Lords Sitting of 18 June 1992

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Ripon): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.

BBC: Future
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will set up a committee of inquiry into the future of the BBC in advance of the renewal of its charter and licence.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Government intend to publish a discussion document later this year to set the context for a public debate about the future of the BBC. Therefore, we do not think it necessary to have a committee of inquiry.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that with the destabilisation of commercial television in this country it is now even more important to ensure the future of the BBC as a publicly-funded, public service broadcasting system? Will he reconsider the advantages of having a committee of inquiry as a structured way of ensuring that the general public can submit evidence and can be cross-examined and so forth? Is not broadcasting a little too important to be left merely to government and the broadcasters?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we wish there to be a genuine public debate of high quality. We shall want to hear the opinions of viewers and listeners in addition to interested parties. There are many ways of encouraging wide public discussion; we are considering all the possibilities. We believe that another committee of inquiry would not be the best way forward and that it would be likely to delay the timescale of decisions. However, we have an open mind about the way in which we wish to involve all those with an interest in the future of the BBC.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, do the Government accept that in this country and throughout the world there is a widespread belief that while the BBC may require many changes it should remain based on the public service principle with the licence fee as its basic means of finance?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend makes a most important point. All such issues will be discussed and considered as part of the review of the BBC's charter, which is not due to expire until 1996.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, will the Minister accept that this is an important time for the BBC? The renewal of its charter has not previously arisen and there have been tremendous changes in the whole field of broadcasting as a result of the 1989 Act? Will he accept that there is a big difference between commenting on documents which have been issued by
282
other people and having a structure through which ideas can be initiated and individuals and organisations can push forward their views? The Minister said that he had an open mind about the matter. Will he explain that answer a little further?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we intend to publish a discussion paper in the autumn. It will set the context for public discussion. We wish to encourage the debate about the future of the BBC and do not wish to prevent it. That point is important.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will the Minister give an undertaking that the Government, in considering the debate, will have in mind the context within which the great public corporation is conducting itself and may he asked to continue to do so? Will the Government bear in mind in particular the distribution of ownership within the private sector and the concentration of many newspaper and television outlets in the hands of individuals or corporations who may not have the best interests of our society at heart?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. The Broadcasting Act established the framework for an unprecedented expansion of commercial television and radio services. We need to see how the new arrangements settle in and it is too soon to consider changing them. The issue now before us is the future of the BBC.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that in view of the unfortunate consequences of many aspects of the 1989 Act a certain humility of approach on the part of the Government may be appropriate?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we intend to encourage the widest possible discussion among listeners, viewers, the BBC and all interested parties. We look forward to that.
Lord Annan: My Lords, will the Minister accept that having had two inquiries inflicted upon it during the past 15 years the BBC is entitled to have a vacation from such Chinese tortures? Does he agree that it is important that there should be a public debate such as he envisages before decisions are taken? Does he also agree that it is important, in particular, to obtain from the governors of the BBC their ideas about the future of the corporation?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point, which I take to heart. He will know more about the matter than most of your Lordships because he chaired the previous committee on broadcasting, which took three years, from 1974 to 1977. We believe that an inquiry held now would tie our hands and that discussion would he restricted while it took place.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I understand that the Government intend to issue, a Green Paper on the subject. Will the Minister assure the House that it will be truly green and that it will have no white characteristics? In other words, will he give an assurance that the Government will not be committing

283
themselves, as is appropriate in a Green Paper, and will not take up an initial position from which they may have difficulty withdrawing?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we have no hidden agenda as regards the BBC. The document will be for discussion and will ascertain the views of everyone.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we welcome his assurances that the Government wish to encourage the widest public debate on these matters and that when the Green Paper is published they will retain an open mind about the best way to handle the debate? Is the Minister further aware that we shall wish to return to the matter once the Green Paper is published?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, of course. Perhaps I may quote from today's Evening Standard. It states:
"The BBC has delivered a knock-out blow to ITV by clinching a £50 million contract for world athletics coverage which leaves the commercial channel's once proud sporting line-up in tatters".
The BBC is doing very well.

Energy Efficiency Office: Initiatives
3.10 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, following the transfer of the Energy Efficiency Office to the Department of the Environment, any new initiatives in this field have been taken or are contemplated.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the Government have formed a partnership with British Gas and the regional electricity companies to establish an independent Energy Saving Trust. We will be consulting on the strengthening of the building regulations, and are taking forward an initiative to encourage training in energy efficiency.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that evidence of initiative by the Government in the energy efficiency sector. Does he not agree that in the present circumstances of mounting anxiety about the environment, improved energy efficiency represents the most effective way of dealing with some of the problems which were debated recently at Rio? In those circumstances, in addition to the specific initiatives which he has indicated, will the Government contemplate having a major campaign aimed at both domestic and industrial consumers to bring home to them the vital importance of saving more on energy usage, and providing some incentives for them to do so?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I certainly agree with the essence of the noble Lord's argument about the importance of energy efficiency. The noble Lord will know that we have a number of other schemes ongoing. For example, the campaign Helping the Earth Begins at Home and the Making a Corporate
284
Commitment appeal to industry. A longer-term campaign requires a great deal of planning but it is a matter which I shall certainly take up.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is not the fact that the Energy Efficiency Office has to be shunted from one department to another in this way evidence that the Government's attitude towards energy is to privatise the energy industries rather than have a positive energy policy? Would it not have been better for the Energy Efficiency Office, instead of being transferred to the Department of the Environment, to have been made an independent agency, as was proposed by the Labour Party?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Labour Party was clearly wrong in its policy. We have put the Energy Efficiency Office firmly in the Department of the Environment because we believe that that is where it can make its greatest contribution towards energy efficiency and in looking after environmental considerations, which were explained so well by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, on the question of transferring parts of the now departed Department of Energy to other places in the government machine, can my noble friend give an indication as to when the Government will reach a decision about the transfer of the Petroleum Engineering Division to Aberdeen? Is my noble friend aware that the transfer of those 80 jobs from London, where there is really little local interest in the oil industry, to Aberdeen, which is the capital of the oil industry in the United Kingdom, would be extremely welcome? It would, according to Scottish Enterprise, generate some 15,000 additional jobs in the Grampian region coming from the private sector of the oil industry.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I believe that that is beyond the scope of the Question but I can tell my noble friend that we are still awaiting the consultants' report.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord satisfied that the use of gas—a premium fuel—for the generation of electricity is the best and the most efficient use of that fuel?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords. I did not quite understand the question. Perhaps the noble Lord will repeat it.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, gas is a premium fuel. It is an extremely efficient means of generating heat. However, when gas is used for generating electricity a great deal of its efficiency is lost up the chimney and in cooling towers. Therefore, it loses much of its heat value. Is that the best use of a premium fuel and does not that contribute a great deal to global warming, CO2 and so on?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. We believe that there should be a variety of sources of power available in this country so that we need not rely on any particular source. Gas is a fuel

285
which is extremely efficient in certain circumstances and environmentally friendly. That meets one of the Government's goals.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, will my noble friend say something about the continuing research facility of the Energy Efficiency Office? He will recall that enormous amounts of research were successfully taken up by the pottery industry in the late 1970s and early I 980s. Perhaps he will update us on the position.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, research is fundamental to the Energy Efficiency Office. My noble friend will be delighted to know that this year we have increased expenditure on the Energy Efficiency Office by 40 per cent. to £59 million; that is, 10 times the 1979 level of expenditure in real terms.

