I am sure, that that would make a rather long-winded Title and that it would be better to follow the precedents of social security contributions legislation of 1981 and 1982.
Lord Carter: I know that it is unlikely, but if the Government decided to make changes as regards employees' contributions in that respect, will it be possible, under the Bill as drafted, to do so by the regulations which we discussed on the last amendment?
Lord Henley: I am not aware that we could do that under the Bill as drafted. As I explained on Second Reading, we did not consider it right to include employees' contributions because about half the people who benefit from the use of company cars are above the upper earnings limit. The administrative details and the problems of levying the relatively small amounts of money on the others would not make it worth while.
Lord Carter: That is not the point. I was not referring to the justification but to the technicality. Would the Government be able to do it in the Bill by regulation?
Lord Henley: I am not aware that we could. The noble Lord will know that Class 1A contributions will be purely for the employer. I do not believe we could extend them by regulation to the employees.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I do not want to waste more time on this relatively unimportant matter. The Government may have good reasons for misdescribing their legislation in respect of this specific Bill. The less the Bill is understood by the country, perhaps the better for the Government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 6, line 13, leave out ("1991") and insert ("1992").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 5 concerns a more substantial matter and relates to the fact that, whether or not the Minister likes it, the additional charge being imposed by the Bill is retrospective in effect. As he quite properly pointed out at Second Reading, it demands payment at the end of the current financial year. However, the liability is being accumulated from the beginning of the financial year, which is two-and-a-half months ago. In doing that it is no defence to say, as my noble friend said several times at Second Reading, "It is in the Budget and the Budget applies to the year ahead".
First, with great respect, it was not in the Budget. It was announced in the Budget Speech and it was announced that there would be legislation to impose it. That does not put it in the Budget. The point made by my noble friend at column 859 appears to omit that, whereas Budget provisions come into force at once, they do so because of the Budget resolutions. On the day of the Budget, after the Chancellor of the Exchequer has sat down, resolutions are carried which put those tax changes into effect generally from six o'clock that afternoon. I believe that that is the normal procedure. On an occasion when tax on whisky was to be increased, I recall going into a bar at five minutes before six and as a result obtaining my drink distinctly more cheaply than I would have done 10 minutes later.
The tax savings contained in the Budget are operated by Budget resolutions which maintain the legal background to the tax until the Finance Bill has caught up with them and received Royal Assent. That is the procedure. In this case there was no Budget resolution. Although it is taxation—that fact is one of the reasons that make it more difficult for the Committee to deal with it satisfactorily, which I acknowledge at once—in fact there was not and could not be any Budget resolution. The Bill is not yet law. It may perhaps never become law, we do not know. However, the liability has been imposed on the citizen since the beginning of April. That is as plain an example of the enactment of retrospective taxation as one can imagine. It cannot be overcome by saying airily and several times, as did my noble friend, "It was in the Budget". It was not legally in the Budget; it was simply forecast by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a proposed piece of legislation in the course of what was, if I may say so, an admirable Budget Speech. I beg to move.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I have nothing to say in regard to the amendment. I was rather intrigued by my noble friend's point regarding what is a "Budget". What is a Budget if it is not the Budget Speech? I have never felt that the Budget had to be printed in some form to be identified, and that the Budget Speech was something quite different. On that narrow point I shall be interested for any explanation from my noble friend concerning my doubts. I should have thought that the Budget was the Budget Speech and not simply a forecast.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: To help my noble friend, the Budget Speech, like any other speech—including that of my noble friend—does not have any actual legislative effect. What has legislative effect are the Budget resolutions which are carried after the Chancellor of the Exchequer has sat down in another place. The tax changes it is desired to put into effect at once are authorised and remain authorised until the Finance Bill becomes an Act by those resolutions. The point I was seeking to make—I am sorry it was not made clear to my noble friend—is that, whereas that was true of the tax changes in the Budget, it was not true of these provisions.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: I do not wish to enter into the metaphysical argument raised by my noble friends but perhaps I may say that the case put by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is a great deal stronger than he made it out to be. The tax increases which take effect immediately are only those covered by the provisional collection of taxes Act, as amended. Where taxes are not covered by the provisional collection of taxes Act, they normally take effect from a later date; that is, the date of the passing of the Act or 5th August. That is true, for example, of capital taxes. Therefore, if one is provident enough to remain in existence until after 5th August, one escapes any increase in the capital taxes which may otherwise be charged. Normally the right course is for an increase in a tax of this kind to operate on the passing of the Bill and not as from an earlier date.
Lord Renton: My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was Financial Secretary to the Treasury for four years and Chief Secretary to the Treasury for two years. When he gives us the benefit of his experience it must be taken seriously.
My noble friend mentioned the question of retrospection. I too would dare to improve on what he said in regard to that one point by reminding the Committee that, although retrospection in favour of the subject is regarded as a permissible legislative device, retrospection against the subject has always been frowned upon. This provision concerns retrospection against the interests of the subject and therefore it is wrongful retrospection.
Lord Boardman: I should like to speak, first, in support of the amendment and the argument put forward by my noble friend. I wish also to raise one other point which I hope the Minister will take into account. It concerns the size of the imposition, which I understand to be something over £600 million. That places a not inconsiderable burden on industry at the present time. When industry is suffering from cash flow problems in the present economic climate, the worst that can be done is to introduce legislation which in many respects is retrospective and add that cash burden to its problems.
Lord Mottistone: I want to add to what my noble friend Lord Boardman said. But there is also a practical point for my noble friend to consider. When the Bill is enacted—which presumably will be within
508
the next month or so—four months will have elapsed since 1st April in which it will now be necessary for people to produce evidence of travel which they may not have collected last year because last year it was not necessary. One cannot expect small busy companies trying to survive in difficult circumstances that the Department of Social Security does not recognise, to collect information sufficient to apply the new legislation retrospectively. They may not have done so and may not possess it. Therefore, for all the reasons that have been given, it seems very wrong indeed. It is also wrong for the practical reason that if my noble friend is not prepared to accept the amendment as it stands, which would be the fairest thing to do, or to allow time to prepare for what has to be done, then at least, as suggested by one Member of the Committee, the measure should come into effect at the earliest opportunity; namely, when the Bill is passed. I hope that my noble friend will consider that.
Lord Carter: It may help the Minister to know that in principle the Opposition support the Bill. So far everyone who has spoken on his side of the Chamber has attacked it. I refer to the retrospective effect which is extremely important. It relates to the whole of the management of the National Insurance Fund. I remind the Committee that the net cost of rebates and incentives to opt out of SERPS is estimated at almost £6 billion. In addition, there is £1.8 billion from general taxation and for benefits which the National Insurance Fund cannot pay because of the SERPS rebates. There is a further £800 million on taxation by April 1993 in relation to extra tax relief. All that arises from that aspect of the National Insurance Fund alone. We now have this additional impost which is retrospective. We certainly support the principle of the Bill. The whole exercise seems to underline the mess which the Government have made in the management of the National Insurance Fund.
Lord Banks: I support the amendment. The case made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is solid. We should pay attention to what he says because of his great experience, to which reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. My advice to the Committee is to support the amendment because retrospective legislation is involved.
Lord Henley: It will come as no surprise to the Committee and no surprise to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter when I say that I cannot accept the amendment. It will also come as no surprise to my noble friend if I repeat what I said at Second Reading; namely, that the provisions of the Bill were part of the Budget package as a whole. My noble friend, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that that is no defence. I simply do not accept that.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I apologise for interrupting my noble friend so soon. He said it was passed in the Budget package as a whole. What does he mean that it was "passed", and when was that done?
Lord Henley: My noble friend should not put words into my mouth. I did not say that they were "passed" but that they were,
"part of the Budget package as a whole".

509
I intended to go on to say that that package of measures took into account the prospect of the extra income to the National Insurance Fund to the tune of about £610 million in 1992–93, based on a starting date of this year. In passing, perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Boardman, that that reflects less than 0.02 per cent. of the overall labour costs of businesses. There are of course the corporation tax offsets which should be taken into account. As I explained at Second Reacting, the Bill addresses a deficiency in the current national insurance system, and it would not be right, having recognised such a deficiency, to allow it to continue for a further year. Nor can it be said that the Bill breaches any principle of retrospection; it is a Budget measure and such measures are usually introduced from the beginning of the tax year. The proposal to introduce the new contributions was, as my noble friend quite rightly said, announced in the course of the Budget Statement on 19th March.
I should also remind the Committee that the first payment of the new contributions will not be made by employers until mid-1992, unlike the tax on my noble friend's whisky. As I have explained, we are consulting with employers' representatives on the details of the collection and payment system for the new contributions. We will issue guidance to employers on what to do by the end of the year. That should ensure that they have time to make the necessary arrangements before the proposed payment date of June 1992. I take the points that my noble friend Lord Mottistone made about some employers possibly not having the necessary evidence. We shall take into account what evidence might be necessary this year as regards the number of business miles that employees have driven.
I must point out to my noble friend that employees themselves will have details of their business mileage. They are already taxed on their company cars and they need to keep those details themselves. I see no reason for employees not making those details available to employers. We sent out a mailshot to all employers explaining the position shortly after the Budget. Therefore, all employers will know what the position is. Having said that, I hope that my noble friend will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.
Lord Mottistone: In answering my noble friend Lord Boardman, my noble friend said that the cost of £600 million would be 0.02 per cent. of the labour costs of the companies. He repeated that argument many times on individual points when the Social Security Bill went through this House. I hope that my noble friend is adding up all these items because a little more of this kind of legislation, particularly when it is retrospective, will mean that he will say that another 0.02 per cent. is involved. Someone will say that that adds up to 10 per cent.
Lord Henley: I said that it would be 0.02 per cent. of a business's overall costs. I did not go on to say that the net income to the Government will be somewhat less because there will be offsets. I also did not stress the other concessions to business in the Budget Statement which more than exceed £610 million.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I find my noble friend's emphasis on his suggestion that this is part of the Budget a little unsatisfactory. It is perfectly true that it was included in the Budget Speech. However, what my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer says does not have any legislative effect. As has been pointed out—although my noble friend has not dealt with the point—the provisions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to put into effect immediately following the Budget are the provisions which are carried in another place as part of the Budget resolutions on the same afternoon. They remain effective until the Finance Bill catches up with them.
There is nothing of that kind in this particular instance. I find my noble friend's attitude very unsatisfactory. He did not even mention one of the suggestions made by one of my noble friends that a possible compromise would be to make this a liability which arose as from the date of the Royal Assent to this particular measure which would at least cure it of retrospection. It is a very unsatisfactory position with which the Committee has been presented. I hope and believe that, now the Leader of the House is here, he will be taking the matter on board and considering whether the Committee should carry the burden of having been prepared to accept what most people regard as wholly unacceptable—that is to say, retrospective taxation. In the hope and belief that such consideration can be given before he next stage of the Bill, I do not wish to prejudice that consideration by noble Lords. I am pretty certain that the matter will arise again at Report stage. At the moment, and while consideration can still be given to the matter, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Dangerous Dogs Bill
4.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Your Lordships will be aware of the immediate background to the introduction of this Bill which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary set out in his Statement to another place on 22nd May and which my noble friend Lord Reay repeated to your Lordships. In the past two months or so there have been a number of very serious attacks on people by dogs. But the most recent attacks have been of a different degree of seriousness and savagery to the great majority of incidents in which dogs bite people.
The vicious attacks by pit bull terriers on six year-old Rucksana Khan and on Mr. Frank Tempest, whose fearful disfigurement was seen by many on television and in the newspapers, and other savage attacks have all caused widespread concern among the public, who look to the Government and to the law for protection. I am sure that all of your Lordships will have admired the courage of Rucksana Khan and Mr.

511
Tempest in recovering from those attacks and in coping with the terrible injuries which they have received and would wish to join me in expressing our best wishes to them and to their families for the future.
The type of dog which was responsible for those attacks, the pit bull terrier, is one which was first introduced into this country in the mid-1970s. It is a cross-breed dog, it is bred for fighting, it is strong, it is impervious to pain and it is capable of exerting enormous pressure with its jaws. Experts have said that the only certain way to stop an attack by a determined pit bull terrier is with a mallet or with a gun. In many cases in this country, and in America, where the pit bull terrier has killed 34 people, it has proved impossible for full-grown adults to stop a pit bull terrier from its attack once it has started.
We all know that the British people are noted for their love of animals. Dogs in particular give pleasure and companionship to many of us, and some people instinctively feel that there is really no such thing as a bad dog; simply a bad owner. In this respect, the pit bull terrier is, I think, in a class apart from other dogs. No matter how well it is treated by its owner, the pit bull terrier can attack without warning. Many of these dogs have been well behaved and have played perfectly safely with children in the family home up to the point when they attack. That sort of unpredictability is in the nature of the pit bull terrier.
That is why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary decided that it was necessary to bring forward legislation as a matter of urgency in order to tackle the problem. The Bill also prohibits another fighting dog, the Japanese Tosa, which can apparently grow to a simply colossal size—I am told to the size of a donkey—and can weigh up to 17 stone. Fortunately, there is only one in this country at the moment—and you need two for procreation.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Earl, but I know this dog. I am the only Member of this House who has been to see him and I am on friendly terms with him. I am giving your Lordships due warning that there is a champion for this one dog in Britain in me.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we shall listen with interest to what the noble Lord has to say. I would merely offer him two words of advice: watch it!
When the Bill was debated in another place there was unanimous support for its aim, which is a simple one. It is to rid the country of the danger to the public which these fighting dogs represent. As your Lordships will be aware, the Bill received an unopposed Second Reading. It is supported by the major animal welfare organisations and by the veterinary bodies.
Clause 1 sets out a range of criminal offences which will apply to the pit bull terrier, to the Japanese Tosa and to any other fighting dogs which my right honourable friend may specify by order. The reference in Clause 1 to fighting dogs is an important one. It is intended to draw a distinction between dogs like the pit bull terrier and the Tosa which are dogs bred for fighting and other types of dog such as the Rottweiler
512
and the Dobermann which, although they might be potentially dangerous, are not in fact fighting dogs. There is, therefore, no suggestion that the Government would either wish, or indeed would be able, to use the Clause 1 powers to ban the ownership of the Rottweiler or Dobermann.
As I have said, the pit bull terrier is a cross-breed dog, bred and cross-bred with other types in order to increase its aggressiveness. The fact that it is a cross-breed, therefore, makes it difficult to define in law. There is as yet no scientific way, such as DNA testing, to define in law what is a pit bull terrier. Many experts are considering the question of the definition both in this country and in other European countries where they are considering similar legislation.
It is possible that in time a more precise scientific definition may emerge. Clause 1(1) gives the Secretary of State the power to refine the definition of any fighting dog, including the pit bull terrier, by order. At the moment the definition in the Bill is:
"any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier".
That is a description which is expressed in plain language that everyone can understand.
If the import of those two dogs had been banned at the time when they were introduced into this country, it is very likely that we should not be debating the Bill today. That makes it all the more important that the Government should have clear powers to ban the domestic ownership and import of any other new types of fighting dog which may emerge in the future. Clause 1(1) (c) gives the Secretary of State the power to take immediate action to ban such dogs by order. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has powers in separate legislation to impose an import ban. We have used those powers already to ban further imports of the pit bull terrier and the Japanese Tosa.
The criminal offences which will apply to the dogs which are specified in Clause 1 cover breeding them, selling or exchanging them, giving them away, advertising them, abandoning them or letting them stray. These offences will become law very soon after the Bill is enacted, by an order of the Secretary of State. From that time, Clause 1(2) (a) will make it a criminal offence to have a pit bull terrier or a Tosa in public without a muzzle and without a lead. That is a measure which will give protection to the public as soon as the Bill becomes law. Those who commit these offences will face tough penalties—a maximum of six months' imprisonment and a maximum fine of £2,000, which will rise to a maximum of £5,000 when the Criminal Justice Bill, which raises fine levels, becomes law.
Clause 1(3) also creates an offence of owning or keeping a prohibited dog. It is our intention to bring that offence into force some time after the other criminal offences in the Bill, at about the end of November. There will, therefore, be a period of some four months before actually owning or having custody of one of those dogs itself becomes a criminal offence. During that time the owner can decide to do one of two things: he can decide either to have his pit bull terrier put down voluntarily or he can seek to have it exempted.