Mortgage Interest Payment Assistance
3.15 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider giving help with mortgages similar to the help given with rent through housing relief.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, social security help with mortgage interest is given through the income support scheme. We have no plans to extend that.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is my noble kinsman aware that the tying of help with mortgages to income support creates a number of situations in which people are better off not working? In particular, is he aware that the change in the definition of full-time work from 24 to 16 hours has already produced numerous cases of people who have given up work in order to retain help with their mortgage payments? Does he agree that that situation contradicts not only common sense but also government policy?
Lord Henley: No, my Lords. Obviously I accept that there can be relatively rare occasions when an individual receiving help with his mortgage interest may be better off receiving benefits than in work. However, we do not see any scope for altering the targeting of family credit, which is an in-work benefit, to bring in relatively high earners with relatively large mortgages. That would dramatically change the nature of family credit, which is very much a broad brush scheme, and would have considerable far-reaching cost and operational implications.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the department consider giving some help to prevent repossessions? For tens of thousands of families, that is the greatest tragedy of their lives. It affects the father, the mother and the children, who are all evicted. Repossession is a blight upon our country. Will the Government not have a good look to see what can be done to prevent repossessions, wherever possible?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that we have done quite a lot since last December to assist with that problem. The Council of
286
Mortgage Lenders, which colleagues in the Government saw on 2nd June, assess that the measures taken since December will probably prevent some 55,000 repossessions this year, which is a very large number.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that unemployment is the biggest cause of difficulty in meeting mortgage payments? In view of that, what has he to say about the figures issued today, which show yet another large increase—the 24th consecutive increase in the numbers unemployed? Are the Government not going to learn anything? Are they not going to change their mind about any of their policies? Perhaps I may say to the Minister that it is not a matter to smile about; it is an extremely serious matter. We should be discussing the 2.7 million unemployed. If we have the fundamental changes of policy which have been advocated from these Benches for many months now, we shall reduce not only the problems of those trying to pay their mortgages but many other problems too.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord should have tabled his monthly question about unemployment figures. We give help to those unemployed who are in receipt of income support if they are having difficulties in paying their mortgage.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, is it not the case that in the past decade the Government have sharply reduced the number of council homes to rent, thus pressing many families on low incomes into buying their own homes, which, because of the recession, high interest rates and high unemployment, they can now neither afford nor sell? The mortgage rescue scheme has failed and it is clear that it cannot be made to work. Will the Government now introduce a cost-effective, targeted mortgage benefit scheme to help those 300,000 families seriously in arrears and at risk of losing their homes?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we have not forced anyone to buy their own home. I do not accept that the mortgage rescue scheme failed. As I stated, some 55,000 repossessions - the estimate of the Council of Mortgage Lenders—will be prevented as a result of the measures taken. Obviously one cannot prevent every single repossession. One cannot cater for the folly of individuals in the debts that they may take on. However, we have offered a great deal of support; first, through the measures that have taken place since December and, secondly, through the income support scheme.

Police Car Sirens
3.20 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that police car sirens are used with adequate restraint in city areas.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the decision whether or not to use a police siren must rest with the driver of the police vehicle. We are satisfied that officers are aware of the need to use them with restraint.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that Answer. However, does he not agree that whereas the presence of a policeman or policewoman on the streets is reassuring to members of the public going about their lawful duties, the sight of police cars speeding around with screaming sirens often has the opposite effect? I understand that the modern car siren has four different degrees of shrill tone. Can the noble Viscount further enlighten me as to when it is appropriate to use a siren both during the day and during the night?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the sound levels of sirens currently used by police vehicles in this country vary between 98 and 119 decibels, measured five metres from the vehicle. The frequencies most commonly used—the two-tone effect—are 1.6 kHz and 3 kHz. With regard to policy on their use, the Association of Chief Police Officers Traffic Committee has advised that sirens are for use on urgent assignments where there is a need to obtain a clear passage through traffic.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is not the real point of police sirens that in the course of their operational duties the police have to drive on the wrong side of the road and extremely fast; therefore they are an essential feature of safety? Is that not perhaps a little more important than noise?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is absolutely right. It is necessary for sirens to be used when police cars or motorbikes are being driven at great speed through urban areas. The siren is a way of warning people that they are coming.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, we should also consider whether the great speed is frequently desirable or necessary. Is the noble Viscount aware that the restraint to which he referred is not always apparent? The over-use of sirens runs directly contrary to what should be the central principle of policing policy; that is, to produce an atmosphere of urban calm. It produces, on the contrary, bad temper, erratic driving and febrile apprehension. There is also a widespread suspicion —I speak as someone who spent some time in indirect charge of the police—that often sirens are used not for emergencies but when people are going home to lunch.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord will know more about that than I do; after all, he was Home Secretary and presumably went home for lunch quite regularly. But I do not mean to imply that in any way he would ever use a siren for that reason. The ACPO committee stressed that the use of sirens gives the drivers of police vehicles no protection or right of way and warns that the unwarranted use of such devices will undermine the effectiveness of the equipment.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, can the noble Viscount inform the House how many complaints in reference to the misuse of sirens were received, first, in London and, secondly, nationally? Can he further tell us how many officers were disciplined for misuse of sirens in the past 12 months?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot answer any of those questions. I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does not my noble friend think that there is an odd bias against the police in this Question? There is no mention of the fire or ambulance services, which also make frequent use of these necessary devices.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend is right. The fire and ambulance services use them, as does the RNLI, the Forestry Commission when it has to put out a fire, mine rescue units and the RAF mountain, air and sea rescue services.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, how often does the Forestry Commission have to go to a fire in London?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as many times as there is a forest fire in London.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will adjourn for the Summer Recess on Thursday 16th July and return on Monday 19th October. The House will sit at 11 a.m. on Thursday 16th July.

Business of the House
3.25 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved to resolve, That this House confirms the existing procedures for the nomination of the United Kingdom delegations to the parliamentary assemblies of the Council of Europe and the Western European Union. —(Lord Wakeham.)
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I wish to intervene for a moment to say that I understand the reasoning behind the Lord Privy Seal seeking to move the resolution and ultimately I do not object to his so doing. However, he should give some consideration to recent difficulties at the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe. At its last plenary session held in Strasbourg in May the credentials of the British delegation were challenged. The British delegation then virtually stood down while the Rules and Procedure Committee of the Council of Europe considered the basis of the challenge.
The basis of the challenge was that those members who represent the British Parliament are not each of them necessarily elected by the individual constituent bodies of that Parliament. Within the Labour Party

289
those who are delegates stand for election but that is apparently not necessarily the case in the other parties concerned. Additionally, at the time of the plenary session in Strasbourg not every member of the then British delegation was a member of either House.
I put those matters to the Leader of the House. It placed the United Kingdom delegation in serious difficulty. It would be fair to say that the Rules and Procedure Committee ultimately cobbled together a typical European solution to the problem by a measure of reasonable co-operation among all concerned. I should emphasise that the issue was not party political. However, the United Kingdom delegation did not stand in good stead at that plenary session and it is a matter which the Government should consider seriously.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I do not quarrel with much of what the noble Lord has said. There was a difficulty at the last plenary session of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe. He is correct that the credentials of the UK delegation were challenged. Indeed, the purpose of my Motion is to rectify what was thought to be the deficiency in our procedures. I believe that it does that. A similar Motion was passed by another place and this Motion was discussed and agreed through the usual channels. I hope that it meets with your Lordships' approval.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can the noble Lord reveal to the House the origins of the challenge? Who made the challenge?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am not a great expert on the proceedings of the Council of Europe, but my understanding is that it was a member of the Labour Party in the House of Commons who made the challenge. His original grounds were that the Labour Party was under-represented. I believe that that matter has been resolved.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I am glad that the Government have resolved the matter for the present. However, the committee making the study enjoined the British Government to look at the method of selection. Will the Government study further the recommendations of the committee in the Council of Europe?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, we shall study all these matters. The resolution that I have tabled today is to confirm existing procedures, and those are the procedures which were agreed by all the parties in the House and indeed by the convener of the Cross-Benches.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, when I was a member of that delegation—until about four years ago—the position was that the British delegation always consisted of people who were Members of either House of Parliament. Will that be the position with the delegation which is to be nominated this time or will we take advantage of the procedure in the way that some other countries did, which means that when a person ceases to be a Member of either House he can continue as a member of the delegation for a period of perhaps up to six months afterwards? To put it
290
another way, is every member of the delegation to be either a Member of the other place or of this House? Also, when does a Member of this House actually become a Member? Is it when he or she receives a title in the Honours List or when a person takes their seat?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I believe that that may be entering an area which could keep lawyers and others much more experienced than I in work for a great length of time. As regards the delegation, the members are nominated and normally announced by the Prime Minister in another place. He would not think it right for me to anticipate what he may decide.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, nevertheless, can the noble Lord assure us that people who cease to be Members of this House will not continue to attend the Council of Europe as delegates for six months after that?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am tempted to say that I need notice of that question.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord the Leader of the House that even in the Council of Europe there is no provision for resurrection!
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, by leave of the House, I wish to make one point. I am attempting to be helpful. I accept the Motion as it stands. But in the longer term I do not believe that it will necessarily serve the Government's purpose. I make that point because one of the key issues which was debated at length by everyone is that there is not a universal ballot within this parliamentary system for Members to attend the council.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, in the spirit of the noble Lord's question, perhaps I may say to him that if the two Houses were to change to another system certain difficulties would arise in maintaining a proper balance between the two Houses and the parties' interests. I suspect that, long before I had anything to do with the matter, that is why the issue was discussed by what I have known for years as the usual channels in order to find something which was acceptable to everybody. I agree that it is possible to find an alternative way of doing it, but we have to think very carefully before we do so. We might end up with a system which produced a less satisfactory result.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Non-Domestic Rating Bill
3.33 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill honours the commitment made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Statement in another place to make important changes to the transitional arrangements for those moving to higher and lower bills under the new non-domestic rating system. The Bill was well received in another place and I hope that noble Lords will also welcome it.

291
The transitional arrangements limit the year-on-year increases in bills following the 1990 revaluation and introduction of the uniform business rate. At present the arrangements are self-financing, with limits on annual reductions for those moving to lower bills matching the cost of protecting those facing increases.
In the current economic climate we have decided to make three important changes to the transitional arrangements. First, the bills of those in transition to higher rates liabilities will be frozen in real terms this year. This breathing space will benefit nearly half a million businesses throughout the country at a cost of more than £500 million in total. This will provide substantial benefits for individual businesses. For instance, a property with a rateable value of around £50,000 could save over £6,000. Smaller properties could save up to £1,500.
Secondly, those who have yet to reach their lower liabilities under the transitional arrangements will move to their final bills more quickly. Reductions this year will be increased by 3 per cent. in England and 13 per cent. in Wales bringing total reductions for this year to 21 per cent. for large businesses and 27 per cent. for small, in real terms. This will benefit approximately 150,000 business premises this year at a cost of some £75 million; and next year, all remaining gains will flow through in full, benefiting some 75,000 businesses to the tune of an additional £290 million.
Finally, the Bill will allow property moving to higher bills to retain transitional protection even if it changes hands. This will take effect from 11th March this year. The uniform business rate provides a very good deal for businesses who have reached their full liabilities after transition. For those still moving to their final bills, the Bill provides some further welcome relief. No business will face an increase beyond 4.1 per cent. this year, and 150,000 could see their bills reduced by more than a quarter. Over the next three years businesses will benefit to the tune of some £1.25 billion. I am sure that the whole House will agree that this is excellent news for businesses. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
3.36 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I apologise to those noble Lords who are in the Chamber in the hope of seeing and hearing my noble friend Lady Hollis who is not only more beautiful but a better speaker than I am. I must also declare an interest as a director of companies which pay the national non-domestic rate. However, I understand that this is such a general interest that it does not prohibit me from speaking on this Bill.
We must make it clear that we do not oppose the Bill. We agreed at the time of the Budget that this was a sensible reform. We shall not be opposing either Second Reading or continuation through the remaining stages today. At the same time we must make it clear that this is not a local government
292
finance Bill. It is a Bill about centrally-raised finance for local government purposes. The fundamental injustice of the national non-domestic rating system remains unchanged. It is our view, just as it is the view of the Institute of Directors and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, that non-domestic business rating should be set by local authorities rather than by central Government. We would have preferred the opportunity of a non-domestic rating Bill used to remedy that evident injustice.
I was interested to hear the Minister say that the benefits to the business community would be in excess of £1.25 billion. His honourable friend Mr. Robin Squire, the Parliamentary Secretary in another place, described the package as being worth £1.25 billion. I rather suspect that if a package of this kind had been put forward by the Labour Party it would have been described as "costing" rather than being "worth" £1.25 billion. We have to be clear that the cost of this Bill is to come directly from the Exchequer. I also understand that Mr. Squire gave an undertaking, which is provided for in Clause 6 of the Bill, that the national non-domestic rate pool will be fully recompensed for the cost of these changes.
The anxiety which has been expressed to the Minister and partly assuaged is the question of rebilling costs to the local authorities. Mr. Squire gave an assurance that all reasonable costs would be reimbursed. However, it cannot be denied that there are very significant administrative costs. There has been negotiation between the local authority associations and the department about some of those costs. I believe that, as of today, any disagreement about the costs of computer programming have been resolved. I should also like the Minister to tell the House whether there is agreement about the postage costs. Many local authorities will be sending out too few notices to gain the benefit of discounted postage. I should also like to know about the cash flow element. Any rebilling tends to be accompanied—and I am sure it has been so this time—by late payment by businesses knowing that the amount is going to be changed.
I must ask whether the transitional schemes are to be a permanent feature of the national non-domestic rate. Ministers in another place were somewhat equivocal on that point. When they were asked whether the 1993 revaluation would result in transitional schemes in 1995 and thereafter, and how long those schemes would last, they could not answer. That must raise the question of whether we have found the right way of tackling this matter. After all, it was because of delays in revaluation that the valuation took place on 1st April 1990 at the height of the commercial property boom. Presumably, the situation will be very different on 1st April 1993. We must ask whether the Government feel that they have got it right now and whether they have a scheme with which they will not have to tinker in supplementary legislation.
Above all, although we do not oppose the passage of the Bill, it must be a matter of regret that the opportunity has not been taken to bring back the business rate to local government finance.
3.40 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we, too, welcome any amelioration in the burden of the business rate. We would not start from this position; unfortunately, however, we are here with a uniform business rate that has caused many problems. There has been something like a six-fold increase in the rates bills of some businesses, leading to insolvencies. Difficulties have been caused because the rate has not been set by local councils which represent their local communities and local businesses but by central government. Statutory consultation has therefore been less meaningful, given that the local authority meets its business ratepayers but has no discretion over the arrangements for the rates.
The problems of the uniform business rate have been exacerbated by the recession. The fact that the revaluation took place at the height of the boom has increased the problems now at a time of bust. The UBR has starkly pointed up differences in the effect of the recession on the South compared with the North, given that there was an endeavour to equalise the burden and to assist businesses in the North. The burden of the UBR has been greater for those in the South, and the effects of the recession have probably also been greater in the South.
The Bill proposes a standstill, not a reduction, in the rate. We on these Benches would have preferred to see a reduction. Although we admit that a cost would be attached, the benefit would have been to enable businesses to function more easily. Businesses would be assisted if the rateable value were to be reduced where it is higher than the present market rental value. A revaluation later in the life of this Parliament will not help businesses which are now struggling to stay alive.
We welcome assurances given by the Minister in another place. At col. 785 of Commons Hansard of 2nd June, the Minister said that the Government wanted a fair and sensible figure for the reimbursement of rebilling and cash flow costs. I look forward to the detailed assurances that I hope the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will be able to give the House on both those points. As I said, we do not oppose the Bill. We welcome the measures as far as they go.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to speak in a Second Reading debate on a Bill that is essentially welcomed by both opposition parties. I am delighted to be in that position today. I am also delighted that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is here although I should have been equally happy to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. I note that the noble Lord declared his interests in property companies—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no, —in companies paying the non-domestic rate, not at all the same as property companies.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. He said that it was a general interest which did not affect his ability to speak on the matter. I entirely agree.
As I said, I welcome the general welcome that the Bill has received. However, I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, have some problems with the principle of the non-domestic rate and the UBR. As we have had that discussion many times in the past, I do not propose to reopen it today.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord made some good points about the details of reimbursements for local authorities. On postage, we have not finally settled the costs, but we propose a reimbursement of 18p per property, which seems reasonable. Secondly, we shall look at the cash flow issue in the light of the first quarter data on the collection of the NNDR and will, of course, take into account any other evidence provided by the local authorities. We seek to be reasonable and fair in the distribution of costs and in the reimbursement.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked whether transitional schemes would become a permanent feature of the legislation. After the 1995 revaluation, we shall need to consider whether further transitional schemes are necessary. As the noble Lord implied, particularly large charges in hills in 1990 followed 17 years without a revaluation. Now that we have introduced a system of five-year revaluations, the swings should be much smaller and perhaps in the longer term we shall be able to do without transitional schemes.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for their contributions. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 9th June), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Dog Control and Welfare Bill [H.L.]
3.47 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill is a revival of that which I introduced into your Lordships' House in the last Session, which was given its Second Reading on 17th January last. For understandable reasons, that was hardly the occasion to continue with its Committee and remaining stages, especially as I had already said, when replying to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, at the conclusion of the debate, that I would consult further with some of my friends on this matter. So, I reintroduce the Bill today. In fact, it was loudly acclaimed when it became the first Private Member's Bill to be introduced into your Lordships' House in this Parliament on 6th May.
I have not changed the text of the Bill in a single particular from the previous version. I thought it better to stick to the text of the Bill that had received