513
The Government will provide an incentive for owners who wish to have their pit bull terrier put down. Clause 1(3) enables the Secretary of State to make by order a scheme to pay to owners a sum by way of compensation for the dog and its putting down. My right honourable friend is consulting the veterinary profession and animal welfare organisations about the precise level of the sum to be paid to each owner. The cost of putting a dog down varies from one part of the country to another. Many claim that pit bull terriers are valuable dogs and there is the suggestion that some change hands for large sums. Much of that value is based on their value as fighting dogs in the illegal and quite deplorable activity of dog fighting. It would be quite wrong for any sum which may be made available from public funds to reflect that sort of factor.
The best advice which we have suggests that the intrinsic value of the pit bull terrier is about £25. The sum which will be made available to cover compensation and destruction is likely to be some here in the region of £50. It will be payable by the Home Office when the owner produces a certificate or other proof from a veterinary surgeon that the dog is a pit bull terrier and that it has been put down.
My right honourable friend indicated, during the Second Reading of the Bill, that he would be consulting interested parties, including the police, the veterinary bodies and animal welfare organisations about an exemption scheme. Those discussions are now nearly complete, and my right honourable friend will publish the relevant order in draft form, together with details of how the scheme will work, very shortly.
Your Lordships might like to know what we propose that the pit bull owner, who wishes to retain his dog, should have to do under the scheme. The first thing which he will have to do is to obtain a form from the police, and leave with them his name and address.
He will then have to have his dog, male or female, neutered by a veterinary surgeon. The veterinary surgeon will also mark the dog. Neutering is not a means of rendering a dog safe. It is a means of ensuring that the animal cannot breed, and that the breed itself cannot continue.
The owner will also have to arrange for the dog to be covered by third party insurance. He will then have to provide proof of insurance and proof of neutering in order to obtain a certificate of exemption by which he will be allowed to keep the dog. There will need to be a central index of exempted dogs to which the police will have access in order to check the details of any deg which they seize or which is the subject of a complaint.
We have put the task of running this scheme out to tender to a number of organisations. We hope to announce the appointment of the successful organisation within the next few weeks. The invitations to tender which we have issued, stress the need for the organisation which runs the scheme to work closely with the police, the Home Office and the other agencies involved in ensuring that the exemption scheme works. The body which runs the scheme will also be responsible for issuing the certificate of exemption.
514
The owner who wishes to exempt his dog will have to meet the full cost of doing so himself. The cost of neutering by a veterinary surgeon varies according to the sex of the dog. Castrating a dog can cost about £80. Spaying a bitch can, I understand, cost in the region of £120. The cost of insurance is a matter for the owner to work out with his insurance company, but it will add to the cost.
The operating costs of the scheme, which will include a central index of exempted dogs, will be fully recoverable through the fee to be charged for the permit. The fee clearly cannot be determined finally until the final details are settled and the process of tendering is complete.
The exemption scheme contains a tough and costly set of requirements for the owner of these dogs to meet. Breaching any of the requirements will mean that the dog is no longer an exempted one and the owner commits the offence of possession in Clause 1(3). At all times the owner of the dog must keep it muzzled and on a lead.
During the proceedings on the Bill in another place, it was suggested that as an additional protection to the public no one under the age of 18 should be allowed to have charge of such a dog in public. Perhaps the age of 18 is a couple of years too high, but I can assure your Lordships that we would look sympathetically at any amendment which your Lordships might care to bring forward along these lines during the passage of the Bill.
At the end of November, the offence of possessing or having custody of a prohibited dog will come into force. Those who have not voluntarily had their dogs put down or who have not successfully had them exempted at that stage, will face a term of imprisonment of up to six months and/or a maximum fine of £2,000, which will rise to £5,000 when the Criminal Justice Bill is implemented. With this, as with any of the other Clause 1 offences, the onus will be on the accused to prove that his dog is not a pit bull terrier.
Some have suggested that the exemption scheme constitutes some sort of registration system. Perhaps I may say a word or two about dog registration. Those of us who listened to the debate on registration during the passage of the Environmental Protection Bill last year will know that it is a subject on which many of your Lordships have views, all of which are sincerely held and many of which are forcefully expressed.
The situation in which we find ourselves looking at this matter again today is very different from the position a year ago. The Dangerous Dogs Bill is itself a piece of legislation very different from the Environmental Protection Bill. It is aimed specifically at ridding the country of fighting dogs and at giving the public greater protection against dogs which are dangerous.
The question of dog registration needs to be seen in that context. We are not in any way persuaded that general dog registration would have helped to prevent any of the most serious dog attacks which have occurred recently. It is significant that another place rejected a dog registration amendment at Committee stage by 43 votes. That is a very much larger majority

515
than the slender margin of three votes by which the other place decided last year not to accept my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley's amendment to the Environmental Protection Bill.
The background is therefore different. I am sure that those of your Lordships who advocate registration will have their say. I shall look forward to hearing what they do have to say. But I hope that whatever differences there may be on this issue they will not prevent your Lordships from supporting this much needed Bill.
The Government recognise that the pit bull terrier is not the only type of dog which can attack, although I hope that I have explained to your Lordships that the power and the savagery with which it does so sets it apart from other types and breeds.
The sad truth, which all dog owners recognise, is that dogs of any type can snap and bite. Much depends on the control which the owner or keeper exercises over his or her dog. The consultation paper on the control of dogs which the Government issued last June put forward a number of proposals aimed at encouraging owners to control their dogs more responsibly.
Clause 3 of the Bill contains two important provisions applying to dogs of any type which were set out in the consultation paper and which attracted an encouraging measure of support. Subsection (1) of Clause 3 makes it a criminal offence for someone to permit a dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place together with an aggravated offence when a dog then attacks someone and injures them.
The penalty for the offence is imprisonment for up to six months and/or a fine of up to £5,000, as the level of the fine will become. The penalty for the aggravated offence is two years' imprisonment and an unlimited fine.
The criminal offence in Clause 3 is one which can apply to the owner of any dog. We hope that it will encourage owners to exercise greater responsibility for their dogs when the dogs are out of the house. At the same time we recognise that if a particular breed of dog is in the future responsible for a number of serious incidents to the point where it represents a serious danger to the public, there may be calls for all dogs of that particular breed to be subject to special restrictions. Clause 2 therefore provides a reserve power to impose restrictions in those circumstances. It would enable the Home Secretary to apply to named types of dogs the criminal offences in Clause 1(2)(d) and (e) of failing to muzzle and have on a lead and abandoning or allowing to stray. This would be done by order.
Imposing blanket conditions such as these on any of the recognised breeds of dogs would be a major step. The Government consider it necessary that before such a serious course of action is undertaken, there should be wide consultation.
Clause 2 therefore imposes an obligation on the Secretary of State to consult widely with representatives of the veterinary profession, animal welfare organisations and bodies with particular knowledge of
516
dogs before making such an order. Before such an order was implemented, it would have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament.
This is an important power to have in reserve if the provisions in the Bill, which are aimed at encouraging responsible ownership and control of dogs, prove not to be sufficient. The Government are not convinced however that there is a case at the present time for singling out any types of dogs for the uniform restrictions envisaged in Clause 2. Most postmen would regard as a greater problem certain dogs which are usually well known to them and which can come from any type or breed.
The Government think that it is important that members of the public, postmen and others, who have good cause to fear for their safety because of the threat which may be presented by a particular dog should be able to take action to tackle the problem. Clause 3(4) provides them with the means of doing so. It strengthens the power in the Dogs Act 1871 and enables any one, who considers that a dog is dangerous and that it is not kept under proper control, to apply to the court for an order to require its owner to keep it under control.
Two important changes from the power in the Dogs Act 1871 are that it enables the court to make an order whether or not a dog which is thought to be dangerous has actually caused injury to a person. It also enables the court to specify particular measures by which the dog should be controlled. The measures named in Clause 3(4)(b) are,
"muzzling, keeping on a lead",
and,
"excluding it from specified places".
The court would have the power to specify other measures if it was thought necessary.
The postman and the next door neighbour, whose work or whose relaxation were made a misery by a dog which snarled, nipped, scratched or escaped, would have the means to force its owner to stop it from doing so. The proposal was widely welcomed when it was put forward in the consultation paper issued last year.
Those are the major provisions of the Bill. It is a measure which has been brought forward quickly to meet both public and parliamentary concern about the attacks by fighting dogs which have been taking place. The provisions of the Bill will, I think, provide a tough and effective response to that problem. They give the public protection and they toughen the law against those who do not take care to control their dogs properly.
The Bill has been widely welcomed by another place, the animal welfare associations, the veterinary bodies and the general public. I hope that your Lordships will also support the Bill and ensure that it passes quickly into law.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Earl Ferrers.)
4.52 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I know that the House will understand if I start my speech by paying a tribute to my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I heard that he had gone to view the Japanese Tosa,

517
which is the only one in the country. I also heard that the dog was about the size of a small donkey. Your Lordships will no doubt understand the skill and determination and indeed the initiative of my noble friend in pursuing that confrontation. I then heard that the monster proved to be amiable. But, after that, I heard that it had left the country for France. Of course, I know not whether that was a result of my noble friend's confrontation with the dog or whether it was purely coincidental. However, I am quite sure that, if more Tosas come into the country, we should not rely upon my noble friend to ensure that they all leave the country and go to France.
The noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of the Bill will know that the Opposition support it. We have seen too many vicious attacks, and even deaths, caused by the American pit hull terrier in this country. Therefore, to hinder the Bill now would, in our view, be to deny the public the protection they need. At the outset, perhaps I may make it perfectly clear to the House that we shall therefore give the Bill a fair wind. Having said that, the noble Earl will no doubt expect my next sentence to begin with the word "however"; indeed, it does.
However, while the Bill provides some answer to the problem of fighting dogs, we on these Benches, like the RSPCA and other interested groups, believe that the Government have asked themselves and have indeed answered the wrong question. The Government have failed in the Bill fully to address the problems of irresponsible dog ownership, and they could do so. Banning some dogs is a fair, short-term answer to the immediate problem. But I must say right at the outset that in our view the registering of all dogs would be a better solution to a problem which goes much wider than the question of fighting dogs.
I must also say that the Government's approach to and the consequent limitations of the Bill seem to smack more of a concentration on the headlines rather than producing a considered response to the views of experts in the field or the advice of Members of this House and of another place; or indeed of listening to, apparently, 92 per cent. of the population. According to the findings of a Harris poll published in the Observer on 16th June, 92 per cent. of the population would support a national dog registration scheme. I cannot avoid saying that in our view this is an opportunity which has been missed.
However, I am sure that I speak for Members on all sides of the House in joining the Minister in sending our sympathy to the victims of attacks by these dogs. The recent appalling cases of the young girl Rucksana Khan and Mr. Frank Tempest were preceded by earlier tragedies such as the death of Kelly Lynch. We must also not forget those who, while they have not actually been attacked, have had their lives terrorised by the pit bull terrier which may live next door, round the corner or indeed, usually, in the neighbouring park.
Not all such dogs are inevitably fierce and by no means are all owners of such dogs irresponsible. But many members of the public, and I am sure Members of this House, rightly fear meeting such unpredictable creatures in the street. As the noble Earl said in his
518
opening speech, it is the unpredictability of the dog which in some ways is the greatest problem. The short point, as the Minister said, is that the dogs have been bred for fighting and for aggression. As such, they are hardly in the same category as the family pet and, quite clearly, different legislation is needed to deal with them.
For that reason, we support the Government's aim to eliminate the pit bull terrier and the Japanese Tosa from this country. The proposals in the Bill which provide for compensation for those who have their dog put down, and which allow certain exemptions for those who do not want to have their dog destroyed, are on the whole sensible and reasonable measures. We similarly welcome the powers to put down dogs which do not meet the exemptions and to imprison, fine or ban owners who contravene the new provisions. We also approve of those clauses of the Bill which provide for the muzzling and leashing of these and other dangerous dogs; and the strengthening of sanctions to deal with those who allow their dogs to be dangerously out of control in a public place.
So far, so good. However, the Government should not pretend that the public are only concerned about pit bull terriers. I do not believe that they are much concerned about the Japanese Tosa. Indeed, I do not think many of us have come across one yet as apparently there is only one in the country; that is, if it is still here. Their concern goes wider. If one talks to members of the public about the problem it is evident that Rottweilers and Dobermann pinschers are breeds about which people are worried. Moreover, despite the extraordinary growth in the ownership of what used to be called Alsatians, but which now I believe are commonly known as German shepherd dogs, people are still worried about the unpredictability which some of those dogs show.
One has to recognise at the outset that the Bill is a limited response to what is perceived as a limited problem. In our view, it does not go sufficiently far. Having said that, there may be one or two problems with the legislation. But I should like first to pay tribute to the skill of the parliamentary draftsmen; that is, those who work in that workhouse of the legislature which is not usually given the credit for which it is perhaps due. They have brought forward a definition of the dog covered by the Bill which I am bound to say I find extremely skilful. As I understand it, it is impossible to define a pit bull terrier. The breed is not known. Therefore, we have legislated not for the pit bull terrier but for,
"any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier".
The Home Secretary said in the debate on the Bill in another place—and indeed the noble Earl repeated it today—that the definition of,
"any dog of the type"
was,
"understandable to the lawyer and the layman". [Official Report, Commons, 10/6/91; co1.646.]
I regret that I do not entirely share his optimistic view; nor do I think it would be shared by any lawyer acting for an owner. How, for example, is one to distinguish between a "cross-breed", a "half-breed' or any other

519
permutation of "type"? This urgently needs clarification and we look forward to hearing the Government's clarification at a subsequent stage of the Bill. I should also say to the Government that reversing the onus of proof as to whether the dog is or is not of the,
"type known as the pit bull terrier".
(that is, not that it is a pit bull terrier but that it is of the "type") does not solve the problem of definition.
Secondly, there is no definition of owner in the Bill. With a proper registration scheme, that would be simple. The registered owner is the registered owner. In the absence of a registration scheme, who in a family is the owner of the dog? Is it the person who originally brought it in; the wife who perhaps looks after it for most of the time; the child who mostly takes it out; or, in the case of pit bull terriers, the "elderly teenager" or the youth in his early twenties who may not have bought the dog but who seems to have assumed control over it? There is a problem with definition. Although I understand and appreciate what the Government are trying to achieve, problems will arise with the Bill as presently drafted.
The Bill is far from faultlessly drafted. I do not blame the draftsman for that. I blame the speed with which the Government reacted and perhaps the not entirely coherent way in which they approached the problem. There are a number of amendments, some of which were denied discussion in the other place due to the Government's guillotine Motion, that we intend to table in this House.
We are also concerned that the Bill contains no provisions requiring all dogs to be kept in safe conditions. Clause 3 creates an offence of permitting a dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place. As I understand it, that provision applies to all dogs not just to fighting or dangerous dogs. I am not sure what permitting a dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place means, unless it results in some kind of attack which, under this clause, is regarded as an aggravated offence. If the dog is running around a park yapping, I should not have thought that that was being dangerously out of control, but I know not. I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, shaking his head. The Government need to clarify what they mean by that provision, and must ensure that the public know what they mean.
Firearms, when not in use, must still be kept in a safe place. We believe that provisions should be included to ensure that fighting dogs at least have to be kept securely to prevent their escape or theft. We should also like clarification of the definition of a "public place". Will the police have powers to act against dangerous dogs in tower blocks, maisonettes, and areas around them, and in back gardens? What will be the position of a dog—to use the words of the Bill—"dangerously out of control" in the owner's driveway, for example? Are the police entitled to enter and deal with a dog? Again, we find a lack of precision and clarity in the Bill with which we hope the Government can deal.
520
I turn to graver and weightier matters. There are several omissions in the Bill. A major omission is a wider scheme for third party insurance. The Government have included in the Bill provisions relating to the insurance of dangerous dogs which are not destroyed. I confess that we are puzzled as to why the Government did not extend the requirement to obtain insurance to "other specially dangerous dogs". We believe that there may be a case for extending third party insurance to all dogs. We shall in due course seek support for that suggestion from all sides of the House.
Insurance would at least provide some compensation for all those subject to attacks from dogs where the owner can be identified, as he could clearly be identified if there were a proper registration scheme. When an attack occurs and the owner cannot be identified, our view is that victims, especially after the Bill's passage, should be able to claim from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.
The inadequacies of the Bill extend also to its financial provisions. Local authorities' representatives are worried that the £250,000 which the Government have assessed it will cost to implement the Bill will not be enough even to locate and register the estimated 10,000 pit bull terriers in the country. We shall therefore seek assurances that local authorities will be fully compensated for enforcing the Bill.
Ultimately, the Bill is inadequate because it provides a partial solution only to the problem in this country. RSPCA figures show, for example, that out of 468 serious attacks recorded in the metropolitan area in 1990, 111 were caused by the American pit bull terrier. That means that 357 attacks were caused by dogs other than the pit bull terrier. They were caused by dozens of other breeds of dog, including many cross breeds. The problem caused by dangerous dogs will not be lessened until all dog owners appreciate that they are responsible for their animals' actions. I noticed that in almost the closing sentence of the Minister's speech he emphasised the importance of ensuring that all dog owners were made to feel responsible for the actions of their dogs. That is true, but a national dog registration scheme would be the most efficient way of focusing the minds of dog owners on those responsibilities.
The advantages of registering all dogs have been argued by my party and almost all animal welfare organisations for a number of years now. The House has a solid reputation for supporting such a scheme. The Government, however, still resist it. Clause 1(5) deals with the exceptions that the Government may be prepared to make to the overall provisions relating to pit bull terriers, and includes provisions requiring owners of pit bull terriers who apply for exemption and secure it, to register their dogs with the police. If that is not a dog registration scheme for fighting dogs, I confess that I hardly understand the English language.
The nub of the argument is that there can be no adequate control of dogs without a registration scheme which links the owner to the dog. Irrespective of breed, that is the way to take the majority of responsible dog owners along with the legislation. The