295
its Second Reading in your Lordships' House—and that is this Bill. I know that certain suggestions have been made, possibly about scope of the proposed advisory committee's terms of reference and about other matters that might have received some further attention. However, I thought that it was undesirable to begin to alter the Bill at this stage when we are still proceeding, I hope, towards an accommodation on the matter of establishing for Ministers and Government some consultative and advisory machinery on dogs.
One of the great handicaps of the canine population is that responsibility for it in certain areas is divided between three government departments: the Home Office, the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I can tell your Lordships from long experience in discussions with representatives of those three departments on matters affecting dogs that it is a very tiresome and frustrating situation. They sometimes have different points of view about a common problem; as was the case, for example, on registration. We cannot overcome that. The fragmentation over policy on dogs was carried still further by the Government themselves when at the end of a Session they tacked on to the Environmental Protection Bill a whole slab of a discussion document that they had issued previously and asked for representations on it. They did so in order to frustrate an amendment to the Bill which would have required the Government to study the matter of universal dog registration.
We are today in the position that dangerous dog matters, and matters giving rise to criminal offences, remain with the Home Office while matters relating to the environment, local authorities, parks, public places, stray dogs and so on are with the Department of the Environment. Then there is a special section of the dog population which is the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We cannot get over that and we have to adjust our consultative machinery to that tripartite situation.
That is one of the reasons behind the idea of a dog control and welfare council. It is based almost exactly on the constitution, the reference and the activities of the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which has been in existence for a long time and has done excellent work. There are multifarious matters arising from intensive husbandry and other factors affecting livestock that lead to the desire for a considerable cover of consultation on different aspects of farm animal welfare. It may be argued that dogs are not such a wide reference. I believe that they are.
In the debate on 17th January the Minister, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, gave his reasons why the Bill was not welcomed by his department. He said:
"The Bill appears to us to be unnecessary in that it would create a statutory body to fulfil functions already carried out effectively through existing channels of consultation".
He went on to say:
"The Home Secretary already seeks and receives advice from bodies such as the RSPCA, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the British Veterinary Association and the Kennel Club. All those bodies, and others, were consulted
296
during the passage of the Dangerous Dogs Bill. Both before and since then there has been frequent constructive consultation on dangerous dogs".
He added:
"Indeed, all that might actually make the process of consultation overly bureaucratic and reduce its effectiveness. It could result in the loss of some of the flexibility that characterises some of the current arrangement. That would not be desirable".—[0fficial Report, 17/1/92; cols. 515–516.] He referred also to additional administrative work and unnecessary expense.
Those considerations lie at the root of our consideration of the Bill. I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading because if we proceed to the Committee stage some of those considerations may have to be examined in more detail. I want to put it to your Lordships that a stable, representative, reliable advisory council would be of great help to a Minister who has diverse responsibilities that may require his mind to be switched from one subject to another.
This can be a highly controversial and emotional area. The Home Secretary is particularly exposed to crises, as we saw during the dangerous dogs controversy. He stood absolutely exposed. He had nothing to rely on. He had no consultative body to depend upon. He was there battling with the conclusions, which were adverse and even abusive, about his custody of the Home Office at that time. That was a great pity because to begin with it led to ill-considered action on the part of the Home Secretary, which he had to retract. He had to bring his proposals within some semblance of practicality and acceptability, even in that difficult situation.
There is another side to this problem. Let us consider the mess the Government got into over the proposals for national registration. That all started in your Lordships' House. It was the amendment to the Environmental Protection Bill that gave rise to all the subsequent problems between the two Houses, ending with a miserable conclusion to a long drawn-out dispute between the two Houses and between the Government and both Houses. That amendment could have received more sober consideration. It did not really create a crisis or arise out of one. It was an opportunist attempt to get something into the Environmental Protection Bill that would bring the question of dogs before Parliament in a bigger way than was possible using other means. That is what happened.
In the past two years dogs have had a very bad time at the hands of Parliament. They have been downgraded. We have seen headlines such as "Devil Dogs", "Killer Dogs", and "Horror Dogs". They have had a very bad press indeed. Indeed, if we were all saddled with the crimes of the few we would have a bad, black record of conduct ourselves. But in the canine world everyone is tarred with the same brush. It was all very miserable.
I put this point to the House. There are almost as many dogs in the homes of Britain as there are children. There are 6 million dogs, and most of them are companion animals in the homes of people. That is of long tradition. Indeed, long before history began man and his dog came together and they have never been separated since. They are part of our society; they are part of the companionship of the home; they

297
are part of the training of children; and they are part of the fun of life. Yet, when misbehaviour or danger occurs, the upsurge of certain sections of the press and the media concentrates on delinquency and blackens the whole lot.
I want to raise the prestige of the canine population. They are as much entitled to be here as we are. No one has given man—at least, I do not believe so—primacy by reason of his genes or origins over any other species. It is all part of the natural world. We are all part of the animal kingdom. Therefore, we are now beginning to talk about the rights of animals. The dog has a very special relationship with man. Noble Lords who have dogs, or who have owned them, do not need to hear any further talk from me about what they mean to them and their families.
I think it is right that we should regard dogs as being in a very special category of animal life for special study, sympathetic understanding, protection and control. That is what the Bill proposes an advisory committee should do, with a wide-ranging reference to have regard to all the matters that affect dogs. I see no reason at all why such a committee as that proposed should not inquire into some very special sections of dogs; for example, show dogs, police dogs, foxhounds and greyhounds. There are many dogs being used in commercial life which, it seems to me, may also require some protection.
Therefore, on the principle of the matter, I am saying that I really do not think that it can be sustained that the existing flexible arrangements are adequate. They are not; they are pick and choose. When Ministers pick and choose their sources of consultation they cannot always satisfy us that they have contacted all of them or taken notice of those that should have been consulted.
There is nothing in the proposal which ties anyone's hands. It does not increase the bureaucracy. However, it is certainly true to say that it adds a little to public expenditure. I shall give your Lordships an idea of the perspective when any Minister begins to talk about expense. The most expensive advisory committee that we have is the Commission for Racial Equality. It costs over £14 million. The Equal Opportunities Commission costs nearly £5 million. We also have the Broadcasting Standards Council which costs £1.5 million.
The difference between those commissions and committees, and other bodies, depends largely on whether or not the members are paid. Some of the commissions are very well paid. In my view, we pay heavily for the purification of television and radio broadcasting. But the Animal Procedures Committee, which is there to safeguard animals from unnecessary suffering and which was established under the 1986 Act, costs only £29,000. The Farm Animal Welfare Council costs £80,000. There is no expense factor in the proposal; indeed, it is so negligible as not to be reckoned as part of the debate. None of the people involved will be paid any more than the members of the Farm Animal Welfare Council are paid. They receive travelling expenses and give their services voluntarily. The proposed council would be in no better a position.
298
As regards the main issue, I do not want to find myself stumbling over the niceties of flexibility of consultation, bureaucracy or the form of consultation. I want to secure stability, representativeness and an obligation on the part of the Minister to consult and to take opinion into account when reaching decisions on controversial matters. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 requires the Minister to consult representative bodies (which are not specified) before coming to the House with draft orders for extended action. But, there again, it is completely up to him where he goes for his consultation. He decides whether to see such bodies in conjunction with others or separately. It is for him to decide whether he places more reliance on one piece of advice than on another. That selective form of flexibility does not appeal to me. It should not be regarded as the normal relationship and form of consultation between Ministers and interests in controversial and continuing matters. Everything can be brought together, discussed and looked at in perspective.
I should like to ask the Minister whether he has any further thoughts on the matter, because I have. He may wish to know what they are, but I cannot enlarge upon them this afternoon because I am in the course of further talks with my friends in that connection. However, I have something to say—that is, if there is a Minister of the requisite rank to listen. I want to do business on the matter. I hope that the response of the Government will be a willingness to listen to what that business can be. Therefore, I await what the Minister has to say about his receptiveness to anything that may come his way, or the way of other Ministers, in the very near future.
I believe that the reinforcement of the position by giving the Bill a Second Reading this afternoon is very important. I do not want to burn my boats entirely by going into the clutches of ministerial consultation, but I am most anxious that something new should come out of this debate. I believe that I may have a new model of consultation which may well be a replacement for much of the conventional type of consultation that we have had in the past. However, I shall have to leave the matter there. I am sorry that I cannot round it off. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response and, if he encourages me, then I may advance a little further.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
4.8 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, perhaps I may first apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and to the House for my late arrival in the Chamber which caused me to miss the first part of his speech. However, one must admire the noble Lord for his sincerity of purpose in proposing the Bill and also for his determination—if I may say, his dogged determination—in bringing forward once again the issue of the control and welfare of dogs.
It is well acknowledged that the noble Lord has a strong attachment to many organisations that are concerned with dogs and animal welfare. Throughout the years he has put forward very powerful arguments