521
Government argue that pit hull terriers are in a class of their own because they are bred for fighting. That is true, and I accept it. However, in general a breed "type of dog" approach is the wrong way to proceed because many dogs are capable of inflicting severe injuries upon people. Ninety breeds of dog were involved in the 357 serious attacks in the Metropolitan area in 1990. That figure indicates that irresponsible ownership is a problem which needs tackling, and hence our support for a national dog registration scheme.
The Home Secretary has acknowledged that the permanent identification of the dog and certification of ownership are central to the Bill's effective enforcement. Those are the basic requirements of a dog registration scheme. It is unfortunately clear that the issue has become the victim of what I suppose I can tactfully call "political circumstances". Factors seem to be coming into play which militate against a favourable decision on a dog registration scheme in this House and in another place. I see the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, nodding his head in apparent agreement. I am sorry that he agrees with me, having regard to what I have just had to say. I have to say to the noble Lord, and to other noble Lords who think like him, that were they to take a different view and agree that a dog registration scheme should be introduced in the Bill, as the noble Lord will be aware from what was said in another place on Second Reading and in Committee, that is something that we on this side of the House would view with favour.
The general public are keen to see a Bill enacted. This Bill is a serious, albeit inadequate, response by the Government. Its main provisions are to be welcomed, but it is a limited Bill, dealing with a limited situation. It will have a limited effect; and it is, frankly, second best.
We very much regret the fact that the Government have once again missed an opportunity to deal with the problem comprehensively and properly. As I said, we shall not impede the Bill's passage, but we shall urge the Government to monitor the situation closely, and we shall not hesitate to take every appropriate opportunity to press the case for dog registration.
5.10 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches agree with almost everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. The scope of the Bill is narrow, dealing with tragic events, or the protection of the public from the repetition of tragic events which were outlined by the noble Earl when he introduced the Bill. He told us clearly what it was about and its many provisions.
The Government are quite right to act. We support them in their actions so far as they go under all the circumstances concerning dogs today in this country. Nevertheless, the circumstances are extremely unsatisfactory. Very little accurate information is available about even the number of dogs in the country; figures of 3 million and 5 million are floated, but no one knows exactly. As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, there is no registration scheme through which one can focus on this kind of information. How many dogs are
522
there? Who owns them? Where is the concentration to be found of dogs deemed to be dangerous? How do various types of owners look after their dogs? Do they look after them differently in one area compared with another?
All this information would follow naturally from a dog registration scheme. It would cost money. The Government have given as one of the reasons for not wanting such a scheme that it would be expensive. Another is that those people whom they wish to pursue for being irresponsible owners would not register. Here we find ourselves faced with a Bill which—admirable though it is—places quite hard conditions on owning the type of dog mentioned in it. We leave aside the Japanese dog for the moment because we shall probably hear more about it from the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who seems to be the best informed person in the House.
I have spoken to various people about the pit bull terrier, including dog wardens. We, or rather the Government, are in trouble with the Bill because it involves identifying exactly what a pit bull terrier is. The dog warden to whom I spoke in the city of Bradford has been head of a warden scheme there which has been in existence for some years, since the middle 1970s. The warden has a staff of five but there is a severe problem. He tells me that even for an expert it is not easy to say with any certainty what is and what is not a pit bull terrier.
When the police are given the responsibility of seeing that the provisions of the Bill are carried out, they will find it extremely difficult. All their duties in connection with the Bill will be difficult and I cannot help feeling that it is unfair to load upon them yet another duty. It is not surprising that a few policemen to whom I have spoken about the proposed legislation become down in the mouth when they discuss it. Many of them are nervous of dogs; I am nervous of dogs.
As I walked into your Lordships' House this afternoon, I saw two charming ladies standing outside the House of Commons with a message to us on their clothing. They had a large Alsatian with them, and the message said, "This dog likes people". I treated it with some caution because the message could be interpreted in several ways. I started and took a step backwards and they said, "Oh, you needn't be afraid". They gave some advice which I will pass on to your Lordships: "If you are ever approached by a dog that looks dangerous or that may attack you, it is easy. All you do is to close your eyes, cross your arms and make a noise as though you were saying, "Oh, not again'". I pass that guidance on to your Lordships, but I would start low down the scale when trying out the advice, first with a Chihuahua and then working up.
These ladies were helpful; I moved them to the gate of the House of Lords so that they would meet other noble Lords coming in. The dog had a tattoo mark in its ear which interested me. The ladies said, "If an identification scheme is established, this is the way in which dogs should be identified. It is painless, easily read and it does not disappear". Apparently, the new technology which has been suggested involves a chip in the scruff of the neck of the dog, but the technology has not yet been perfected. They said, "If you know

523
anything about dogs, you will know that small objects such as that chip tend to travel round the dog". I did not know it but what may start in the scruff of the neck may end up anywhere. Clearly the tattoo is the best method of dealing with identification.
To return to the problems of the Bill, it seems to me that one of the most interesting aspects that arises is third party insurance. It was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and it is absolutely right that third party insurance should be taken out by the owners of dogs such as the pit bull terrier and the other dog which is mentioned in the Bill. Indeed, should not third party insurance be taken out by owners of many other kinds of dogs which are potentially a threat? I am told that many owners already do so and I inquired of the two good ladies whom I met at lunchtime whether the dog was insured. They said it was insured through a club. I was interested to know how an underwriter assessed the risk, I supposed that it was more on the status of the owner than the dog. They said that if one belongs to a reputable club, the underwriters take a view of the club and the rates are set accordingly. They are not excessively high. In this case for the Alsatian which likes people it was £9. That does not seem to me to be excessive. It did not seem to matter what kind of dog one insured—though presumably not a pit bull terrier—even including dogs sometimes deemed to be dangerous such as Alsatians and Rottweilers.
Perhaps Bradford is not a good example because it is an inner city area with many problems with crime and dogs—the two go together in that authority. In my discussions with the Bradford wardens, I was told that they handle about 5,000 dogs a year. The dogs are picked up and put in the pound and only 15 per cent. are returned to their original owners; 95 per cent. of those handled by the Bradford wardens have no identification whatever. They said that generally when a dog is involved in a problem in Bradford most people deny ownership. However, it is accepted that in a serious case such as the tragic ones mentioned today, it is usually possible to identify the owners fairly quickly. With minor cases the owners seem to vanish.
The wardens said that one of the problems in the Bradford area with dangerous dogs or ones that are the property of irresponsible owners is that they live on housing estates. I do not wish to imply that all people who live on housing estates are irresponsible dog owners. Clearly, the restrictions of living on a housing estate make dog ownership more difficult, particularly if the dog is large. The Bradford wardens told me that many dangerous dogs are bred in blocks of flats and the puppies are sold, passed on or given away to friends. Many of the puppies find their way into the dog pound after days or weeks.
One of the main difficulties which has not yet been mentioned is of owners of pit bull terriers anticipating the legislation. One warden said to me with certainty, "We have found 20 pit bull terriers which have been let loose. The owners don't want the problem of dealing with the provisions of the Bill, and we have had to collect the dogs". We asked what would happen if similar circumstances arose all over the country and
524
the dogs then bred with other dogs in the interim period before being picked up. He said, "Have you any idea of the implications regarding the strain which has been bred into the pit bull terrier?" As the noble Earl accurately told us, it is a cross-breed. I was asked what effect it would have on the population of dogs in a crowded area. That is another reason for initiating a dog registration scheme sooner or later to tighten up this state of affairs.
I return to the matter of the police having to implement the provisions of this Bill. That seems unsatisfactory when there are so many experts who could do the job. I believe that about half the local authorities in this country have some kind of dog warden scheme although some of those schemes may be inadequate due to cost restrictions. However, I do not believe any other authority has the five wardens that Bradford has. This matter is clearly not a job for the police. It is not fair to ask the police to acquaint themselves with the peculiarities of dealing with dogs, particularly dogs which have been badly handled or maltreated and have come from the kinds of background that have turned them into dangerous dogs. The noble Earl has explained the difference between a fighting dog and a dangerous dog. It is not fair to expect the police to handle these situations in addition to their normal duties. There are many qualified people who could implement a satisfactory scheme much quicker than is envisaged in the Bill.
I emphasise that—many noble Lords will probably repeat the same points in this debate—we on these Benches see no alternative to a dog registration scheme, however it is operated. Although the Bill deals admirably with fighting dogs that are bred to be aggressive—such dogs are often used for betting purposes—it does not deal with dogs such as Rottweilers. Those dogs are often perfectly good family pets. The warden in Bradford told me that sometimes Rottweilers are trained to be vicious to deter police making drug raids. That is a frightening thought.
The warden also told me that recently the police in Bradford were called out to deal with two Rottweilers which had escaped from a scrapyard that the dogs were guarding. I am told that is a normal use for dogs of that kind. When they escaped from the scrapyard, the dogs started terrorising some children on a nearby estate. Two units of policemen came and they tried to surround the dogs. However, the dogs became agitated and the police failed to corner them. The police then contacted a dog warden who came with his grasper. That is an implement with a noose on the end of it. The warden finally caught the dogs. The dogs, on examination, were found to weigh over 13 stone each. Such dogs that are used to guard property can cause untold havoc, if not disaster, if they escape. This Bill is fine so far as it goes; but the situation is still grave. I hope that the Government will come to their senses and agree to establish a registration scheme very soon.
5.23 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I draw the attention of noble Lords to my tie, which shows that I am a friend of Battersea Dogs Home. I like dogs. We are basically

525
discussing pit bull terriers. I was surprised to hear the Minister say that the only way to control pit bull terriers was with a gun or a mallet. According to what I have read in the newspapers, one can hit a pit bull terrier as hard as one likes with a mallet, but if he has someone in his jaws he will not even feel the blow. According to one report I have read, the only sure way to make a pit bull terrier release its hold, apart from killing it, is to shove a hard, long and pointed object up its rectum. It will then release its grip and run off hurt. However, I do not think we wish to see people walking round with long, pointed walking sticks with that object in view.
I have said before in your Lordships' House that I see no earthly reason for keeping pit bull terriers. I received a letter from a lady enclosing a photograph of her husband and three little children with the family's pit bull terrier. She explained that the animal was the family's pet. I replied to the letter saying that I prayed that the pit bull terrier would never turn on her or her family. I repeat that I believe there is no reason to keep a pit bull terrier unless one intends to use it in dog fights. As far as I am aware, that practice is illegal in this country. There is no other reason for keeping a pit bull terrier.
The first two pit bull terriers to come to this country arrived in 1977. I do not know why they were ever let out of quarantine as it must have been obvious what kind of dogs they were. They were known to be fighting dogs. The sooner this country is rid of pit bull terriers, the better. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who said that out of 468 serious attacks recorded in the metropolitan area in 1990, 111 had been committed by pit bull terriers and 357 had been committed by other breeds. Of around 7,000 pit bull terriers in the whole country, probably only a small percentage are to be found in the Metropolitan Police area. The percentage of other breeds in that area is probably higher. Therefore we must take the statistics mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, with a pinch of salt.
Reference has been made to the fact that some owners are not the right kind of people to keep certain dogs and do not provide the right environment for them. But I believe that if one puts any dog trained for a specific purpose in the wrong environment that dog will cause trouble. German shepherd dogs are basically guard dogs. If one puts a guard dog in a small flat he will become bad tempered and the chances are he will bite people. Even a collie which is bred for rounding up sheep can become bad tempered if it is taken out of its natural environment and kept in a small garden. At some stage that dog will become bad tempered.
I cannot speak for all breeds of dog but there are many instances of large dogs being kept in unsuitable surroundings. That is why many of those dogs become vicious. One reads in the newspapers that people who keep pit bull terriers keep them, first, because they think the dogs make them look macho and, secondly, as so-called guard dogs. Many people keep them to protect their drug and other interests. I repeat that we do not need this breed of dog.
526
A few years ago I took part in a Territorial Army annual camp on Salisbury Plain. Some 1,000 Z reservists went on the town in Salisbury and caused havoc. The following day the regular Territorial Army units set up patrols. As a sergeant I picked four or five of the toughest boys in the company. We met up with a police sergeant who was a dog handler. We had heard that that man and his dog had faced a crowd of drunken Z reservists, who had turned and would not go forward against that German shepherd. I asked the police sergeant, "Do you mind if I touch him?" He replied, "No, he won't take any notice. Go ahead". I put my hand down to let the dog sniff it and then patted him. He jumped up, put his paws on my shoulders and licked my face. I do not think that he did that because he thought I was a tasty meal.
Everyone should know that if one goes up to a large dog, especially a German shepherd, approaches it from behind and suddenly touches it, the dog may turn and snap, especially with young children. If one lets the dog know that one is there and puts out one's hand, it will sniff the hand and either turn away or stay. I had great fun with my son who, when he was a small boy, loved any animal. Because we lived in the country I had to make sure that when he saw a dog and wanted to talk to it he let it know that he was there.
I once went to a scrapyard just outside St. Albans. I wanted a part for one of my old crocks. There was no one around so I started walking through the yard. Suddenly one Alsatian came from one direction and another from a different direction. I stopped, stood absolutely still and then very slowly backed away until someone came. I explained what had happened. He said, "That's right, guv. They are trained to guard the yard but provided you don't go ahead they won't touch you". They were well trained dogs doing a useful job.
There are parts of the Bill which worry me. As I understand it, and perhaps the noble Earl will tell me if I am wrong when he replies, if one takes out one of these vicious dogs it has to be muzzled and on a lead. However, most of the pit bull terriers which have attacked people have jumped over or broken through a fence or gone out through a door which was left open. Therefore, young children will still be at risk because one cannot keep a dog on a lead and muzzled all the time.
They say that one cannot teach an old dog new tricks. One certainly can. I have done it. What one cannot do, at least in the short term, is change a dog's genes. A dog is bred for a particular purpose. The original purpose can be bred out of them but that cannot be done overnight. It takes several generations. I am told that in the case of pit bull terriers each generation is bred to be more vicious. That is frightening.
I am told by the noble Baroness who sits in front of me that in Sweden all dogs are registered. There are special areas in parks where dogs can run free, but those areas are contained in some way. That is sensible.
I should like to touch briefly on the question of registration. A national registration scheme may

527
involve an implant in the dog's neck. My noble friend Lord Falkland said that that can work its way to another part of the body. Perhaps the implant could be stitched so that it did not move around.
Such a scheme would be simple. If a dog had an implant, a computer reader could be passed over it or a tattoo could be read. If a dog did not have a tattoo and did not appear on the computer one would know that it had not been registered. Therefore that dog should be taken into custody, kept for so many hours or days and then destroyed.
I cannot see how telling people that they have to register and insure such dogs will help. It will not help at all. There must be registration and if there is to be registration there might as well be registration for all dogs involving a licence fee. Battersea Dogs Home knows all about strays. If a stray had a tattoo, that could be checked and the owner contacted. At present the home keeps dogs for a specified length of time and then, unfortunately, they have to be destroyed. Registration would stop all that.
5.36 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, every June your Lordships' attention seems to turn to dogs. That will continue until such time as the Government decide to bring all the miscellaneous dog legislation together in a comprehensive Bill dealing with the whole dog problem.
The Government must realise that the great majority of citizens who perhaps a generation ago lived in the country now live in towns—perhaps in flats—and the keeping of a dog in those circumstances is a different problem. That point was made by the noble Earl. Moreover, as our society moves further and further away from the rural scene, our knowledge of animals becomes very remote. My question to my noble friend Lord Ferrers is, therefore, when will the Government bring forward a comprehensive dog Bill to deal with the problem? It was promised last year and was referred to by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in his opening remarks on this Bill (at col. 644 of the Official Report, Commons, of 10th June). Unfortunately, we do not have that piece of legislation before us today. We have a Bill which attempts to deal with a small, albeit sensational, part of the problem—the dangerous dog. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, mentioned that point, and I totally agree with him.
The Government have decided in principle to deal with just one part of the problem. I believe that it is our job as a revising Chamber to accept, albeit reluctantly, that the other place has decided that it wants only that. Therefore, we should try to ensure that the Bill works as well as possible and deal with the details as your Lordships think necessary. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, it is clear that there are many details which need a great deal of attention.
I owe it to your Lordships to say a word about registration. I do not believe that it would help to try to do anything in this Bill. Indeed, I believe that it would hinder the long-term objective of having all
528
dogs registered to move an amendment to introduce registration in the Bill, even though I am convinced and always have been convinced that the dog problem as a whole will not be solved until we have a registration system that links all dogs to owners, not just dangerous dogs as is proposed by the Government in this Bill. Such a registration system, as noble Lords know, would provide the resources to police and the fee could fund a scheme to link dogs to their owners. It would also allow advice to be given to dog owners.
However, I reiterate that I do not believe that this is the time to try again to force the Commons to accept registration, and it would be a question of force. My main reason for that belief is that, even if your Lordships voted for registration, the Commons would reject the proposal again, probably by an even larger majority, not because they are individually against it on its merits but because dog registration has, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, sadly become a major government-opposed issue and as such is supported by the elected majority in the Commons. I hope that the majority of your Lordships will agree that it is wrong for us here to try to overrule any Government on a major issue. We are a revising Chamber and I happen to think that we do not do that too badly occasionally.
I would not support a registration amendment to the Bill for the reasons that I have just given. I suggest that some noble Lords might say that in this Bill it would border on a wrecking amendment. There is a time and a place for everything. This is not the Bill to deal with the registration of all dogs. I believe that to try to do so would prejudice the eventual hope of success in getting the Government to concede the registration issue, as I am confident they will have to in the end.
I am a fisherman and I believe that at the moment the Commons has hooked and lost the registration fish. It is now sulking at the bottom of the pool and any attempt by your Lordships to catch it at the moment would drive it even deeper. I hope that noble Lords will have patience. I hope that I shall have patience too for without doubt we shall catch it in due course. I therefore hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a speedy passage to prevent further attacks by dangerous dogs.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Jay: My Lords, as the Bill affects not merely pit bull terriers but dangerous dogs generally, I thought that I might usefully make a brief contribution, as it were, from the grass roots.
A little while ago I was walking in a public place—a public lane near a farm on Dartmoor—when I was attacked by seven Irish wolfhounds simultaneously, thrown into the ditch among the grass roots and bitten through the leg. Those dogs were dangerously out of control in a public place. As it happened, a rather junior member of the farm staff arrived and called off the dogs, so I was able to withdraw in fairly good order as a case of walking wounded and I later had a number of stitches in my leg.
I hesitated to call the police until I was urged to do so by all the neighbours in the village, who said that