299
for organisations to do more than they do for dog welfare. I have in mind such organisations as the British Veterinary Association, the RSPCA, the Kennel Club and the national Canine Defence League, of which I believe he is a vice-president.
In a previous debate on this Bill I was able to give it only qualified support since I felt that the proposed council was merely an additional organisation among the many which exist and which have much common ground on the question of dogs and dog control. I am not sure that I have moved from that position, although possibly I have moved a little in the noble Lord's direction rather than in the opposite direction. If the Bill succeeds or there comes out of it something of use in terms of a council, it could well draw together a number of loose threads in the field of dog welfare and control which would benefit the dogs individually and our society in general.
The dog's role in society must be an important one since there are some 7 million of them in the country and there are 5 million households which own a dog. That is some indication of the role of this animal in our society. There is every indication that that number will increase substantially over the coming decade.
Should there be some kind of council as proposed by the noble Lord, one of its first tasks might well be the consolidation of the legislation concerned with the dog. There are somewhere in the region of 30 pieces of legislation scattered somewhat disparately over the legislative network and it is at times difficult to draw them all together. A second area could well be the fostering of research on the role of the dog in society. With such a substantial presence we need to know much more about the role that the dog plays in companionship and in the health of the community.
Much attention has been focused over the past few months and years through the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 on the dangers of dogs—for instance, the transmission of disease such as visceral larva migrans (the nematode of dogs causing eye disease in children) and hydatid disease in Wales and so on. But a vast amount of good results from the presence of the dog in our society which we are only beginning to understand. For example, recent work has shown that the ownership of a dog results in an individual having a significant reduction in minor illnesses over a period of time; and of course there is the well-known work in the United States that indicates that the possession of a companion animal will substantially and significantly increase the lifespan of an individual who has had a heart attack.
One particular area that this council could facilitate is that of research into the dog—not only of dog diseases but dog welfare too. I recognise that the noble Lord is not proposing that this be a funding agency. There are other agencies that one goes to. But there is no natural home for a research proposal on dogs in this country other than the charitable institutions. Here one must pay tribute to organisations such as the Wellcome Trust and the charitable arms of various organisations such as the British Veterinary Association which have funded research into animal disease.
300
Of particular note about this research is its comparative aspect, where much of interest to human health can derive from the study of naturally occurring entities in the dog. They are the natural components of the dog; they are natural examples of disease, shall we say. They are certainly sentinels of the environment in which we live because dogs generally share that environment, sometimes very closely indeed.
A further area which still requires urgent attention is that of breeding and what might be referred to as the mutilation of dogs for fad and fancy. Fortunately the dog show world is coming to terms with the more objectionable aspects of breeding or the alteration of normal conformation of an animal for cosmetic purposes. This House has already debated that some time ago. This is a distortion of the proper and responsible stewardship that we should show to dogs.
Finally, should the Bill go forward, or something come out of it such as a council, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, might accept a wider definition of the dog than at present and perhaps include cats as well, since so many of his intentions with the Bill affect companion animals as a whole, not only the dog. Therefore there is a wider issue than merely dogs with respect to companion animals in society.
I hope that this does not die as a concept and though my noble friend the Minister may have ideas of not letting the Bill go forward, I hope that some positive development may occur as a result of the noble Lord's Bill.
4.17 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches support the Bill in the main as it has been presented by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I should like to say how well and how comprehensively he introduced it. I absolutely agree with him that dogs have had a rough ride in recent times. The problems have been misunderstood and misrepresented in the media. There has also been recent legislation, and most of us in the Chamber today took part in the debates during the progress of the Dangerous Dogs Bill. That Act can hardly be viewed as entirely satisfactory. Indeed, there have been several cases of injustice as a result of its implementation. It was far too limited in its scope. That could be something to be considered by the council which is suggested in the noble Lord's Bill.
The major problem, as I think most noble Lords agree, that strikes the public concerns the strays and abandoned dogs which appear in increasing numbers on our streets. This implies a lack of responsible ownership in many quarters. Again that is something which a council could look at in detail and which could, when required, advise the Government when they are considering legislation.
That dovetails in with what the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, has just said in what was an interesting and, as one would expect, well informed speech. I agree with him that one of the major roles of a council of this kind would be research into, as I think he expressed it, the role of dogs as pets in society. As

301
the proud owner of two Abyssinians, I am glad that he added cats. In a family environment pets are extremely valuable. I remain to be persuaded of whether they prevent minor illnesses or diseases, but I take the noble Lord's word for it. I know that it is a happy and enjoyable experience to have a pet in the family, whether it be a dog or a cat. The lack of responsibility and the selfishness of many pet owners may have something to do with the falling apart of the family structure. The way we treat our children and our dogs may have some relevance. That is also a point which the proposed council could address.
The council could tackle the whole business of identifying stray dogs and returning them to their owners. The case was fought long and hard in your Lordships' House and in another place for the introduction of some kind of registration scheme. Such a scheme has been steadfastly resisted by Her Majesty's Government, mainly, I fancy, on the grounds of cost. Of course cost is a factor, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said, but it is a cost which will somehow have to be borne sooner or later.
The means of identifying dogs are becoming more sophisticated. The tagging of dogs by microchip technology is being perfected. I believe that we shall see on the market in the near future a cheap and effective way of implanting a minute tag into a dog so that it can be scanned by the appropriate authorities to identify it and its owner. That database might contain other information such as whether the dog has been immunised against various diseases. I would not omit rabies. In France, the law requires that a dog is vaccinated by a veterinary surgeon, and that information goes on to a computer. That in itself forms a kind of registration of dogs.
We have discussed the iniquitous area of puppy farming. There is cruelty in some cases, but not all. There are unscrupulous puppy breeders who breed dogs in deplorable conditions. They are passed on to pet shops, where the environment is unsuitable for keeping dogs humanely. That again is a subject which could be dealt with.
All in all, from these Benches we agree that there is a need for the Government to be better informed about dogs and pets generally. The proposal would be an excellent way of moving ahead. More information would be at the disposal of government to ensure that when legislation is necessary it is the right legislation which may be more effective than Acts such as the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, as is usual in the case of a Private Member's Bill, the Labour Party takes a neutral stance, and so I speak for myself alone. Perhaps I may again remind your Lordships of the words of the poet Juvenal when he writes in his seventh satire "crambe repetita", which for the benefit of those of your Lordships who did not pay close attention in their Latin lessons at school I may translate loosely as yesterday's cabbage warmed up and served again. The poet Juvenal did not like "crambe repetita". I find that it can be made palatable, but I mention it only to illustrate that almost
302
everything which can be said about the Bill was said on its previous Second Reading and was said extremely well. But since what we on these Benches regard as a little local difficulty intervened on 9th April, we have perforce to reconsider it before—as I hope we may—we assist it on its way.
My noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby has, with his customary clarity and power, laid out the principal reasons why the Bill would assist in the control and welfare of the nation's estimated 7.4 million dogs. I quote the figure received this morning from the RSPCA. There is no need to adduce evidence that such measures are increasingly necessary. The RSPCA estimates that some 1,000 dogs have to be killed every day, and I for one fully support the shock tactics that it was forced to use in its advertising to bring that horrific fact home to the public conscience. Similarly, the regular media reports of terrible acts of cruelty inflicted on dogs, and the almost routine peril of dogs abandoned on motorways after Christmas each year require us, as a civilised nation, to do all that we can for the welfare of our dogs; and the proposed dog control and welfare council will be a simple but powerfully effective and cost-effective step in the right direction.
As my noble friend Lord Houghton pointed out on 17th January, the very existence of such a council would point the way towards a calmer and more considered approach to the issue of dog control and welfare. Dogs are a very emotive issue in this country, and they always have been. Problems such as the treatment of stray dogs and the activities of dog wardens rouse high passions in the populace very quickly, and all too often precipitate action takes place which might not have taken place if there were calmer and more considered thought.
An expert, trusted, accountable, visible and, above all, disinterested council along the lines proposed would be an excellent way to deter precipitate and rash action (on the part both of individuals and of Her Majesty's Government) and to allow wiser counsels to emerge and eventually to prevail. At the very least, a council would permit the Government, when under violent attack from an outraged public on some matter of canine concern, and when the radio, television and newspapers are in a ferment about what the Government are going to do, to perform the classic rugby football manoeuvre and "kick it into touch".
Such an issue might well be the existence and regulation of puppy farms, as the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said. From time to time public fury erupts when some spectacularly cruel or negligent example comes to light, and the authorities, local and national, are bidden to do something about it. The trouble is that any single example can be dealt with, and almost invariably is, and then the matter slips from the pages of the newspapers and from the forefront of the public conscience. But cruel puppy farms continue to exist and to proliferate. There is no overall solution to the problem. I should be interested to know how many Home Office officials are permanently or principally involved with regulating an often dubious trade. If the Minister has an answer