529
they had been terrorised by the Irish wolfhounds for some years but when any of them attempted to take legal action they had their car tyres slashed at night-time. I therefore decided to go ahead and was given two useful pieces of information by the police whom I contacted.
The first piece of advice was that under English law as it then existed—this was a few years ago—if a dog attacked a sheep, you could get an order from the court straight away to have it destroyed, but if, on the other hand, it attacked a mere human, you could not. You could only, in the first instance, obtain an order stating that it should be kept under proper control and only if it attacked another human—possibly oneself again—could you obtain an effective order.
Secondly, the police informed me that in order to go ahead at all it was necessary for me to identify the precise dog out of the seven that had inflicted the injury—I counted them correctly as seven—in the presence of the police, the owner of the dogs and the dogs themselves. I attempted to do that in the farmyard, insisting on being protected myself by the police car, although the police themselves much more gallantly stayed outside. When I identified, I believe correctly, the principal aggressor among the dogs which had inflicted the injury, the farmer, who was thought to be the owner of the whole Armada of those creatures, replied that he did not own that particular dog. On being further pressed by the police, one of whom incidentally was bitten at this point in the story, he alleged that the dog was owned by his wife. But some weeks later when the case was in court and after the doctor had given evidence that he had put four stitches in my leg that evening, the lady declared, presumably on oath, that her dog was only being friendly.
However, the affair ended reasonably happily. The court made the order and, when I returned to the area a year later, not wishing to be intimidated, I found to my surprise that that farmer and his wife had somehow disposed of the dogs. I ended the episode with considerable respect for the police and some respect for the court of law, which seemed to me to behave in a sensible fashion, but with rather less respect for the law, at least as it was reported to me.
I suppose that the legislation which gives greater protection from dogs to sheep than to mere humans was probably enacted by some Parliament of country landowners in the 19th century, or perhaps even in the 18th century for all I know. However, if the Bill ensures—and I am not yet certain that it does—that, for the purposes of the 21st century anyway, humans will at least be put on an equal footing with sheep in the matter of protection from dangerous dogs, I shall certainly give it my warm support and feel that my brief experience has perhaps not been wholly in vain.
5.47 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, we are all agreed on the necessity of the Bill, particularly Clause 1, to deal with the problem of pit bull terriers. After all, there is a kind of subculture of people who keep those dogs purely for dog fighting or in order to create no-go areas in certain streets and backyards for their own
530
illegal activities. I am glad that, in introducing the Bill, my noble friend Lord Ferrers dealt with the problem of those few pit bull terriers that are genuine pets. I welcome the exemption scheme. Rather like the firearms legislation, under which you are licensed to have a lethal weapon, you will be licensed to be exempt from the law and your dog will be identified.
I agreed with the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, when he said that identification should be by the good, well-tried and old-fashioned method that has stood the test of time over a hundred years; namely, tattooing in the dogs' ears. If they have no ears, they are fighting dogs and should not be kept as pets. I hope that my noble friend will resist any temptation to use other modern devices of identification, because they are not proven. Without wishing to sound a discordant note, I understand that the exemption scheme will be run by an outside authority. Many noble Lords would find it quite unacceptable that that authority should be the RSPCA.
The noble Earl went on to say that other parts of the Bill affect the owners of any dog. I was surprised when the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that he believed the Bill was too limited in other ways. I want to be quite frank with the House and say that those of us who are interested in hounds, harriers and beagles are extremely worried about the other consequences of the Bill.
Clause 3 makes it a serious offence for a dog to be:
"dangerously out of control in a public place".
Clause 8(4) states that:
"a dog shall be regarded as dangerously out of control [if] there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will cause injury to any person, whether or not it actually does so".
Clause 8(2) of the Bill defines a public place in such a way as to include roads, streets, footpaths and bridleways. Private gardens and agricultural land are not included. So the postman going up the garden is not in fact covered. The penalties are extremely severe.
My concern is that the Bill should deal only with dangerous dogs which might attack people. But the offence appears to go much further. Where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a dog will cause injury to a person, an offence is committed, even if no injury is in fact caused.
Packs of hounds, harriers or beagles may run across a road. The huntsman, whipper-in and owner of the hounds could be prosecuted on the grounds that they could have caused injury had a car accident occurred. Obviously hunts make every effort to ensure that accidents do not happen on our roads but inevitably the occasional incident will occur. Last year there were well over a quarter of a million road accidents involving casualties, none of which was caused by hounds. If the worst were to happen, it is already an offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988 to permit hounds to be on a public road and not under proper control. In fact all packs of hounds, harriers and beagles have the appropriate third party insurance to meet that problem.
But the new offence created in this Bill goes too far. No defence is provided. A huntsman might have made every conceivable effort to stop his hounds but if they cross the road in front of a car, an offence could still be committed. In the Bill no allowance is made for

531
what is happening in the countryside today and which must be faced. No allowance is made for interference with somebody else's control of his dog. The hunt saboteurs deliberately set out to take hounds out of the control of the huntsmen. There have been countless cases when they have blown horns and called hounds on to roads, causing the hounds to be run over and the risk of further accidents. Yet under the Bill the huntsman would be liable and the saboteurs would have committed no offence. That is completely unacceptable.
It should be made an offence—I shall certainly move an amendment at Committee stage on these lines—to interfere with somebody else's control of his dog. At present the provision is drawn too widely so that a dog may cause injury even if a dog never touches a victim or is never likely to. A person who inadvertently lets his dog stray on to a road commits an offence. In my opinion the Bill should only deal with dogs that are liable to attack people, in which case a dog would only be dangerously out of control if it were likely to injure or attack someone (not just "cause" an injury).
The problem is that as drafted an offence is committed whether or not injury is caused. That may be acceptable in the case of vicious dogs but it will leave hunts vulnerable to anti-hunting campaigners, who will undoubtedly claim that injury is likely to be caused on every occasion that hunts cross a road. During the past winter, packs of hounds, beagles and harriers met on 21,400 occasions throughout the country. Incidents on the road are rare but, to read the reports of the "antis", one would believe that hunts create a risk to road users every day. Those people must not be handed in this Bill a stick with which to beat us.
I endorse the Bill wholeheartedly but I hope to move amendments during Committee stage to cover the points I have mentioned. At this stage, despite those reservations, I feel that we should give the Bill a Second Reading.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, we have been privileged to listen to many speakers expressing much researched information and heartfelt opinion. We have also been privileged to read Her Majesty's Government's attempts to take notice of public concern about dangerous dogs in the contents of the Dangerous Dogs Bill 1991.
Our next door neighbours, with whom we are to become more geopolitically entwined and more subject to their opinions and legislative agreements, suffer the same canine worries as we do, but have the added problem of rabies. How many Members of this House have had the opportunity to read the report of Mrs. Anita Pollock (a Member of the European Parliament) on a European system of dog registration or have seen the May 1990 review of the Eurogroup for Animal Welfare entitled Dog Population and Control in Europe? Both documents illustrate the urgent requirement to identify individual dogs and the individual dog owners. As has been said by previous
532
speakers, the onus is on the owner, the person responsible for the dog, as to how that canine is controlled and treated.
The reports also talk of the growth in the dog population over the past five years. It is estimated at about 10 per cent. in the 12 European Community countries. I ask noble Lords to link that figure and that thought with the European Community's ambition to eradicate rabies by 1992. That has now been recognised as not being feasible. Thankfully our stringent quarantine regulations have held the disease at bay—and, by the way, it can be carried by homo sapiens as well. But for how long will that last? Trade barriers are coming down and the Channel Tunnel will make access to this country easier and freer. The numerous ports and harbours that chisel into our island coast give every opportunity for diseased dogs and the diseased minds of lawbreakers to flout our legislation.
We should remember that fox rabies is endemic in Belgium, France, Germany and Luxembourg, that it can be transmitted to dogs and that the combined owned-dog population of those four countries is 14.5 million. And it is growing. In fact over the past five years it has increased by 15 per cent. On 10th June this year, Mr. Marlow, Member of Parliament for Northampton, North, spoke in the other place of his acute awareness of the disease-carrying potential of dogs. He has a son who is blind in one eye as a result of contact with a dog which had not been wormed properly.
We speak of dangerous dogs. Disease is dangerous. Ill disciplined ownership is dangerous. A confined, energetic dog of any breed can be dangerous. How many urban dog owners lock up their dog while they go out to work? They then return home, open the door and allow their "pet", their hound, to expend its energy and pent up adrenalin on the first individual who may interfere with its suddenly gained freedom. Noble Lords may consider the "guard dogs" cooped up inside during the past two stiflingly hot summers. Irritation is not the correct way to describe the behaviour of such animals.
Some breeds will display nervous aggression and fear of being cornered. They will snap at a playful baby, who is larger than a Chihuahua, if that infant plays unintentionally roughly with the "sweet, little puppy". The child will get its face bitten. Whose fault is it? It is the fault of the parents—the dog's owners.
There is also the dog with direct, inbred aggression. The press—the media—have sensationally informed everyone, without necessarily sensitive thought for the traumatised victim or parents of the savaged child, about the horrifying behaviour of certain dogs. The public at large is undeniably interested—some grotesquely so.
The Dangerous Dogs Bill shows that a positive direction is being taken by Her Majesty's Government—although not before time. In another place on 26th October 1983 Mr. Marlow sought the leave of the House to establish a dog registration scheme. Dame Janet Fookes, Member of Parliament for Plymouth Drake, and other parties, have urged and beseeched

533
that some legislation be introduced to ensure that dog owners are aware of their responsibility when keeping an animal, a carnivore, of the canine breed.
The Bill seeks to encourage more district councils to have dog wardens to collect strays, to ensure that dogs are under control in public places, and to watch that the guard dog, the aggressive-natured dog, the genetically bred fighting dog, wears a muzzle. The Government have promised £250,000 to the district councils of England and Wales to compensate for the destruction of fighting dogs and to encourage correct wardening of the known population of owned dogs, which stands at 7.5 million, quite apart from the 500,000 estimated stray dogs. Those figures may be of use to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland.
I must argue with the noble Viscount on the identichip. Both my hounds have identichips. I am aware from many vets that the chips do not wander. I have to inform the House that my dogs do not like having their ears interfered with in the slightest, let alone having them tattooed.
We have 333 district councils in England and Wales. Therefore the contribution of £250,000 amounts to £750.75 per district council. Perhaps it would be of interest to hear what happens in some district councils in Devon. The City of Exeter has two wardens to cover its district population of 105,000, with about 21,000 dogs. It budgets £63,000 for the two wardens. Teignbridge District Council serves a population of 100,000. It has one warden and approximately 20,396 dogs. It has a budget of £30,000, £12,000 of which is the warden's wage packet. The City of Plymouth has four wardens to cover a population of 256,000, with approximately 51,200 dogs. It has a budget of £186,500.
Dog numbers cannot be accurate without a dog registration scheme or a census being taken. However, if adults over the age of 18 in this country number 39,222,700, and the dog population is about 8 million, the figure is 0.2 dogs per head. Hence my calculations.
No matter what opinion or views your Lordships may have of the Irish, it is interesting to note that the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is the only body in the European Community which trains dog wardens. I only wish that they could warden their mad dog terrorists as well!
Possibly the finest, most responsible, protective measure in the Dangerous Dogs Bill 1991 is for compulsory third party insurance relating to dogs. It has been mentioned by various noble Lords. Too many people have said, "No worry, my errant hound is covered under my home contents policy". What about the quarter of householders who do not have such a policy and yet possess a dog? According to the Association of British Insurers, there are 24 million licensed vehicles which use the roads. Another 12 million are not licensed, or are "stored". The Motor Insurance Bureau paid out £32 million in 1990 to 25,000 victims of untraced, uninsured motorists. Can Her Majesty's Government see any reason why a similar protection should not be given to the general public in this dog-loving nation when people or livestock are fatally wounded or incurably damaged by a dog whose owner has no insurance cover?
534
A breeder insurance company will give one £2 million third party insurance cover for up to 20 dogs if one pays an annual premium of £17.50. But it will not raise the premium for a pack of 20 pit bull terriers any higher than for a pack of poodles. Third party insurance of dogs would satisfy all dog fanciers, kennel clubs and dog associations. It would cover the child, adult, sheep and livestock mauled or destroyed by one or more of the rampant dogs. It would cover the minor and major road traffic accidents caused in urban and rural locations by dog chasing dog, dog chasing bitch, or dog chasing a play ball.
Third party insurance cover would increase the sense of responsibility of the owner of the dog. It would identify the breed of dog and the address of the owner. It would be of enormous help to the district councils, the police authorities and all affected parties. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. I believe that we should support the Second Reading.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Dulverton: My Lords, I intend to speak briefly partly because my noble friend Lord Kimball—by chance I happen to be sitting next to him—dealt with the major point that I wished to make, as I shall reveal.
We have a serious problem to worry us this day over what are properly described as dangerous dogs. I fear that with a superfluity of zeal we may be in danger of calling many dogs dangerous which are not. We all know which breeds are bred and trained to be aggressive. There have been serious attacks on adults and children in the past few months. Their terrible maim has been well publicised. The purpose of the Bill is to stop such attacks. The Bill refers to the neutering of such animals. In time we can end this totally unacceptable hazard. In the meantime the highest possible penalty for owners of dogs which attack people must be right.
I emphasise that I am entirely in favour of doing whatever possible to stop pit bull terriers and Rottweilers from attacking people. I include dogs which worry sheep in the general category of dangerous dogs. Much damage is done to flocks by uncontrolled dogs worrying and sometimes killing sheep.
Fortunately my own lifetime companions, Labradors, do not go in for such things nor, in my close experience of them, do foxhounds. For goodness sake do not let us make the error of inculpating them and their like for causing accidents to people unwittingly as can happen in, for instance, road accidents. Such incidents may occur. They have nothing to do with our debate yet such dogs could be included in the measures before us.
As regards the central issue, I need only touch upon what I had intended to say because the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, has covered the matter so ably. It is not unusual for hunt saboteurs in their illegal activities to invite interference with hounds. If there is a purposeful interference and an accident takes place, the Master of Foxhounds is liable for the dog which caused the damage even though the incident was the

535
result of intentional provocation. I hope that the issue will be borne in mind during the Committee stage and that a safeguard can be introduced.
In recent years there have been too many instances of the kind of provocation that I have outlined. Yet gundogs, sheepdogs and foxhounds are trained to be civilised. For heaven's sake, let us amend the Bill in the light of the incontrovertible thoughts upon which I have briefly touched.
6.11 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I too shall be brief. At this stage of the debate a great deal of what one wished to say has already been said. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said that he had received advice about what to do when confronted by a dog. When I lived on a farm I was given similar advice about what to do when confronted by a bull. The alternatives were to stare him in the eye or to lie on the ground in the hope that he would trample over me. I was only once confronted by a bull in a field but I waited until I was behind barbed wire before staring him in the eye. That seemed to work, because after a few minutes he snorted and went away.
It is all very well to give people advice but I ask why in the City of London is it necessary to be given advice about being confronted by dangerous dogs? People must be allowed to go about their business and pleasure whether in the city or the countryside. People are always more important than dogs and I should like that statement to be written in capital letters. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that people are even more important than badgers. That may come as a blow to him but I am more concerned about people.
We welcome the Bill which has been a long time coming. We shall try to amend it but we are glad that at last it has been introduced. Last week I picked up my local newspaper and read the headline which stated:
"Pit bulls 'used like weapons'".
The article described a vicious gang of youths who threatened to set a pit bull terrier on a man. They stabbed the man three times in the neck and then took his money. As a contrast the newspaper had another heading, which read:
"Meanwhile, the police horse savaged by a pit bull is back on duty".
That is the kind of incident to which we are being subjected. I talk to members of the police force a great deal. They have pointed out that the owners of such dogs are often criminals. When the police go to arrest them they are often threatened with a pit bull terrier. People are not allowed to use a gun, and rightly so, so why should they be allowed to retain something which is equally dangerous?
We all know that there are some estates—there is one in my borough, which shall remain nameless—where there are so many dangerous dogs that people will not go out at night. Why are people keeping such dogs? Often they do so out of greed; they breed the unfortunate creatures in the back of their flats and sell them for a high price. They do not keep the dogs because they love them. The owners have the dogs because they want to be seen to be macho—I hope
536
that no pit bull terriers are waiting for me when I go outside—and are not the kind of people who love dogs. Let us forget all that nonsense! I recently listened to a phone-in programme. A woman caller said: "My pit bull terrier is sitting on the rug with my two little children and he loves them". My heart went cold because the dog loves them only until he feels differently, when he will turn on them.
It took the terrible incident of the attack on a child to bring the matter to a head. However, for a long time several women's organisations with which I am proud to be connected have pressed for measures to be taken. That is one of the reasons why I am speaking in the debate today. In 1990 a particular organisation carried a resolution asking Her Majesty's Government to license and control the importation and breeding of aggressive dogs. The reply was interesting and came from Mr. Michael Harrison, Assistant Private Secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I hope that he still at that department—one has difficulty in keeping up. He stated:
"As you know, the importation of all dogs is strictly controlled"—
that was news to me because I had not realised it—
"but solely for the purpose of preventing rabies entering this country".
That is fine. One of my objections to the Channel tunnel is that I still say that we shall have rats coming down it and shall have to control them. Mr. Harrison continued:
"These statutory arrangements include the issuing of a licence for each animal imported".
This is the interesting part, because he then stated:
"Even if it were possible in principle to prohibit the importation of these dogs, which have been specifically bred for fighting, it seems unlikely because these are mostly indistinguishable from other strains of bull terrier".
That letter was written in 1990 but now in 1991 it appears that there is a distinction. I asked myself what has changed. Perhaps the Government have drawn the measure more widely.
I turn to the Bill. I shall not mention registration. I should love to do so but shall return to the matter. We were warned about mentioning it although I am not sure why. Clause 2 refers to "a public place". That is all very well but the incidents about which I have spoken when police go to a flat are not in a public place. Strictly speaking they occur on private property. Clause 3 states:
"out of control in a public place".
These dogs are out of control, full stop! Therefore we must think carefully about the matter.
I was interested to hear my noble friend Lord Richard express anxiety about the Bill's drafting. We are doing his profession a good turn; there is another Bill from which the lawyers can make a great deal of money by arguing about what is aggressive. I plead with the Government to look at the matter carefully. If the provision is merely "in a public place" the owners will obtain a sharp lawyer to say, "But it was not in a public place. This dog was in the porch of the owner's flat".
We have heard about the postmen but not about the police who must face these wretched animals day after day. Some terrible incidents occur but are rarely