303
to that question—he does not seem to have an answer to many of the questions that I have asked this afternoon—I should be pleased to hear from him.
A dog control and welfare council could, and would of necessity, keep an issue such as puppy farming under continuous and vigilant review. Nothing would deter bad rearers of puppies more certainly than the knowledge that there was the vigilant eye of a regulatory body perpetually kept upon them.
Again, should we not learn a lesson, as the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, wisely said, from the passage of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991? It was a textbook example of legislation conceived as a result of a public outcry which was prepared in haste and amended on the hoof. In this case perhaps I should say "on the paw". At one time we were threatened with a great slaughter of dogs which would have made Herod's massacre of the innocents look like a chimpanzees' tea party. Then everything that was potentially dangerous had to be muzzled. One owner found himself in peril of the full majesty of the law when he took off his dog's muzzle to let the poor beast drink.
It must be admitted that there were injustices and absurdities which could have been avoided if the problem had been approached in a calmer, more informed and more rational fashion. Just such qualities would be the hallmark of the council which this Bill proposes. What is more, such a council would be able to anticipate likely causes of concern and identify problems needing legislative intervention. It would not simply follow with a knee-jerk reaction something raised by the newspapers or bawled out on television. It could be proactive in these matters and advise the Government in advance of trouble likely to occur.
To take one small example, I am informed that at the moment it is entirely unclear who, if anyone, is responsible for ensuring that a dog injured in a traffic accident receives veterinary attention. Precisely because this question falls between the responsibilities of the police, the driver and the veterinary profession, it will not be addressed or solved. A dog control and welfare council could be required to advise the Government on the best solution, after having consulted those concerned dispassionately, disinterestedly and on the Government's behalf.
When your Lordships debated the Bill on 17th January, we heard a rousing, nay, almost ferocious speech, from the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. He said, among other things:
"if there is one matter that the Government have failed to address or on which they do not have any coherent policy, it must be dog welfare and control. Certainly that must come top of the list for ineptitude".—[Official Report, 17/1/92; col. 509.]
The noble Lord has a most powerful bark and I wish he had been here this afternoon to bark again. On that occasion, he declared his hope that the Minister,
"will be able to say that the Government will give serious consideration to setting up such a council".
Though he did not go so far, the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, gave then and has
304
reiterated today his qualified support for my noble friend's Bill. I take comfort from the noun, though I wish he could have done without the adjective. Nevertheless, the support is welcome, even when it is qualified. He expressed the hope then that the Government would do something to consolidate the legislation dealing with dogs in this country. He pointed to 30 pieces of legislation which already exist, a point which he made once again strongly this afternoon.
I argue that advice and guidance on such consolidation would be exactly what the proposed council would be best placed to give. However, all in all, those who spoke on 17th January had considerable sympathy with the philosophy behind my noble friend's Bill. No one spoke flatly against it and no one has today.
On 17th January, in his reply at col. 515, the noble Viscount considered the Bill to be unnecessary,
"in that it would create a statutory body to fulfil functions already carried out effectively through existing channels of consultation".
I make no apology for repeating the words already quoted by my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby because they are important. If I may say so with the gravest and most profound respect, those words represent a statement which tastes blandly of the smoothest and most perfectly puréed complacency of which our superb Civil Service is capable. That the functions are not carried out effectively is proved by the perpetual dissatisfaction of so many who care about animal welfare. That the channels of consultation have become blocked by the detritus of the traffic through them, with no one available to pull the flush but my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, can equally be demonstrated.
The noble Viscount went on to say, again at col. 515:
"The Home Secretary already seeks and receives advice from bodies such as the RSPCA, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the British Veterinary Association and the Kennel Club".
I am sure that the noble Viscount will agree that we on these Benches always try to be helpful to the Government in their pursuit of truth and justice. I have in that same spirit tried to be helpful on this occasion. I have caused all four of those bodies to be consulted at official level very recently on the question of whether or not they support my noble friend's Bill. I hope that the noble Viscount will find the results of my inquiries helpful and definitive, though he may also find them surprising.
It did not surprise me to learn that the Kennel Club was not in favour of my noble friend's Bill since it is known that it regards it as a movement in the direction of dog registration, to which it is opposed. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons said that it had not been consulted on the Bill, but one of its administrators said that he thought that the college would not be opposed to it. The British Veterinary Association supports the Bill wholeheartedly and thinks it a good idea: and the RSPCA is in print as saying that it,
"Wholeheartedly supports Lord Houghton's Dog Control and Welfare Bill".

305
So, of the organisations which the Home Secretary usually consults, 2.5 support my noble friend's Bill and 1.5 either oppose it or seem neutral. Thus, 62.5 per cent. of those consulted are in favour of the Bill; and I hope that the Government, who were elected to power on 9th April by 42 per cent. of the vote, will have no difficulty in agreeing to my noble friend's Bill and giving it a fair wind, which I now invite the noble Viscount formally to do.
4.36 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, before the noble Viscount replies, perhaps I may express support for the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. It is interesting to hear statistics about how many dogs there are in the country. Between 1990 and 1995, a 20 per cent. increase in the dog population is expected. Although during the past few years we have been discussing dog legislation including what became the Dangerous Dogs Act, as well as the necessity for dog wardens, over 200 district councils do not have a single dog warden. I totally support the Bill and hope it becomes law.
4.38 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to have the opportunity again to discuss animal matters, particularly dogs, with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. As your Lordships have reminded us, he has long been an effective advocate on behalf of the animal kingdom in your Lordships' House.
The Bill before us today is identical to that introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, during the last Parliament. That Bill was debated in your Lordships' House five months ago and received its Second Reading. However, the Government felt unable to support it. In the Government's view, nothing has happened in the intervening period which suggests that they should change their attitude.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will therefore not be surprised to hear that the Government's reservations about the need for a statutory council and the amendment to Section 2 of the Dangerous Dogs Act as proposed by the Bill still remain. Accordingly, much of what I can say is a re-statement of the Government's position and our reservations about the Bill.
It is the Government's view that the existing statutory-based flexible arrangements for consultation on dog related and other animal matters work well. I am not persuaded that the replacement of the non-statutory arrangements by a statutory body would be an improvement on the present arrangements. The Home Secretary already consults—this has been pointed out today—with organisations such as the RSPCA, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the British Veterinary Association, the Kennel Club and others as necessary to ensure that he has access to expert opinion on dog related matters. Indeed all the aforementioned were among those consulted during the passage of the Dangerous Dogs Bill last year.
306
Those bodies and others with an interest in dog issues have over the years offered advice to the Government. The Government value this contact. I have no doubt that the bodies will continue to approach the Government on particular issues of concern to them. The setting up of the dog control and welfare council would result in much additional administrative work and added expense. It would introduce a further layer of administration into the existing arrangements which we are not convinced would be offset by any potential benefit.
As the Government have made clear, we consider that the present arrangements operate well. We shall continue to consult as we do at present with appropriate bodies on dog related matters. All the bodies that care about these matters are quick to approach the Government when they are concerned about certain issues. I am sure that the House will be aware of the Government's continuing work on dog issues. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, when he says that dogs have been downgraded. As noble Lords will be aware, since the beginning of this year when a similar measure came before the House, the dog related provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 have come into operation. From 1st April 1992 local authorities have had a new duty to collect and detain stray dogs and to enforce the existing requirement for dogs to wear a collar and tag when in a public place.
There has for the first time been a national government initiative in England and Wales to promote responsible dog ownership and to encourage owners to clear up after their dogs. The local authorities do much already but the Government felt that this needed a national boost. Accordingly the Government, working in conjunction with the Pet Advisory Committee, of which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is president, the Tidy Britain Group and the Pet Food Manufacturers Association have provided campaign material for use by local authorities and others. Those are examples of recent government initiatives in the area of dog welfare which we shall continue to pursue.
As was the case when the Bill last came before the House, noble Lords have raised a number of interesting points. My noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior made particularly interesting points. My noble friend has great expertise in animal matters, particularly animal health matters. I am sure we all welcome the valuable contribution he always makes in these debates.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, started with a quotation in Latin about the desirability of yesterday's cabbage. I always thought cabbage was used to make bubble and squeak which is a delicious dish. Today, the noble Lord has both bubbled and squeaked, as well as barked perhaps. He has made a number of points. I was interested in his comments on polls. The noble Lord mentioned the poll he had conducted of interested parties. I now understand how the pollsters were entirely wrong as regards the election result and why the party of the noble Lord was so totally misled by the findings. The noble Lord