537
reported in the newspapers. In carrying out its difficult task our police force must confront some vicious criminals. For heaven's sake, surely it need not also be confronted by vicious dogs! The dogs about which we are talking do not enhance any situation. It would be far better if we did not import them, and perhaps that will be the next step. I congratulate the Government upon introducing the Bill, small as it is, because it is a step in the right direction.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, we should welcome the Dangerous Dogs Bill. It is principally concerned with fighting dogs and immediately that raises the question of why fighting dogs, such as pit bull terriers and Japanese Tosas, are identified and singled out in this legislation compared with other dogs which historically have committed acts similar to those for which pit bulls are now in the news. I believe it is because there is now strong evidence that the pit bull terrier—not a recognised breed in this country but it is recognised in the United States—is over represented in the population of dogs which are involved in attacks on humans.
For example, in a study carried out in the United States about five years ago, an analysis was made of 12 fatalities as a result of attacks by dogs in one year. Seven, of those were caused by pit bulls. That is an inordinately greater number than all the other breeds of dogs put together. Certainly in terms of non-fatal attacks by dogs 50 per cent. of the non-fatal attacks in one year were caused by pit bulls compared with all the other dog breeds. It may be of interest to know that 11 per cent. of those non-fatal attacks were caused by German shepherd dogs.
What may be relevant from those statistics from the United States and relevant to the age at which a pit bull may be owned, which the Minister dealt with briefly, is that a higher proportion of adolescents and adults (54 per cent.) are among the victims of pit bull terriers compared with any other breed in the USA. Therefore, it may well be that there is a case for limiting the age of ownership to individuals beyond the age of 16 years.
Fighting dogs have been established in this country and elsewhere for many centuries, all of which seem to trace ancestry from bulldogs and the days of bull baiting in the 17th and 18th centuries. The fighting dog became very popular in North America after the American Civil War.
Your Lordships may be interested to know that the fighting dogs of the 19th century were disqualified from fighting or bull baiting if they exhibited aggression towards their owners or any other person. Therefore, they were trained very carefully. That long trail of breeding for fighting has had a profound effect on the genetic predisposition of those breeds. It is now known that they fight without provocation or without giving any warning sign. A dog normally gives a warning sign when it is about to attack someone—for example, the milkman or the coalman—by growling or barking. That is not so in the case of pit bulls. They
538
fight until exhausted or even to the death, and they have a high tolerance to pain. Once in the attack, they are neither biddable nor controllable.
The danger of the importation of pit bull terriers was recognised in the early 1970s when anxiety was voiced by several organisations about their importation both from the point of view of the illegal sport of dog fighting and also from their record of attacks on humans elsewhere. There are now some 10,000 pit bulls in this country and, I understand, one lone Japanese Tosa which is to be championed by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, later this evening.
Not all pit bulls are dangerous to the extent that they need to be destroyed. The Bill makes allowances for such dogs and their owners by allowing a responsible owner to keep a pit bull for the rest of the dog's natural life provided that certain conditions are complied with; namely, muzzling and leashing in public, neutering, insurance and so on.
Eventually the pit bull will disappear provided that the law is strictly enforced. However, let us make no mistake about it, the so-called sport of dog fighting, which has been illegal for many years, is still practised in this country. That is why pit bulls were originally imported in the 1970s. Although it is illegal, it still takes place. The macho image referred to by my noble friend Lord Kimball still exists and it may become even more macho when the ownership of a pit bull becomes strictly controlled or illegal. Therefore, strict enforcement will be needed.
I hope that wide consultation will take place, as promised by the Minister, regarding the extension of the legislation to other dogs. I know that the British Veterinary Association is against singling out a particular breed. It believes that the way ahead is to target aggressive individuals rather than a particular breed.
The problems caused by dangerous dogs will be solved only when dog owners appreciate that they are responsible for the actions of their animals. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will consider the feasibility of licensing owners to possess a dog or dogs. A pack of hounds would be covered by that scheme. One would then licence a person to own a dog just as it is possible for a person to be licensed to own a gun or a car. Therefore, I hope that the Minister may consider a scheme which licenses the owner rather than the dog.
There is precedent for that—namely, the Dangerous Wild Animals Act. In that case, an owner is licensed to own a dangerous animal but a dangerous dog is not included in that legislation.
Finally, I support my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley in his request to consider the feasibility of a comprehensive dog Bill. There are at least 20 pieces of legislation—if not more—pertaining to companion animals. I believe that it is time for a consolidation Bill to clarify what is a confused situation in that respect.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Hayter: My Lords, I join issue with the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, as regards Clause 3. I do that not for the sake of hunting dogs but as regards a much more serious matter. The penalties contained in Clause 3 apply to situations in which dogs are

539
dangerously out of control. If one wishes to know what that means, it cannot be more clearly set out than it is in Clause 8(4) which states:
"For the purposes of this Act a dog shall be regarded as dangerously out of control on any occasion on which there arc grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will cause injury to any person, whether or not it actually does so".
That is sensible in one way when one thinks of the dangers to which the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, referred. Protection must be given to individuals who are in the neighbourhood of a violent dog. However, the point of my observation is that that same phrase which I read out applies to police dogs, to service dogs and to dogs owned by security companies.
Let me return to the famous debate in the other place, which took 12 hours. The Home Secretary said that Clause 3:
"will be a powerful means of ensuring that the owners of all dogs, whatever the type, take proper steps to ensure that they are kept properly under control … The measure will apply to any dog and its owner".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/6/91; col. 652.]
It is quite clear, though it may not be intentional, that that applies to all police dogs.
What follows? If one studies the Home Office Standing Advisory Committee report on police dogs, it recognises that they can be trained—which takes three months with a three-week refresher course every year—and used to combat housebreaking, robberies,
burglaries, to search premises or locations, to find missing persons, to recover articles at the scene of a crime, to deal with rowdyism, to chase after fleeing criminals and to carry out general patrol and security duties. Noble Lords will see immediately that in almost every one of those cases the element of apprehension on the part of the criminal—the person fleeing—is essential. Therefore the handler of a police dog may be guilty of a criminal offence.
I shall give two examples. I said that the dogs are trained to locate criminals. In fact they are taught to do one of two things; either to chase and attack or to chase and stand off. In every case they give grounds to the criminal,
"for reasonable apprehension that the dog will cause injury … whether or not it actually does so".
The second example concerns dogs that are trained to deal effectively with small groups of hooligans. By chance I happened to see exactly that at Epsom station around 10 years ago when one man with his dog brought under control around 10 youths. Again, the dog gave,
"grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will cause injury … whether or not it actually does so".
Where does one go from here? Does it matter whether we abolish all police dogs? Of course it does; that is hardly worth arguing about. The Bill went through in the House of Commons in 12 hours. I suggest that discussions should take place with the Home Office Standing Advisory Committee on Police Dogs—I believe it is quartered at Imber Court, near Thames Ditton in Surrey. While police officers not on duty must comply with the Bill when taking their dogs into a public place, Clause 8(4) should be so interpreted that "dangerously out of control" should
540
not apply to police dogs or service dogs being used for operational duties such as preventing crime or arresting criminals.
It is not for me to suggest whether or not an amendment needs to be introduced into the Bill, or whether a provision can be combined in an order from the Secretary of State. But I make this point: however the matter is dealt with in the Bill there is a public relations angle. I happen to know that police dog handlers are extremely worried about the situation and are entitled to know where they stand. I feel also that the public must be kept fully informed for the sake of preserving an important element in the security of our country.
6.34 p.m.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I warmly welcome the provisions in the Bill. I congratulate my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on the swiftness with which he acted, and the Government on the urgency with which they pursued this course of action to avoid further tragedies caused by pit bull terriers. I am satisfied that it is a good remedy, as far as it goes.
I am not too concerned with the aficionados of pit bulls who claim that the requirements of the Bill will drive the breeding of pit bulls underground. I do not see how that can easily be achieved. Those responsible for enforcement, or indeed any member of the public, on seeing a pit bull in public, unmuzzled, unleashed and un-neutered, will note the obvious and report it. Penalties will have to be paid and the owner either forced to comply with the law or have the dog destroyed. Even pit bulls bred underground will have to come out eventually; they will be caught and the penalties imposed.
So far, so good. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, the Home Secretary in another place made clear and precisely defined what a "public area" is. On that occasion he said that he did not consider that a dog was confined if it was, for example, in front of a house when a postman called. I am still concerned about what may happen when a registered or licensed pit bull terrier, in its own home-confined area, unmuzzled, unleashed although neutered, as it is allowed to be, manages to escape either by overcoming the fence (which is not unknown), by attacking its owner (which is not unknown), or by escaping through a momentarily disregarded open door (which is also not unknown). All that is still possible. That is why I, who am second to none in my love of dogs—not even the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby—was more comfortable with the Home Secretary's original edict which required all pit bulls to be destroyed, given the character and record of those dogs. I only hope that those experts and "interested parties" who pressed the Home Secretary to permit the reprieve of those dogs, will take full responsibility should the scenario that I described occur and a human life be lost or a human being maimed.
I accept that the safeguards in the Bill, including the insurance requirements, are a good first step. I say that because I should like to see the powers in Clause 2

541
enacted in relation to Rottweilers, German shepherds, and any other dog of a size, character and biting power that could constitute a menace to or harassment of the public. I refer especially to the reserve powers that may require such dogs to be muzzled in public places. Indeed, they should apply to any dog that constitutes a menace. Of course they would not apply to guard dogs as they would not be unleashed in public places. Nor would they apply to hounds. I accept the concerns expressed by a number of noble Lords in that regard.
It costs so little in time, money or discomfort to the dogs of the breeds I have described to muzzle them in public places. Such dogs can be unpredictable and they possess the power to get out of the control of reasonable human strength. It takes only moments for such logs to inflict the most horrifying injuries and even death to persons as well as to other smaller dogs. Such a small requirement could avert tragedy and untold suffering. It would also avoid the fright and harassment of both people and their dogs who are using the paths, countryside and indeed the roads outside their own homes, peacefully with their own pets but who never do so without the nagging fear of what may be lurking round the corner.
To those who urge registration I say this. When I am out at with my small dogs and I see a Rottweiler coming round the corner, I do not care whether or not it is registered; I do not care who the owner is or whether it has a tattoo in its ear; I want to see it muzzled. That is the difference. Those who do not wish to muzzle their potentially dangerous dogs in public either want their dogs to be able to bite somebody or want them to appear to be able to bite somebody. They are the psychopathic canine terrorists who use their dogs as weapons and deliberately aggravate their aggressive tendencies. There are also the "bad owners" referred to who do not exercise or feed their large dogs properly and who leave them shut up at home all day. People who do not possess adequate exercise facilities should not be allowed to keep dogs. But they are allowed to do so. That is why I believe that the public should be safeguarded against what are often the repercussions of their neglect.
So much for the bad owners. But in the past weeks since the Bill was mooted, we have heard a great deal from the good owners of pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherd dogs and others, about how well behaved, obedient, loving and lovable their particular softies are. They may be absolutely right, but they might just be wrong. Is this a chance that we should allow them to take with other people's lives for the sake of a little muzzle? The Home Secretary said in another place that to require a whole breed to be muzzled in public is a serious thing. I say it is a small thing when one thinks of the seriousness of the possible consequences of not doing so in the case of the very large and powerful dogs. I accept that any breed of dog can produce a bad dog just as the human race can produce a bad owner. But when the dog is small and without the tremendous strength and biting
542
power of the breeds I have mentioned, that small dog, however fierce, can be picked up, removed and controlled with reasonable ease and speed.
Having said all that, I do not believe that any dog, however small, should be allowed out or alone with a small child at any time. Many of your Lordships will recall that a few years ago a child was killed by two small Jack Russell dogs. It is foolish for parents to allow children to be alone with such dogs.
I now turn to the matter of enforcement. Concern has been expressed that the guidance of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor should be sought as to the consistency of penalties imposed in magistrates' courts under Clause 3. My own experience in relation to the Dogs Act 1871 regarding a fierce attack on my own, good, well-behaved Jack Russell by a vicious Weimaraner is not one to render me sanguine in that respect although I would like the Weimaraners to be among those dogs that are muzzled.
I understand that the problem about trying to get a dangerous dog put down under the 1871 Act is that if the magistrate fails to order that initially, legal precedent has made it difficult to obtain such an order when the dog offends for the second time. More important, even if the dog has killed a person, it takes time to get the case into the magistrates' court while the dog lives on. There is no automatic remedy available to the police. As I look at the provisions in the Bill that remedy is still missing. Even when the case gets to court, the magistrate may still choose not to rule that the dog be destroyed even though it may have killed a person. Therefore, I sincerely hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will feel able to give the necessary guidance at a very early stage after the Bill is enacted.
Finally, I turn to the representations that have been made in this debate and in another place about registration. The Bill is about the control of dangerous dogs; registration is about avoiding straying and punishing ill-treatment. That is another matter, possibly worthy of your Lordships' consideration, but not in the context of the Bill. Even if I thought (which I do not) that registration was the answer to the problem it seeks to overcome, I would not be willing to interrupt or delay for one moment the passage of this very important Bill. It is an urgent Bill. I hope that it will eventually be extended. In the meantime it should deal quickly and effectively with a serious menace to the public, and I welcome it.
6.44 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I was very glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, say what he did about the present position of registration. I am glad that we are not to have, as the Commons did, a re-run of the registration debate on this Bill. Registration arose as an issue only when the dog licence fee was abolished. When I first made my report about dogs in society 18 years ago, that is when the debate began as far as I am concerned. We assumed then —and all subsequent discussion for

543
years afterwards also assumed—that the dog licence fee would continue. The question was how much it was to be.
One thought was that if the dog licence fee was too high it could result in cruelty to dogs, as owners might throw them out rather than pay the fee. I believe that I have mentioned once before that when I was in government from 1964 onwards, the Minister for Housing and Local Government, Mr. Crossman, came to the Cabinet with a proposal to uprate all licences to bring them into line with the change in the value of money. The one exception was the dog licence fee. The reason was that he had been told by the RSPCA that if the fee was increased people would turn their dogs out onto the streets. The RSPCA was not going to get into the business of destroying those dogs. That is what deterred the Government at that time.
No one uprated the licence fee from that time. The attitude became languid and the amount of money collected did not pay for the cost of administration. Apathy surrounded the whole matter. The Conservative Government let the fee lapse.
Then registration became the issue. If we had a dog licence fee, which I believe we should, that would cover the registration. The licence fee was discontinued and that is why we began to hear so much about registration. However, registration without a fee brings into the minds of British people the danger that the register will be used to their disadvantage. Why do we have this inbred objection to an identity card? It is because we know what the Nazis did with them. We believe that if we disclose our names and addresses they may be used for some other purpose. If we had to carry a photograph and so forth, the same fears would arise. There are inbred feelings that a register may be an instrument of tyranny or arbitrary government.
I believed at the time of the earlier discussions on registration—and I still do—that registration is necessary, but not as a separate item in the dog agenda. We want registration when it is linked with something positive so that we know what it is for. If there is a purpose to registration we should have it, but not the other way round. We should not have a register first and then begin to make up our minds how we can profitably or unprofitably use it. I could not believe my ears when I heard that in another place on 10th June registration was spatchcocked into an attenuated debate on the Bill in order to give it a fresh airing and press the issue to a Division. That was lunacy. It seems that this of all times is not the moment when people will submit to enforced registration without asking what it is to be used for.
If any extension of the category of prohibited dogs was embarked on, it would mean a new round of identifying where they were. If there was a register which showed where they all were the police could find them by consulting the register. But a register could not be introduced in time to deal with the administration resulting from the Bill. Anyway, we have dropped the register from our discussions on the Bill, and that is satisfactory.
544
My next point is apropos the smaller moonbeam in the larger lunacy, the Japanese Tosa dog. The importance of this dog is that he is mentioned in the Bill. If the Bill goes through as it is he will be the star dog in the Act—the only one of his kind; a dog that was legislated against because he was a dangerous dog. He will have to go through the full treatment: lose all his equipment and be mutilated. He has come over here as a show dog. He came out of quarantine only in April. Certainly there has not been much time for him to establish a reputation for being dangerous. He is a beautiful dog. When I met him he was so affectionate that I thought I was going to be killed by kindness. He was of such height and girth that woe betide a small man like me who tries to embrace a Japanese Tosa dog if he wants to put his paws on one's shoulder. I had to be a little careful.
I urge the Minister to be cautious about describing this dog. These are dogs that most people have never seen. They do not have the faintest idea whether the dog is dangerous; they take everybody else's word for it. I see that the BVA, in a document sent out only a day or two ago, referred to the Japanese Tosa as being an extraordinarily dangerous dog to the general public. Where is the evidence for that? It does not come in those terms from Japan. It may be that this dog is the Japanese canine ambassador to Britain, so we should talk about him with respect; otherwise we could have a diplomatic incident to contend with. We do not want trouble with Japan over the Tosa dog in Britain.
All I am saying is that when we come to the Committee stage it is no good talking about the Japanese Tosa dog breed. We have banned others from coming here. There is no female for him. He is under contract not to be crossed with anything else, and all the rest of it. He is registered in America and in Japan but he is not registered here because the Kennel Club does not have a class for the Japanese Tosa dog. That is the position.
The Minister should apply his mind to the future of this dog. He cannot just say that he is another dangerous dog and he goes with the others. No. He is a dog of quality. There is no doubt about that. I am quite ready to bring him here and walk him up and down during the Committee stage so that your Lordships can see him. He would create a lot of attention outside, I can tell you. But I shall not dwell upon that. I would not like to suggest that he might disperse the population between here and Whitehall, but at least there would be considerable public interest. He is worth looking at.
Now I have a few less pleasant things to say. To listen to the noble Earl this afternoon, with his competent, businesslike and clear exposition of the Bill, with his courteous delivery and his handsome style, one might think that if the Government are like him, they cannot be as bad as people say they are. But the truth is that they are not all like him. The noble Earl is a front man and behind him is a long trail of incompetence and indifference which is absolutely unbelievable in the history of government. We all have to take some responsibility for the situation. We have made a dreadful mess of it. We ought not to deal with

545
such issues as an emergency and rush into legislation. It is our neglect and our failure to deal with this matter years ago that I have brought about this situation.
Do your Lordships realise that the first legislation on dangerous dogs was the Dogs Act of 1871? That was not the criminal law but legislation which enabled magistrates to order the owner of a dangerous dog to bring it under control. That Act was not amended until 1989, when the Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced. Dame Janet Fookes piloted it through the House of Commons and I piloted it through the House of Lords. That was the first time that the 1871 Act had been amended, which shows how long we took to deal with that aspect of dog control.
The 1989 Act, which has hardly had time to get into operation, empowered magistrates to be much sterner over dangerous dogs. It is a great pity that we are having to introduce as an emergency a roll-over exercise on issues we have been dealing with in bits and pieces over recent years.
If your Lordships want to read a nice potted case against this Bill, I would recommend Mr. Heathcoat-Amory's reply to a debate in Standing Committee H of the House of Commons on 20th March 1990. It was a very good and interesting debate with a new idea— that local authorities should have the power to designate areas which excluded dangerous and other dogs that might create a disturbance among the public or generally be a source of worry to people round and about. The Minister dealt with that as he dealt with a number of other suggestions. He dismissed them all. What did he say? This is so short that I hope the House will bear with me. I quote from col. 1346 of the Official Report:
"Hon. Members mentioned dangerous breeds of dogs they think should be banned. That would not solve the problem, because many of the most dangerous attacks have been carried out by cross-bred dogs—mongrels. To specify breeds would invite cross-breeding. The American pit bull terrier is not a recognised breed in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) piloted a comprehensive and powerful Bill through the House last year, which became the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989. It gives courts extensive powers to ensure the destruction of dangerous animals, increases the penalty for failure to comply with a control order and empowers courts to disqualify the owner from owning any dog in the future".
It is as well to bear in mind that this is a law on the statute book. If that had been in operation—it has not yet been fully put into operation—we might have had a very different state of affairs now.
I would also ask your Lordships to bear in mind that one of the last acts of the Government in the last Session on 31st October 1990 was to hitch on to the Environmental Protection Bill a whole list of new safeguards and conditions of dog control which they sent back to the Commons as an alternative to losing the vote on the reinstatement of the registration clause. It was used as a weapon against the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, who was still sponsoring the registration scheme. All that went back to the Commons, was passed as a matter of urgency and straight away received Royal Assent. That is what happened there.
Indeed, had your Lordships' House acted differently, political history would have been different because Sir Geoffrey Howe was waiting for the result
546
of the vote in your Lordships' House on that clause before he could go to the Prime Minister and resign. If we had rejected the Government's overture and stuck by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, Sir Geoffrey Howe would not have been able to cross the road and hand his resignation to the Prime Minister. One can imagine how different history might have been if we had held him back from the most momentous step in his life, and perhaps the death knell of the Prime Minister.
Another thought that occurs to me is that this so far is the most intelligent, the most comprehensive and the most sober debate on dogs and dog control that I have had the privilege and honour of listening to in 40 years in Parliament. Why is this, my Lords? I shall tell you. It is because for some reason—congenital or otherwise—governments have wanted dogs to be dealt with as part of the Private Members' Bill procedure. Governments have not wanted to introduce a government Bill on animals, still less a comprehensive Bill on animals. Nor have they wished to introduce a comprehensive Bill on dogs. Therefore, it has been left to the hazards of the Private Members' Bill procedure.
It has not been possible for us to cobble together a comprehensive Bill on dog control which would stand up to scrutiny and the trials of administration without government help. Governments alone can introduce a Bill of that kind. We can only chip at it. It took me three years to get a Private Member's Bill through Parliament to bring to an end the sale of pet animals in open markets. That matter had been discussed for 13 years when I took it up. The Government would not take it up. The Government would not take up even the Dangerous Dogs Bill that Dame Janet Fookes introduced into the House of Commons. However, the Private Members' Bill procedure is either to go to the bran tub and have legislation by lottery; or to use the Ten Minute Rule Bill procedure where one makes one's speech and is given leave to introduce one's Bill. The Bill is then placed on the Clerk's Table and is not seen any more. That is the obstacle that we have had to overcome in another place in order to get any Bill before Parliament.
If we were able to pass these Bills, they would go down the corridor and stay there unless they were taken up by a Member in another place. Does the public realise that this antique procedure in Parliament lies at the root of the apathy and incompetence which was shown previously when dealing with dog legislation? Another point is that part of the package that we had on the Environmental Protection Bill as recently as the 31st October was the leash and tag provision. At least, if we have not added it to that Bill, it has a reference to the powers which are in the hands of the local authorities. However, none of this adds up to anything substantial in dog control.
Then something happens: fights have taken place. There are as many pit bull terriers in Britain now—or almost as many—as there have been for quite a time. It is a tragic coincidence that the attacks, especially on children, all came at the same time. The mutilated face of one child on television is the mutilated face of a million children. The public has no idea about the odds and the risks. I wish we could republish the

547
Dimbleby lecture of the late Lord Rothschild on the risks and hazards of life. One should not think, "If it had not been that child, it might have been mine", as if the odds are even. We know the odds are not even; the odds are a million to one. However, people do not see it in that light.
If only the Government had had more sense when this situation blew up and had pleaded for a calmer spirit! The gutter press was screeching its head off and levelling disgraceful abuse against the Home Secretary. The press was hysterical, and the Home Secretary lost his head. What can be made of a Home Secretary who on a Wednesday announces that the only solution for this terrible emergency situation is to exterminate all dangerous dogs—one day he announces that thousands of innocent dogs are to be sentenced to death. He then consults and thinks the matter over and then, a few days afterwards, he says, "I now reprieve the lot of them," commuting the sentence to genital mutilation and imprisonment for life. What are we to think of a Home Secretary who does that sort of thing? The situation should be calmed down.
I know that it was a period during which any Minister—especially the Prime Minister—stroking his chin in contemplation, would hear the cry, "Ditherer, ditherer!". What can one do in a democracy with a press like that? I shall not repeat what one newspaper had on its front page about the Secretary of State. No doubt he has been deeply wounded; but he is fairly brash and tends to be a bit rash. The Home Secretary's job requires a sturdy man; a strong character; an even temperament; someone who can carry a crisis. For the Home Secretary a crisis can arise any day of the week. Henry Brooke once said to me, "One morning I got up and I thought, 'I have no problems today'." Then the telephone rang. A man who was being extradited to the United States slit his wrists on the aeroplane just as it was landing at Heathrow. The man was bleeding to death and had to be taken off the plane and sent to hospital. Of course the wires were soon buzzing. Japan said, "We don't want him sent to us". America said, "We want him to come to us". And there he was having to be bandaged up! So what should one do with him? That is the sort of life the Home Secretary has. He has to be ready for that type of problem. However, if the press are barking at his heels all the time, it is impossible to give a sober judgment. A few mottos ought to be around in the Home Office such as the President of the United States is alleged to have. There are supposed to be mottos everywhere: "The what-is-it stops here, and the something starts somewhere else". That is what people see as they go along the corridors, I believe.
However, I have said enough to lead to my conclusion. If only we had the time, I am sure that the answer would be to send the Bill to a Select Committee. It would pay for us to do a real job of work on which our reputation stands high. Evidence could be taken. What is the evidence of this emergency? How many dog bites have there been
548
lately? In what circumstances have they taken place? There is no evidence that we are in the middle of an emergency.
I suggest that before we embark on a Bill which will take away civil liberty and individual freedom, we must be careful that we have the evidence on which to do it. Above all, we have to bear in mind what this Bill will do to a large number of innocent dog owners who have docile dogs, whatever they may be called, but which are under control.
Although a dog has been acquired and kept according to the law; and although the owner has done his duty as a citizen, we are now going to say that at the end of November the dog owner will be a criminal if he still has that dog but has not gone through all the processes prescribed in the Bill. The owner will not have done anything wrong or infringed the law in any way. But if the owners just sit on their backsides, we shall turn them from being honourable citizens into being criminals: "We shall send you to gaol and impose a heavy fine on you, and heaven knows what else, if you persist in martyrdom".
It is a draconian state of affairs to give the Secretary of State power to enlarge this area of distress and to enforce these conditions on the owners of dogs without any forewarning or without any justification except that which the Minister may feel important. We have to be careful that we are not going along with this emergency Bill without realising that we are going into some very deep water in terms of civil liberty and individual freedom. As the House of Lords, we cannot ignore that aspect of the matter.
7.10 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is a difficult act to follow, certainly as regards dog legislation and possibly even on political analysis and recent events. I never realised that the noble Lord played such an important part in what might be called "high affairs" or world affairs. Further, I probably should not be speaking in this debate. I say that because I have never actually seen a pit bull terrier and I no longer keep a dog. I live in an enormous house and very soon found that dogs could not quite tell where indoors and outdoors were. Therefore, at the end of the day, I thought that it would be best for me not to have a replacement.
I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who said that no emergency was taking place at present. It is quite obvious that the Bill relates to about 10,000 pit bull terriers which have come into the country since the 1970s. The figures which we have heard, if I remember rightly, indicate that they produced a large quantity—about one third—of the accidents. No one has mentioned how serious they are. They are probably much more serious than those involving other dogs. It does in point of fact constitute an emergency and justify a Bill of this nature.
Having said that, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, as he well knows, that there must be a proper registration scheme at some stage. It should be brought forward in a separate Bill. It should

549
become a separate Act, together with any consolidations needed. It should not be tacked onto a Bill, such as the one before the House today.
However, it is important that this Bill is targeted, as I imagine it is intended to be, straight at what I and obviously the Government see to be the problem of vicious dogs bred for fighting doing a great deal of damage. At the same time, we must look behind the dog to see the kind of person who owns such a dog, who wants to fight dog against dog, who wants, as we have heard this afternoon, to set dogs upon people to rob them, and so on. I shall return later to that point.
I turn now briefly to the Bill. It seems to me that Clause 1 deals with a large part of the situation. It states which dogs the Bill applies to, including the poor Tosa which, apparently, is no longer in the country. In paragraph (c) it refers to,
"any dog of any type designated for the purposes of this section by an order of the Secretary of State, being a type appearing to him to be bred for fighting or to have the characteristics of a dog bred for that purpose".
I cast my eye from that part of the Bill to Clause 2. I came to the conclusion that Clause 2 was superfluous. It deals with a sort of stand-by situation covering, presumably, every sort of dog imaginable. At the beginning it says:
"If it appears to the Secretary of State that dogs of any type",
and so on. That seems to me to be a woolly and unsatisfactory expression. It appears that the real danger is dealt with in Clause 1. Perhaps with one addition to that clause, we may feel able to dispose of Clause 2. I say that because it will then ensure that the category of dangerous dogs is confined to those which are obviously fighting dogs.
I said that we must look behind such dogs to consider their owners. It seems that the Bill is designed to phase out the pit bull terrier. If it is passed, as I hope it will be, that will happen over a period of time. However, I do not think that people will be phased out. I believe that there will still be people who will want to fight dogs for money and who will want to badger bait and attack people with their dogs. They will soon find other breeds of dog, some of which have already been mentioned this evening, to breed and train to do so.
On the whole, I should like Clause 1 to stand as it is at present and Clause 2 to be removed, except for that part which obliges the Secretary of State to have advisers of the veterinary sort, such as the RSPCA, and so on. Therefore, if Clause 2 was removed, Clause 1 would have to incorporate not only a provision of that nature but also one which provided for a Standing Committee, such as the Farm Animal Welfare Council. I am told that the council exists for the benefit of farm animals. It is an effective and useful advisory body. It is always there and can be referred to; it is not a body which is established only when an emergency takes place.
I should like to refer to a few of the points made by other speakers. The description "dangerously out of control" which appears later in the Bill in Clause 3 worries me. The description of a "public place" seems fairly clear; indeed, it includes a great deal of our country. It refers to the streets, the New Forest, the
550
moors and all sorts of places, including Underground stations, and so on. However, are we thinking of a dog being dangerously out of control in a vicious manner, or will the provision cover a situation where, for example, a little terrier runs to greet an old man on a bicycle coming down the road who subsequently wobbles, falls down and breaks his neck? It seems to me that there should be a better description than that which exists in the Bill at present.
Apart from that, I do not have too many criticisms to make. I entirely agree with the hunting people who point out that hounds can be lured onto a road so that those who are against hunting can achieve their ends by a different means from that which is used at present. Having said that, and in the event of Clause 2 being removed—or, at least, careful consideration being given to it—I wish the Bill well.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Milne: My Lords, I intend to be very brief in what I have to say. My concern with the Bill is that, while dealing satisfactorily in Clause 1 with dogs bred to fight, it does virtually nothing to put an instant curb on the aggressive breeds, some of which are known to be dangerous and to have caused the majority of incidents so far.
The effect of Clause 2, which is designed to deal with those types of dogs not specifically bred for fighting, is to impose the relatively mild sanction of leading and muzzling in public; but only after enough incidents have occurred to make them statistically significant, or Clause 3 has been triggered. If two fighting dogs can be named in Clause 1, why should not notably aggressive types such as Rottweilers and Dobermanns be named in Clause 2 for immediate imposition of muzzling and leading in public?
I do not believe that any reasonable owner would object to the exemptions in special circumstances provided for in Clause 2(2). The margin of difference between Clause 1 and Clause 2-type dogs is so slim that there are bound to be more dreadful accidents which muzzling would prevent. I am sure that the public, and anyone subsequently involved, will see things that way.
The Minister has said that he intends to make insurance a condition for the retention of neutered Clause 1-type animals. The owners of all dogs should be required to have insurance. The cost might make the potential owners of some types of dog think again and some of the problems caused by irresponsible ownership might disappear.
There are other problems such as hygiene, identification and so on. To be of any value, restrictions must be enforced, and that costs money. We have heard that a probing amendment relating to registration was discussed and defeated in another place. Nevertheless, I feel that dog owners should be made to pay for the costs they give rise to, and registration fees would cover those costs and help to solve many other problems.
7.21 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, like almost everyone else who has spoken, I support the Bill so far as it goes. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Milne, and other noble Lords, that all potentially dangerous breeds should be muzzled. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, is not in her place. She appeared to suggest that muzzling would be an alternative to a dog registration scheme. I do not agree with her. Dogs bred for fighting have no place in a civilised society. The sooner that they are no longer seen on our streets, the better it will be.
I have two questions which I hope the Minister will be able to answer. How will the police apprehend stray dogs? I hope they will not be armed with a long stick, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, suggested. Perhaps they could have a tranquilliser dart. There must be some way of enabling the police to take such dogs into control without putting themselves at risk of being savaged. Once the strays have been collected, how will the police identify them? Is it intended that as part of the—I understand that I am not allowed to call it a registration scheme—identification scheme it will be possible to identify dogs by a tattoo mark or in some other way?
The requirement that dogs should be kept on a lead and be muzzled while in a public place is welcome, but what is a lead? I almost came to grief in Cambridge last weekend. A man came along towing a small but active dog on the end of a 10-foot piece of string. I did not see the piece of string or the dog until the man had long passed me. No one could say that that dog was under control. I question whether it could be said to be on a lead. It may be necessary to define a lead at some stage.
Despite the discussions that have taken place this afternoon, I am still worried about postmen, milkmen and other delivery men. There seems to be some confusion about whether the front garden or the path up to the back door—if that is what the milkman uses—is a public place. That point needs to be cleared up. With dogs as savage as pit bull terriers and some of the others we are talking about controlling, the old adage that they are allowed one bite at the postman is not good enough. One bite from one of those dogs can be serious. We must have a clear ruling on that point. If it is decided that the front garden or the back path are not public places, and that dogs can roam free there, the owners of such dogs should be required to place a delivery point at the edge of their property so that it is not necessary for postmen or milkmen to enter. That is common sense.
Other noble Lords have said that the Bill does not address the problems of irresponsible ownership generally. For example, the NFU points out that it does nothing about dogs that worry sheep. Other noble Lords have spoken eloquently on that point. I shall not go into the figures regarding serious attacks in the metropolitan area because that has been done by a number of speakers. Even if we deal with attacks on people, we are left with the problems of fouling, accidents caused by strays, and all the other difficulties that were identified in our previous long and tedious discussions about dog registration.
552
My noble friend Lady Phillips said that we had been warned off registration. I do not intend to be warned off. I have something to say about it. The Home Secretary apparently accepts that registration is an essential element in the control of dangerous dogs, otherwise he would not suggest the system put forward in the Bill, which is registration by any other name. Why is he so blind to the fact that registration is an essential element—not a solution—in the battle against all the other problems that have been mentioned? How otherwise will dog wardens be financed, strays identified and returned to their owners, and a realistic third party insurance scheme be designed?
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, was worried about the cost of dog registration and the numbers involved. According to the latest figures I have been given, there are about 7 million dogs. However, without a registration scheme we cannot be sure of that figure. There is a computer at Wood Green which already caters for a privately run registration scheme. It is capable of dealing with 80 million pets. That is a far greater number than is ever likely to be involved in a dog registration scheme. It is calculated that each registration would cost between £11 and £15. All the organisations that supported the concept of a dog registration scheme continue to support it. All those Members of Parliament and Members of this House who supported such a scheme previously continue to support it, and many of them have said so. They have been joined by others who are now convinced.
We are told, as my noble friend Lord Richard said, that there is no point in pursuing the matter on this occasion because many of the scheme's supporters do not wish to add to the Government's present embarrassment. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, gave sound reasons, which I accept, as to why this House should not pursue dog registration in the Bill. In the other place, the decision not to pursue it resulted from a form of political manoeuvring which undermines the credibility of politicians. I am reluctant to be party to it. The reality is that any attempt to amend the Bill so as to implement existing powers to introduce a registration scheme will merely lead to a long debate in which all the old arguments will be repeated. At the end of the day there will be a defeat in the Lobbies with nothing to show except a waste of public money, so I am glad that my noble friend will not pursue that matter at later stages of the Bill, although I am unhappy about the principle. I must remind the House again that the power to start a registration scheme already exists. It can be implemented when a sufficiently enlightened Secretary of State decides to act. The scheme does not need, as my noble friend Lord Houghton said, to be spatchcocked into anything. The power exists in the Environmental Protection Act, and my party is committed to implementing it.
Meanwhile, the Bill is a useful, if limited, tool. I hope that your Lordships will agree to give it a Second Reading and that we can strengthen it in some of the ways that have been suggested today. There are also