307
asked about regulating dog breeding establishments. That is a matter for local authority inspectors rather than Home Office officials.
As I made clear, we do not claim that the present consultation arrangements on dog related matters cannot be improved; nor do we claim that we are inflexible in these matters. We are not instinctively attracted to the idea of even a non-statutory standing committee which could be expensive to run and the need for which we do not believe has yet been demonstrated. It could simply generate unnecessary work and distract attention from the other important issues in the field of animal welfare with which the Government are concerned.
But our minds are not closed. We are ready to discuss the matter further with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I repeat the undertaking I gave on the previous occasion the Bill came before your Lordships' House to consider any suggestions for improvement that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, or any other noble Lord, may wish to make to us. Indeed earlier this year in this House the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said he hoped that informal contacts could be established with the Government to see how to take the matter forward. We would be delighted for that to happen and we look forward to the noble Lord and his representatives coming to see us. Dogs are special, and so are cats. In view of what I have said today I hope that the noble Lord will consider this approach.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am almost moved to say that the Home Office is incorrigible, but there seems to be a glimmer of light in the response that the noble Viscount has made that leads me to want to pursue this matter. I have been on this long, long trail for 18 years now and I have experienced many disappointments and frustrations on the way. I have said on previous occasions that there are some things in parliamentary affairs that prove almost too much for the patience even of one who has been in this business for as long as I have. The noble Viscount has a brief that was prepared for him before he had heard a single word said today. There is something about our form of administration which requires pulling apart. When the noble Viscount talks about the Government I should like to know who in the Government has taken the decision.
I felt rather upset last night when I received a telephone message from someone who was writing an article on this Bill for a newspaper. He said he had been talking to officials of fairly high standing at the Home Office who had made it clear that they did not want this Bill. I said I was aware of that. No Minister seems to be able to get through that attitude of not wanting the Bill. I say with great respect that I am not taking an answer on behalf of the Government which may represent only what the officials do not want.
It seems to me that the Home Office, and probably other ministries too, only respond when they are pressed or frightened. The former Home Secretary appointed more committees of inquiry than any Home Secretary I remember. Almost every other day he
308
appointed an independent committee of inquiry to look into something. A phrase used in ministerial circles that is becoming almost criminal is, "It must never happen again". There is no foresight, no anticipation of events and no vision on trends of what is happening in the world or in the country. Ministers pass from crisis to crisis and in the meantime are hard pressed to keep pace with current work. I am realistic. I have been in this business for a long time and I have seen this process happen. One cannot emerge from such dealings without a fairly strong streak of cynicism about how it all works. The public sometimes must feel as impatient as I do with the kind of response that comes from the combination of governmental responsibility and political expediency.
However, this is a non-party issue. We are dealing with a problem and we are all involved in it in the same way. The difference between us now seems to boil down to the following. There has to be consultation and there is consultation, but is it adequate? Can it be improved upon, and how can that be done? Until now I have prescribed the conventional response to the desire for closer, more stable and representative consultation by means of an advisory committee. Administration is littered with them, some more important than others. However, Ministers want advice and they cannot always obtain it from within the department. Therefore, they look for advice that they can rely on, but in some cases the advice comes from so many quarters, or there are so many interests involved, that it is desirable to bring the advisers together.
For years I wondered why the anti-vivisection organisations were so frustrated and engaged in such futile activities in their opposition to experimentation on animals. It was because they did not come together. A Home Secretary, who is now in this House, told me, "I will see a representative body but I will not see one body and then have to see half a dozen others". He almost insisted that they should come together before any business could be done with him as Home Secretary. It was then that I formed a body, which has continued ever since—the Committee for the Reform of Animal Experimentation. By bringing the individual organisations together we reached the Home Secretary, and having achieved that we began to make progress.
The bodies we have been talking about this afternoon have come together. I believe that they can remain together and become more effective in that way. It is that which I want to develop.
Of course, I shall accept what the Minister said, but I shall not enter talks with officials who are opposed to the measure. If I talk to the Government I want to do so at the right level, otherwise I do not have the time for it—nor the inclination. Therefore, I hope that the noble Viscount will convey to his superiors the content of this debate, which has been admirable. I am extremely grateful for the response of noble Lords this afternoon. Their speeches were all better than mine because they were better informed. It is their view, not mine, which should carry the day following the debate this afternoon. However, I am quite prepared to be the

309
spokesman or to introduce those who want the consultations initiated by the Home Secretary to be more representative.
The Home Secretary's record on dogs over the past two years has been deplorable. We should not forget that when we consider the future. The present policy has not worked satisfactorily. To begin with it did not work at all, as my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris pointed out a few moments ago.
I shall leave the matter there. I shall certainly take up the Minister's invitation—in a bigger way than the noble Viscount probably intended or thought possible. I shall push the door open wider than he has left it, and if it closes on me I shall try to kick it open. At any rate, I have a positive approach in mind and I hope to receive a positive response.
That is probably the last word that I need to say in this debate. I hope that your Lordships will give a Second Reading to this Bill and at least show that you mean business even if the Government do not.
On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Royal Assent
4.53 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aylestone): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Mauritius Republic Act,

Non-Domestic Rating Act,

Pittenweem Harbour Order Confirmation Act,

Mersey Docks and Harbour Act,

British Railways (No. 2) Act.

The European Fighter Project
4.54 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is the future of the European Fighter project.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the subject changes now from dog welfare to defence welfare. I only wish that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, was taking part in the debate.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for agreeing to this short debate on the European Fighter Aircraft at relatively short notice. I am also indebted to other noble Lords who have indicated that they wish to take part. I recall asking the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, a question on the F-111 project a long time ago when he was Minister for the Royal Air Force. I am delighted that he is taking part today. I am also delighted to see the name of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne on the list of speakers: he was the Minister responsible for putting together the development partnership for EFA in 1988. I am sure that he will be characteristically robust in his comments on recent events which have called into question the future of EFA. That is the purpose of the debate.
EFA is the sixth major European aerospace project put together over the past 25 years. Concorde, the
310
Airbus, the Jaguar, the Tornado, the EH I helicopter and now EFA, demonstrate clearly that the aerospace industries of Europe can collaborate successfully. There are obviously many difficulties relating to design leadership, the sharing of know-how and co-ordination, but the results have shown that there is a European aerospace industry which works, which retains the capacity for high technology design and which competes successfully and effectively against the United States.
The House will recall that EFA, known then by different initials, was a ghost concept in the 1970s and came alive when strategic requirements were agreed among the NATO partners. France remained independent but in 1988 agreement was reached among four partners—Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain—to develop and eventually order for service an indicative figure of 750 aircraft or more.
I gather that the development stage of the project has gone extremely well with no long delays or large budget increases. Flight tests are due to start late this summer. It is always at the stage when governments have to commit production finance and when people in the Treasury are sharpening their pencils that projects are at their most vulnerable to threats of cancellation or withdrawal. EFA has proved no exception.
The German Government announced last month that they were reviewing the possibility of withdrawing from the project altogether. Germany has a 30 per cent. share in the development stage at present. More ominously, the German Defence Minister stated that he would advise his government to withdraw on two grounds: first, that Germany could not afford its share of the cost of the project in view of the heavy burden of reunification; and, secondly, that the aircraft was no longer required because the Cold War was over.
I do not know whether the German military support the second reason. I am sure that from our air staff downwards few would accept a proposition so dangerous to our own security and that of Europe. Never before have we faced such political instability within Europe as we do now following the liberalisation of Eastern Europe which has unleashed ethnic rivalries, territorial disputes and a serious threat of economic, social and political turmoil. We have a wounded elephant on our doorstep in the shape of Russia, still with the most powerful military force in the world and with a very fragile political leadership bolstered up, temporarily perhaps, by cocktail parties in Washington. Recent experience in the Gulf war proved air superiority to be of paramount importance. Finally, the Middle East shows no signs of tranquillity or peace.
All of that uncertainty reinforces the need for a credible level of security. I humbly believe that the requirement for a new aircraft remains as good today as it was in 1988. It would be much appreciated, I am sure, if my noble friend could leave us tonight in no doubt that that is the view of Her Majesty's Government.
I hope very much that Germany will reconsider the consequences of withdrawal. Politically in Europe it would be very damaging and misunderstood. It would