553
many points which need clarification. With those amendments, I hope that the Bill will soon pass into law.
7.29 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I welcome the Bill and support Clause 1. I find Clause 2 unusual because it states that orders may be made concerning, "specially dangerous dogs". I have a Staffordshire bull terrier, a "Staffy", which is a very English type of dog. I love him dearly, he is now 10 or 11 years old. When pit bull terriers are mentioned on television, often a picture of a Staffy is flashed up which I find disconcerting. He has got into two bad fights. The first was when he was playing in the front garden of our home. At the time we lived next door to the American school which President Reagan was to visit the next day. Special security was put on with giant Alsatian guard dogs. One rushed into our front garden and attacked my Staffy who responded and I must say he won. Much to my distress, I had to go to see the guard when I returned from your Lordships' House at about midnight, in order to pacify him because he was insulted that his dog was injured by the Staffy. It was not badly injured but there was a dog fight.
The other occasion was when my husband took the dog out on the street but not on the lead. Along came another Australian like my husband, with his dog—a Labrador, also not on a lead. The two dogs got into a fight and I thought how typical it was that both Australians should have thought there was no reason for their dogs to be on a lead. There was quite a nasty fight and the two dogs could not be separated. In the end, my husband separated them, but if one attempts to do so in the middle of a fight one suffers for it. Since that day, my dog has never been out of the house off the lead. I take him regularly to Hyde Park, my husband does so even more than I but the dog is always on a lead. I never take him off the lead for that reason.
It is always a Yorkie that rushes up to attack my dog. I do not know whether it is because Yorkies are only the size of threepence, but for some reason they feel that they have to show that they are big macho dogs and they rush to attack any larger dog. It is extremely difficult; apparently all the owners of Yorkies let them off the lead in the park. I find it quite a problem; so many owners take their dogs to the park and let them off the lead as soon as they arrive.
The type of lead that I believe is good for the park is the one that extends to 20 feet; I do not know whether it is the same as the piece of string referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. The extending leads are good because they allow the dog more or less to roam free but there is sufficient time to reel the lead in if one sees another dog coming. I reached the point where I used to take an umbrella to fend off the Yorkies. However, that seems to be a different problem. If a dog is being attacked by another dog, it is difficult.
I wonder whether there could be a suggestion that under Clause 2 all dogs must be kept on a lead in certain places; for example, in the street, any dog can be a hazard to others. Should local authorities make
554
regulations as to where dogs be kept on leads or does it come under the Bill? I should be interested to know. I do not wish the matter to be on the face of the Bill. It should not be necessary to put it into primary legislation if there are sufficient enabling provisions in the Bill for the regulations to be made when it becomes apparent that they are necessary.
The point that has been made in the debate is that different problems with dogs arise all the time. It is hard to anticipate them. However, if the legislation is sufficiently wide to enable regulations to be made when required, that would solve the problem.
This is a good Bill. The urban situation is quite different from that in rural areas. I was interested to hear those who spoke about the rural situation. I support the comment of my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes that no one should ever leave a dog with a small baby or a small child. I should never do so, no matter how much I loved or trusted the dog. One does not know how a dog thinks; it might see a small baby as a rat to be caught. There is no way of knowing and it is important for us to appreciate that, although people often think in this country that dogs are more human than humans, we do not know how dogs think and react. We must always be aware of that, even with the safest and kindest dog. I support the Bill.
7.35 p.m.
The Earl of Buchan: My Lords, I wish to address your Lordships briefly in support of the Government's action in bringing in the Bill and congratulate them. The Minister may be gratified to know that all 478 canine inhabitants of the dogs' home at Battersea are personally grateful to him for what he is doing for them. I have consulted them through their barking vocal delegates. The dogs' home at Battersea has more experience than any other metropolitan dogs' charity in dealing with rescuing, re-homing and so on of stray dogs. Therefore, we are reasonably confident that in conjunction with the Metropolitan Police we can deal with any problems that arise as a result of such horrifying possibilities as hordes of stray pit bull terriers being released by irresponsible owners on to the streets of London.
I wish to ask the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, whether he is in favour of masses of stray pit bull terriers being released in London. After listening to his 25-minute peroration I was not quite sure. I believe he would not be in favour of it. However, if the same trouble had been taken over the first pit bull terrier that arrived in this country as is apparently being taken over the Tosa animal, we should not be in the present mess.
Personally, and on behalf of the canine delegates, I support the Bill.
7.37 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, although I have a hankering after the registration scheme which I am sure will eventually come, I support my noble friend who so ably introduced the

555
Bill. I have no doubt whatever that sometime—perhaps under the next Government—the dog registration scheme will come.
I had early instruction on dogs. I am told that at the age of two-and-a-half I tried to force a lump of coal down an Irish wolfhound's mouth, but I was dragged away, presumably screaming. I wish to refer to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. He is not present but I understand that he farms and he said that sheepdogs were only useful for herding sheep. With the greatest respect to him, I have quite a few sheep and many dogs, three of which are sheepdogs. They are remarkable animals, they can do much more than herd sheep. I once told a story in this House which I shall not repeat in detail. I knew a sheepdog that saved a man's life: it came home and got the search party which went out for about four miles into the hills in the dark. The man lived, they got him home, but the doctor said that it was a chance in a thousand.
I will tell you another instance of a greyhound which had run on the race track. My wife is interested in greyhound racing. I do not strictly approve of greyhound racing because often when the dogs have reached the end of their useful running lives they are put down, even though they may have made their owners a lot of money. It is atrocious that perfectly healthy dogs should be put down when they could be taken to dogs' homes. My wife once took out for a walk a greyhound bitch which had never seen a pheasant before. It slipped its lead during the walk and, spotting a cock pheasant about 100 yards away in the stubble, raced off like lightning and killed the bird instantly. It retrieved the pheasant and laid it at my wife's feet. I do not understand why the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said specific breeds of dogs were trained for one purpose only. Dogs have many sides to them.
As I have already said, I was brought up with dogs from an early age. When I was a boy I used to let my dogs sleep in my bed at night. I used to play tricks on them sometimes. I dressed in different clothes and then the dog would not accompany me out of the room. I have always considered dogs to be extremely sensitive animals just as I know many human beings who are also sensitive.
I hope that one day a dog registration scheme will be introduced. I would also like to see some provision made for bitches to be spayed. I know many people who are not very well off who own bitches. Often the bitches get out, mate with other dogs and have litters. Their owners cannot always afford to have them spayed as that is expensive nowadays. It is a great pity that the Government cannot offer such people some financial help to have their bitches spayed. Neutering a dog is of course a different matter as it is reasonably cheap. Neutering is a good practice as it prohibits dogs from mating indiscriminately.
A few years ago I introduced into this House a Bill which concerned pit bull terriers. The Bill came from another place, where it had been introduced by Mr. Greenway. At that time pit bull terriers had only just become fashionable among people who gambled on dog fights. One cannot call that a sport as it is a most
556
atrocious practice. I was pleased to hear my noble friend say that, when this Bill passes into law, pit bull terriers will become a thing of the past, certainly as regards organised dog fights.
My daughter had a Staffordshire bull terrier. In the middle of the 19th century miners in the Midlands used Staffordshire bull terriers in dog fights. Then the practice died out completely; presumably it was made illegal. Subsequently pit bull terriers have been introduced from America. Dog fighting is frowned upon and the Bill which I introduced in your Lordships' House increased the fine for dog fighting by about £1,000. That Bill attempted to stop the so-called sport of dog fighting. I hope that when the present Bill becomes law it will result in the demise of the pit bull terriers, certainly as regards dog fights.
I shall not delay the House further as it is getting late. I believe that eventually we shall have to introduce a dog registration scheme. There are 6 million dogs in Britain and if they are allowed to stray and breed indiscriminately the dog population will explode.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, this Bill is very necessary but it arrives rather late in the day. I welcome the Bill but I feel rather like someone at a cocktail party picking at the various delicacies as they are whisked past. In that situation one just wants one bulky item that will satisfy one's hunger. This legislation is rather like the situation at a cocktail party in that we have little bits of legislation tackling small issues but we are not bringing them together. When we do bring them together I hope that the main course of this meal of legislation will be some form of registration scheme. I believe that the Bill has recognised the need for some form of registration scheme.
The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum of the Bill refers to restrictions on other types of dangerous dog. I believe therefore that the Bill concedes that there are dozens of different species of fighting dogs all over the world which can be imported into this country. Many of those species are rather bigger and more formidable than the American pit bull terrier. The RSPCA has given me a list of a vast number of species of dangerous dog from various parts of the world with names that I cannot even begin to remember, let alone pronounce. The single Japanese Tosa in this country may be a good dog and it has not had a bad turn yet. Nevertheless that breed of dog is one of the most frightening to come across, purely because of its size. Anything bigger than a Rottweiler should be in a zoo. The other day when I was running in the streets of London I saw a Rottweiler taking its owner for a walk. It must have been four or five stone heavier than the man who supposedly had it under control on a lead.
My noble friend Lord Falkland spoke of how one should behave with a dog so that it does not attack. Most of what I have been told contradicts the instructions that he had been given. The instructions that I had been given flashed through my mind when

557
I saw, that Rottweiler. I slowed to a walk, put my hands by my sides, did not look at the dog and hoped that it would go away as it dragged its owner past me.
The fact that there are in this country such animals as the Rottweiler, the Alsatian and other large dogs leads to another problem. Not only are there feral dogs in all the major conurbations but there are also latchkey dogs. Those are dogs which are let out when their owners leave for work and return home when their owners return. There is also the guard dog syndrome. There are kept in the United Kingdom, predominantly in built up areas, dozens of different types of dog which are not looked after.
It is also worth remembering that dogs are carnivores which are highly territorial and operate in packs and dogs which become fighting dogs are merely spirited dogs. A terrier is a dog which can worry something; it is agile and it is strong. A bull terrier is a dog which is capable of baiting a bull.
In addressing the problem of dog fighting we are dealing only with the worst offender. We are trying to stop recruitment to the heavyweight division of dog fighting and the macho culture. Unfortunately, money may be spent on the middleweight division; it may be the Staffordshire bull terrier next time round. I am sure that a breeder could easily produce a spirited and aggressive strain of Staffordshire bull terrier and the problems will start all over again. If one can produce one fighting dog one can produce another.
Thus, although the Bill will deal with the worst excesses of the problem and the most visible aspects of it, it can only be a partial answer. Ultimately, even if the Bill is enforced to the fullest extent—and the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum states that:
"The additional expenditure to be incurred by the police, local authorities and the courts is not expected to be significant"—
we may find that pit bull terriers have bred with feral dogs and latchkey dogs and we shall undoubtedly have a huge problem which is only beginning to emerge. I believe that we shall find that that part of the Bill is hopelessly optimistic and will probably not be effective. I hope that the Bill is seen as only a start in dealing with a large-scale problem.
There is one point that I should like to make in connection with breeding. The Labrador was mentioned. It was said that the Labrador does not bother anybody. It is true that normally it does not. However, in Norfolk the black Labrador was for a time the dog which had most commonly to be destroyed. There was a great demand for the dog and there was inbreeding to meet that demand. If a Labrador decides to savage you it does so rather ineffectually, but it can still leave scars. I give that as a small example of the potential problem we face with all dogs if we do not have some form of control. This Bill only makes a start on tackling that problem.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, the Bill deals only with a very limited aspect of the dog problem but leaves the main problem untouched. It does nothing to tackle the problem of irresponsible dog ownership, of which fighting dogs is a symptom. Clearly there will
558
not be a registration scheme, but I believe that one day such a scheme will be introduced, either for dogs or for owners.
In the meantime, this Bill deals with the ownership of certain breeds, in particular the pit bull terrier. Yet of the 468 serious attacks recorded by the Metropolitan Police in 1990 only 111 were by pit bull terriers and 357 were by other breeds, including cross-breeds. Therefore the Bill will make little difference to the scale of the attacks. This is in fact a Bill to stop dog fighting and has nothing to do with protecting the public. If that was the intention the breeds involved in those 357 attacks would be banned.
We all know that most dogs of all breeds are friendly by nature, but there is no doubt of the capability of rogue Rottweilers, German shepherds and Dobermanns to cause damage in the same way as pit bull terriers. Had any of those breeds been designated it would mean the destruction of another breed, yet leaving still more breeds capable of causing damage while the majority of dogs of those breeds are perfectly harmless. Even a Pekinese can be fierce.
Therefore, the answer should lie in the threat of potential claims for compensation and in insurance cover. If an owner of a dog had to pay substantial damages in compensation for any misbehaviour by his dog or accident caused by it, he would have to take out adequate third party insurance, and the more dangerous the dog the higher the premium would be. That in itself would be a deterrent against casual ownership. The new regulations regarding the wearing of collars for identification would help to ensure that the majority of dogs were insured in the same way as the majority of cars are insured, although never 100 per cent. of them. Too many dogs do not have collars at present and so their owners cannot be identified.
The cost of compulsory insurance might help to reduce the growing problem of irresponsible ownership with the attendant cruelty, abandonment and strain that exists at present. It might also reduce the vast number of dogs which have to be destroyed each day.
The Bill relates only to public places. The only incident of which I have any knowledge was a horrific one near Dunoon in which a child was suddenly set on and killed by a dog which she and a friend were taking for a walk. So far as I can remember it was a Rottweiler. The incident did not occur in a public place but in a private field, so the Bill would not apply. The attack could have been made on someone who was not with the dog—some other person or child walking at the other end of the field. The application of the Bill to public places only is therefore not wide enough.
There is also the question of the garden of a house, which has been mentioned earlier today. It could be argued that the path to a house is a public place inasmuch as the postman has a right to deliver letters unless requested not to do so. However, the garden could be the scene of an assault but would clearly not be a public place. Therefore, not only should the scope of the Bill be extended beyond public places but there should also be stronger liability for all dog owners to insure against damage caused by their dogs. The

559
penalties for actions brought against them should be high enough not only adequately to compensate the victims but also to encourage all dog owners to take out insurance policies.
I question whether Clause 3 could be turned against police officers arresting a criminal. It would be ironic if a criminal were able to apply the clause against a policeman who arrested him with a police dog.
There is also the question of hounds. There is always the possibility that the Bill could be used against hounds and other dogs used for sporting purposes. I understand that the Government will be bringing forward an amendment to remove any such threat. I look forward to reading it.
7.59 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I have always understood that a dog's age should be multiplied by seven to match the age of a human being. I am sure that when we look back on this debate as it has gone through the afternoon and evening many of us will measure its length in dog years rather than human years. Nevertheless, the Minister must be very pleased with the response from most speakers who have given their general approval to the Bill before us.
As my noble friend said at the outset of the debate, we on these Benches support the Bill. We believe that the possession of a listed species—the pit bull terrier and the Japanese Tosa—should be prohibited as we cannot think why a dog bred to fight rather than to be a pet should be granted the same status as a pet. When one considers the injuries that have been mentioned in the debate, one realises that it is high time that some protection should be introduced.
However, on that point, we fear that the Government's decision to legislate on the control of dangerous dogs is belated. We also regret their failure to introduce a comprehensive national dog registration scheme. Although some speakers today said that this is not the right framework in which to introduce such a scheme, every speaker has said that he or she believes that a registration scheme would in the long term be the best way to deal with those problems. My noble friend Lady Nicol reminded us of the support of animal welfare groups and the support from public opinion polls which appear to present an overwhelming argument in favour of introducing a national dog registration scheme one day.
Given the Government's insistence on licensing pit bulls, the case for registration becomes even stronger and opposition is more difficult to justify. The inconsistency of the Government's argument is quite obvious, given that the Bill contains reserve powers for the Home Secretary to extend the list of dangerous dogs. Within a short time, there might be a long list of dangerous dogs and a two-tier system of dog ownership in operation. That could easily leave the public confused as to which breeds are classified as dangerous and subject to registration and those that are not. As Ministers have said before, the Minister said today that registration would not have prevented the recent attacks by pit bull terriers. That is true, but one might also say that insuring one's house against
560
fire would not stop it being burnt down. However, it would create a framework in which to deal with the damage and consequences of that fire.
Concern has been expressed as to who exactly will be responsible for implementing the scheme. I understand that the police service will need to enforce the law and prosecute people for breaches of the statutory provisions which deal with the keeping of prohibited dogs. However, I do not understand—perhaps the Minister will elaborate a little on this point when he winds up—why he believes that a private charity might be responsible. I have heard it said that it might be the Kennel Club. Although I have every admiration for the Kennel Club, I wonder why the Government believe that it would be better to give an organisation of that kind the responsibility rather than the local authorities. Local authorities have other related powers to deal with dogs and it is therefore puzzling why a third party should be brought in. I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on that point.
I should also be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the points that were put forward very strongly by my noble friends Lord Richard and Lord Jay who described the difficulties of establishing ownership. I found what they said convincing. I did not see how the important point of establishing ownership could be made within the scope of the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, made an extremely interesting speech about safeguards and enforcement of the Bill. No one would disagree with her when she said that other extremely dangerous species of dogs in the shape of Rottweilers caused a great uproar not very long ago. The noble Lord, Lord Milne, said that muzzling appeared to be an adequate way of protecting people from those dogs that were not covered by the Bill. Muzzling is perfectly humane. There is nothing cruel about it. Surely it gives people a great deal of confidence when they see a large dog coming along with a muzzle on. I can see no reason why that matter cannot be considered.
As regards insurance, I and I am sure many other noble Lords received a letter from the Association of British Insurers which stressed the importance of questions regarding compulsory third-party insurance for owners of prohibited dogs and asked that the matter be agreed with the industry before the regulations are prepared. I should be grateful if the Minister would give an assurance that the requirement of the insurance companies has been adequately fulfilled.
My noble friend asked why we could not extend the insurance to all breeds. It is illogical to say that some dogs should be insured whereas others need not be. It is like saying that if one has a Jaguar one must insure it, but if one has a Mini one need not bother. There is a lack of logic in that approach.
We are also concerned about the way in which policy has been invented rather as an instant response to the terrible attacks. My noble friend Lord Houghton made that point very well and said that we must get the matter right. We must work out exactly how to protect the public. We on this side believe that

561
there is a strong case for a more considered standing body to advise on that aspect of animal welfare. After all, there are such models as the Animal Welfare Council and the Food Advisory Committee, and the chances are that the control of dogs will continue to be an area of developing public policy. In the short term therefore it merits having an advisory group comprised of animal welfare experts and local authority representatives. Clause 2(4) goes some way towards achieving that objective, but not far enough. As the Minister knows, the Labour Party is in favour of setting up a dog advisory council to monitor continuously the effectiveness of dog control measures. That council would include vets, breeders, trainers, handlers and keepers of dogs as domestic pets. That would be a good way of dealing with the problem.
We look forward to the Committee stage when, as many speakers have said, the many improvements that we wish to see will be incorporated in the Bill. For instance, as my noble friend Lord Richard said, people who are injured through dog attacks in which the owner cannot be traced or identified should be able to claim from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Furthermore, as my noble friend Lady Phillips said, where the police are called in, so to speak, to arrest a dangerous dog, they should be accompanied by a vet, a dog handler or an RSPCA inspector for their better protection. After all, even police dog handlers have no experience of dangerous dogs out of control. The police should have powers to act against dangerous dogs in tower blocks, maisonettes and the areas around them and in back gardens; that is, in other than what the Bill describes as a public place, although there has been a great deal of discussion about that. All owners should be obliged to keep their dogs in secure conditions in and around the area in which the owner resides.
In conclusion, although the Minister says that it does not, the Bill amounts to a registration scheme for dangerous dogs in everything but name and is therefore a welcome step in the right direction. However, we look forward to another opportunity before long to press for a national registration scheme for all dogs because we are convinced, as my noble friend said, that linking the dog and the owner is the best way to increase responsibility. Dog ownership is a way of creating better conditions and a better environment for dogs generally and of protecting the public against the menace of dangerous dogs. In the meantime, we wish the Bill a speedy passage to the statute book.
8.10 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as might have been expected, we have had an interesting debate today on the subject of dogs. I do not mind admitting that I was somewhat apprehensive about this debate. I know that if there is a subject which excites noble Lords it is one which deals with animals. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said that this debate on dogs was the most moderate that he had heard in his 40 years of parliamentary life. I thought that it was the
562
noble Lord himself who used to raise the temperature in these debates. However, he refrained from doing so today.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, who said that I must have been pleased with the response given to this Bill by noble Lords. That is perfectly true. Matters to do with dogs are, quite rightly, very emotive subjects. When your Lordships were good enough on the whole to approve of the Bill, although with criticisms and qualifications here and there, it was a great help.
There was the problem of what should be done. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said that the press had hyped up this problem. If my right honourable friend had done nothing at all, everyone would have said that he had been wet and dilatory; but as soon as he did something people claimed that he should not do that and should do something different. It is very difficult. There are those like my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes who would like to see all pit bull terriers destroyed. Other people become distraught when dogs have to be destroyed. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, prefers to see dogs roam. Other people say that dogs ought to be muzzled all the time in public. Yet others say that they ought to be held on a lead in public. But, if a dog is put on a lead in public all the time, when will the poor animal take any exercise? Those are all very complicated matters which the Government have had to take into account.
In the end, we tried to address the real problem which affected everyone; namely, what is to be done with dangerous dogs—dogs that bite, kill and maim? It is perfectly true that many dogs can do that, but we thought it only proper to try to limit the number to those dogs which are trained as fighting dogs. That would at least remove the spotlight from the main problem. Then special provisions could be made for other breeds where it is shown that certain restrictions may be necessary.
To consider just one point, there are people who are frightened of Alsatians. I do not mind saying that I fall into that category. There are those who say that Alsatians ought to be muzzled in public places. But then one finds that Alsatians are the kind of animals which rescue babies who fall into ponds. One can imagine the outcry if an Alsatian could not come to the rescue because it was muzzled and so a baby died. Those were the kind of problems with which we wrestled. I hope that we have the Bill reasonably right in that respect.
My noble friend Lord Gisborough said that the Bill does nothing to make people look after their dogs better. Up to a point he is quite right. It does deal with the problem of dangerous dogs and keeps it at that.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, made some nice remarks about me. I was deeply touched that he should have felt so minded but then of course he added the sting to the tail, as he always does. The noble Lord is generous and one always has to be careful. He said that I was of course merely a frontman for a stream of incompetence for which the Government were responsible. I thought that he had let his imagination run away with him just a trifle. But that is not surprising.

563
The noble Lord let his imagination run away with him over the Japanese Tosa. He said that they are such cuddly and friendly dogs. He told us how this huge, great animal, the size of a donkey, put its paws on his shoulders. I must say to him that he ought to be careful. It is rather like stroking the jaws of a combine harvester when the engine is running. One can get into great trouble. I can assure the noble Lord that the Tosa is a very dangerous dog. Thank goodness the noble Lord, Lord Addington, warned him too. In Japan they are fighting dogs. I understand that in some parts of Japan dog fights still take place. We do not want any more fighting dogs in this country. The noble Lord said that there was only one of them, as though that were a justification for having the poor animal. But if there is one then inevitably there are soon two, and away we go.
The whole idea is to prevent our having more fighting dogs in this country. The RSPCA agrees and so do the veterinary bodies and the dog organisations. They all agree that there is no place for the Tosa. So do the Government and so do all noble Lords except, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who, however, is perfectly entitled to his own individualistic opinion. Nothing that I can say will ever deter him from having that.
We shall look very carefully at any amendments that will be brought forward at Committee stage. However, it may be helpful if I indicate one or two areas in which we shall be prepared to look at amendments with, if possible, even more than our usual generosity, which noble Lords will recognise as considerable.
There was particular concern in another place—this anxiety was expressed again today by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips—that the definition of "public place" did not cover the communal parts of blocks of flats which had entry control, such as a security guard or a lockable door, at the front entrance. It was argued that, because the public was denied access by the entry system, the communal areas within could not be defined as a public place. That is certainly an area that we should wish to consider to see whether there is a way around the problem. It is not our intention to allow a flat holder to let loose his pit bull terrier on the stairs, walkways or passages of blocks of flats, simply because one has to go through a communal door in order to get to the flats and therefore it may not be described as a public place. We want to look at ways to get round that problem.
Another anxiety was expressed by my noble friend Lord Kimball and other noble Lords that the reference in Clauses 3(1) and 8(4) to a dog causing injury might have the effect of extending the scope of the offence too far. It was our intention that the offences should catch the owners of those dogs which, by being dangerously out of control, made people fear that they would be bitten, and, in the aggravated offence, would catch those owners whose dog actually bit or savaged people. Some noble Lords suggested
564
that the expression "causing injury" might catch the owner whose dog slipped the lead and put a cyclist in fear of falling off his bike and injuring himself.
My noble friends Lord Kimball and Lord Dulverton raised the possibility of hunt saboteurs who might lure foxhounds over a road, thereby causing an accident. It was not our intention to catch that sort of situation. We do not consider that the Bill as presently drafted would have that effect. However, we should certainly look sympathetically at any amendment which would make the intention absolutely clear.
I indicated that we are prepared to look carefully and sympathetically at an amendment which sought to ensure that the types of dog caught by Clause 1 should at all times in public be in the charge of a person aged 16 or over. That is important and will require consideration.
The dreaded word "registration" received a great deal of mention. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that it would provide a more effective method of controlling dogs. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, thought that it would be a good idea. My noble friend Lord Stanley very wisely said that he did not want that in this Bill and that another place did not want it. Therefore he would not support an amendment. He has successfully moved an amendment in the past, and I was particularly grateful to him for his breadth of wisdom, if I may so describe it, in saying that it would not be appropriate in this Bill. My noble friend Lord Radnor wanted it. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said that she would wish the matter to be pursued now. For the same reasons I was grateful for that information. My noble friends Lord Massereene and Ferrard and Lord Gisborough also wanted such a scheme.
A national dog registration scheme, whatever its virtues may be, would be difficult to enforce. It would be expensive to operate and would not solve the problems. It is irrelevant to the issue of fighting and dangerous breeds. If the registration scheme is to bite—if one may use such a description—it must be properly enforced and the cost will be considerable. There is therefore a strong disincentive on the dog-owning public to register. I press the point further. There has been such a scheme in Northern Ireland since 1983. At present only about 50 per cent. of dog owners register. There are always what one might call the goodies who register the dog and the baddies who do not. One is therefore left in the same position as before.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked: how does one know whether a dog is a pit bull terrier or a cross or half-breed? The pit bull terrier is a cross-breed. There is no clear-cut scientific way of defining such a dog. That is why we use the expression in the Bill
"any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier".
My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes referred in a chatty way to "Staffies" and "Yorkies". I had not heard those colloquialisms previously. Clause 5(5) of the Bill puts the obligation on the accused to prove that the dog in question is not a pit bull terrier. For someone who owns a "Staffie" (to use my noble friend's expression), the Kennel Club certificate that it is a dog of that breed will be all the evidence needed

565
to convince anyone that the dog in question is perfectly acceptable. But if there is doubt, the person would have to prove that it is not a pit bull terrier.
The matter of third party insurance was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, the noble Lord, Lord Milne, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. On the face of it, it is an enticing suggestion. To extend a compulsory insurance requirement to other dogs would obviously go much further than necessary for the purpose of the Bill. Compulsory insurance is a rather rare concept. At present one is obliged by law to insure one's motor car; but compulsory insurance does not apply to many other aspects. It is not obligatory by law to insure one's house or contents, even though there might well be goad reasons for doing so. Many household contents policies provide insurance cover for the policy holder's dog. It is probably sensible for the owner to decide to use such a policy. To make it compulsory for owners to insure every Chihuahua and Poodle would be a major step and a fairly major obligation on the dog owner. For the reasons that I have given, I do not believe that that would be a good idea.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, believed that tattooing animals was the better method and that chips tended to move around the body. I did not know that; I accept what he said. He said that he had seen two attractive ladies with two rather less attractive dogs and had suggested to the ladies that they might produce the dogs near the Peers' entrance. That was probably rather undesirable. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, stated that he was going to bring a Japanese Tosa to the front door. I believe that that is going rather over the top. I do not believe that it would be helpful even though it might be instructive. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said that he was frightened by those dogs, yet he believed that tattooing was a better method. If he were frightened by the dogs how would he like to grab them by the head and look inside their ears to see the tattoo mark? I fancy that he might find that not too enjoyable an experience.
The advantage of the chip is that one can read the information by machine; one does not have to hang onto the dog. There are certain advantages in that. Whether technology is sufficiently advanced is a matter that we must consider.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, asked how one identifies exempted dogs. The requirements for dogs exempted under Clause 1(5) to be neutered, insured and permanently identified is not on the face of the Bill but it will he in the order defining the exemption scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, my noble friend Lord Radnor and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred to dogs which are dangerously out of control. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked what happens about dangerous dogs which jump over fences and attack children. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, asked whether the front garden is a public place. The front garden is not a public place but the power in Clause 3(4) applies everywhere. That
566
is the defence which the postman and postwoman have against being bitten. They can say that the dog ought to be kept under control.
On the noble Earl's point about a dog jumping over the fence, the Bill does not prescribe secure conditions for Clause 1 dogs, but those who retain exempted dogs will be committing an offence if they allow them to stray and they are out of the house and dangerously out of control. The onus is very much on the owners of the dogs to make sure that they are kept securely. If not, they face pretty tough penalties for breaking the law. If anyone fears that the dog next door—which may be an exempted pit bull terrier—is not properly controlled, he can apply to the court for an order under Clause 3(4) to force the owner to control it properly.
Lord Richard: My Lords, before the noble Earl leaves that point, I am not sure that I heard him aright. Is he saying that the offence under Clause 3 applies to a place which is not a public place? If so, where do I find that?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if the noble Lord will address his mind to Clause 3(4), it states:
"It is hereby declared for the avoidance of doubt that an order under section 2 of the Dogs Act … may be made whether or not the dog is shown to have caused injury … and may specify the measures to be taken for keeping the dog under proper control".
That means that if you are pursued by a dog and bitten, or your next-door neighbour has a dog which you believe may bite you, you may apply to the court under the Dogs Act for an order. Clause 3 adds to the Dogs Act by stating that the court may specify the measures to be taken for keeping the dog under control,
"whether by muzzling, keeping on a lead, excluding it from specified places or otherwise".
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, looks sceptical. He must not; it puts me off. Under the Dogs Act one can go to the court and the court can make an order that the owner must look after his dog properly. Clause 3(4) (b) permits the court to say what he has to do.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, quite rightly said that various dogs are specifically used to deter police in drugs cases. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, said that pit bulls are used like weapons. The noble Viscount is quite right. I met some policemen recently who said precisely that: that when they are on the trail of drugs and go to a house, very often they are met by two pit bull terriers. They are used as weapons. That is completely wrong. If the Bill comes into operation then those pit bull terriers will not be there any more. That form of weapon will have been removed.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that firearms have to be kept in safe places, so why cannot one keep pit bull terriers in safe places? There is one immediate difference. Pit bull terriers have legs whereas firearms do not. It is quite easy to lock up a firearm. It is not so easy to lock up an animal. In that respect I do not believe that the two are totally comparable.
My noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior said that registration should be of the owner and not the dog. A register of owners would be of no

567
additional use to the police or other authorities which will be required to enforce the ban on ownership. They need to know whether a particular dog has been exempted and, if an offence has been committed, who the owner is. The central index will contain information about the dog and the owner. Under the Bill once one is registered as—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we all make slips of the tongue. Once one has identified oneself as being the owner one cannot merely let the dog out of the house or give it away to the next door neighbour or to one's wife—one is the owner. Therefore it is unnecessary to have a register of owners such as my noble friend suggested.
My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes asked how the police will approach a stray pit bull terrier. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, also expressed anxiety about that matter. It is an operational matter which will be in the hands of the chief constable. In the end the police can call for assistance from a veterinary surgeon if necessary. If the dog is clearly so dangerous and vicious that it cannot be approached, the police have a common law power to put the dog down by shooting it. Such action is pretty extreme and I agree that trying to catch a pit bull terrier owned by a person housing drugs is not what most of us would regard as an afternoon's entertainment.
The noble Lord, Lord Hayter, referred to police dogs. He said that Clause 8(4) should not include police dogs being used operationally. An offence will be committed only if a dog is dangerously out of control. It is my experience that police dogs are exceptionally well disciplined and trained and remain at all times under the control of their handler even when not on the lead. It is sometimes necessary that such dogs under the control of their handlers should use force to restrain a criminal who is engaged in a robbery or trying to escape arrest. In that situation, as in the situation where a police officer must use force, the Criminal Law Act 1967 allows the police to use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances. That gives the police dog all the protection it needs, as it does to his handler. I do not believe that a special exemption under the Bill is necessary. Police dogs
568
carry out a vital job and are superbly trained. In executing their lawful duty the police have no cause to worry.
My noble friends Lord Stanley and Lord Soulsby referred to the Home Secretary's undertaking to produce legislation. Col. 644 referred only to proposals in the consultation paper. These proposals have been picked up by Clause 3(1) and (4) of the Bill. My right honourable friend's remarks had no wider meaning and, so far as I am aware, there are no plans for a wider consolidation of dogs legislation. The RSPCA and British Veterinary Association would like that to be considered in the future but not now.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, asked why a private charity is compiling the list of animals. An agency has not yet been identified but we have sent tender documents to more than 25 organisations of all kinds. There is a need for a national list of exempted dogs and the agency is merely undertaking the paperwork. The police and dog wardens will be enforcing the provisions.
I am grateful to your Lordships for the encouragement that you have given to the Bill. I hope that it will have a relatively speedy and uncontroversial passage through this House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Folkestone Harbour Bill [H.L.]
Committed to a Select Committee.
London Underground Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
Llanelli Borough Council (Dafen Estuary) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.

Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before nine o'clock.