311
cast doubts on the credibility of the German commitment towards European unity and co-operation despite all that Germany has said in the past to the contrary. The decision could not have come at a worse time, following the Danish referendum. European member countries need to show leadership and unity in Europe at this time and not cast doubts on commitments, particularly those of a member with the strongest economy in the Community.
If the EFA should be cancelled what are the options for the Royal Air Force in replacing its ageing fleet within the next seven years? None appears very attractive. There are two Russian aircraft—the Su-27 and the MiG-29—which are both very sophisticated and no doubt available to the Middle East. However, there are obviously doubts about spare parts availability. There is the F-22, the Stealth bomber, which, with support costs, could cost, I am told, some three times the amount of the EFA. There is also the French Rafale, which I understand would not meet our requirements. Then, I suspect there is the Treasury favourite: prolonging the life of existing aircraft.
None of those options is a good one for the Royal Air Force. Therefore, what happens if Germany, followed by Spain, pulls out of EFA? What is the contingency plan of Her Majesty's Government and what prospects are there for sales of aircraft beyond the partners. I hope that my noble friend can say something about that. I ask him specifically: if Germany withdraws, does it expect to be repaid for its share of the development costs?
Finally, I mention our long-suffering aerospace industry. Despite the cancellation of projects in the past, it remains a uniquely successful industry. It has retained its capability; it is in the forefront of technology design. Above all, it achieves very important and impressive export orders. The EFA is all important to the future of our military aerospace industry. Fifty thousand jobs depend on the programme. In my view it is unthinkable to consider cancellation of the project because of German wobbling. I hope that my noble friend will take the opportunity in his reply to reaffirm that view.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for raising this issue. I hope that we shall receive a forthright answer from the Government. That is what is called for.
A debate on a fighter aircraft for the RAF takes me back to times when this House debated the TSR-2 and other great issues and when things were very different. In those days there was an enemy in sight. Today there is no enemy in sight. But that does not mean that there is no threat. The European Fighter Aircraft is an essential component in the stability and safety of our civilisation.
It is a political issue, but it is not a political issue for this country. It is a political issue for Germany. I should like to put the case, as an Englishman who is very much committed to German welfare, of its importance to Germany. The considerations are well argued and well known in Germany. It looks as
312
though there is a real danger that Germany, which has been of such strength in Western defence, may fail on this occasion. It is not only the fighter that is involved; the German air force needs a fighter anyway. The whole security component of Western civilisation is at stake. That is what we are considering. We do not need to argue at length, or as long as my noble friend argued about the dogs, because the issues are clear. There is no party difference. Some of my colleagues may take a more pacifist view, and it is a legitimate point of view. But I believe that the Labour Party strongly supports the creation of the European Fighter.
The damage to Germany will be immense. If the Germans pull out, at risk are not merely the loss of the fighter aircraft, the threat to the whole of the West and the danger of leaving us in an exposed position without an adequate aircraft to meet an unknown threat from unknown aircraft which are manufactured we know not where (though some may have an idea of where they may come from); it will also threaten the solidity of Western Europe and our allies.
I hope very much that the Government will make clear that this is an international issue to which the British lend their full support, with full sympathy and understanding of the problems of the Germans. The Germans do not wish to spend the money. They have to consider the enormous expense involved in looking after Eastern Germany. Nonetheless, their part in this project is essential. Therefore, I strongly support the noble Earl's efforts and hope that your Lordships will encourage the Government to take the right action.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I join in the gratitude expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for raising the matter at this particular moment. The European Fighter Aircraft programme is a programme of the very highest importance. I do not think it an exaggeration to say that it is by far the most important defence procurement programme in prospect at the present time.
As my noble friend said, the development programme for this aircraft started as far back as 1988. Although the flying part of the programme has not yet been completed, clearly a very substantial part of the development stage of the programme is complete and very large sums of money have already been spent. Until now, at least, it has been an excellent example of European collaboration. It builds upon the excellent groundwork of the Tornado programme, although of course with the addition of our Spanish friends.
The decision in 1988 to proceed with the development programme was not easily or hastily reached. On the contrary, to be truthful even at that time our German friends were to some extent less than wholly convinced about the programme. I recall being involved in some very heated arguments about the merits of a particular radar set, about some of the decisions relating to the engine fit and other such important aspects. Just before the inauguration of the development phase our partners arrived at what were

313
called the Turin parameters. Those were a number of important criteria which, it was agreed, had to be met if the programme were to proceed successfully. Those parameters related to the weight, size and performance of the aeroplane. I hope that when my noble friend comes to reply he will tell us that those parameters have been met and the anxieties that were then expressed about them have been overcome.
As I said, the important part of the development programme is now complete. Most of the money, or a large part of it, has been expended. So what would be the outcome if our German friends decided that they could not proceed beyond the present position? It is widely assumed that the programme at that point would collapse. But I wonder whether that is the case. Would it be possible for the programme to proceed without German participation? Presumably they would not be entitled to have their contribution repaid, though no doubt they would seek to do so. As the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, it would perhaps do more damage to the Germans than it would to the other partners in the programme. It would undermine Germany's credibility as a reliable collaborative partner and would not do much for collaboration generally.
Having said that, I have always taken the view that collaboration is not an end in itself; it is a means to an end. There have been some appallingly unsuccessful collaborative programmes. I am thinking, for example, of the infamous and ill-fated NFR-90 programme, which was designed to produce a new frigate for the 1990s. No fewer than nine nations were involved in that programme and, believe it or not, nine different frigates were to emerge from it.
Much of the development cost has now been met. Therefore, it follows that if the Germans were to withdraw we should he moving to the production phase fairly soon; or at least having to make commitments towards the production phase fairly soon. Of course, there would have to be some redistribution of design responsibility as we moved into the production phase and no doubt a resharing of production responsibilities. I recall that it was intended that there should be two assembly lines for the aircraft as and when production began. If the Germans withdraw, clearly that will not be necessary; we shall have a single assembly line here in the United Kingdom. Doubtless the other partners will wish to have an additional share in the production if they are to take an additional share in the programme.
One of the important aspects of the programme that has not yet been finalised is the question of how many aircraft are to be manufactured. I know that the United Kingdom's decision on the matter had not been made when I was in the Ministry of Defence. I dare say that matters are clearer now. However, it must be recognised that the production costs are inevitably controlled by the number of aircraft which are eventually ordered.
My noble friend Lord Kinnoull referred in his opening remarks to the industrial implications of the programme. Indeed, they are enormous. The programme is far and away the biggest presently in prospect for British Aerospace. I imagine that it is the
314
largest programme in prospect for Rolls-Royce, which is the lead partner as regards the engine. I dare say that other major British manufacturers also regard the programme as important. Therefore, it is essential to consider the number of jobs that are involved not only as regards the United Kingdom but also as regards the other partners.
Finally, I wish to touch on the question of the requirement, a matter referred to by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull. By that I mean the operational requirement of the aeroplane. It is manifestly obvious that the threat which was faced as recently as 1988 has since changed out of all recognition. I hope that my noble friend Lord Cranborne will give the House an indication of the work that has been done to reassess the nature of the threat which the aircraft will face. In addition, I hope that he will convince us, as I am sure he can, that the capability of the aircraft will meet the threat as we perceive it to be when the aircraft comes into service.
The programme is crucially important for both the Royal Air Force and the industrial concerns behind it. Therefore, I hope that the Government will persist with it wholeheartedly and will not necessarily be wholly discouraged if, in the event, our German friends withdraw.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, when the project was first conceived in the late 1970s there was considerable justification for it. I hope to show your Lordships that that justification has disappeared and that today the entire project has become extremely undesirable and a total waste of money. I hope that the Government will take that view on board and will reach the conclusion that on this occasion the Germans have made the right decision. I further hope that, instead of trying to persuade the Germans to the contrary, the Government will join them in stopping the waste of money which the Germans see as being involved in the venture.
Perhaps I may go back to the beginning. The RAF had been flying Jaguars for some time during the 1970s and 1980s. They were used mainly in a ground attack role for at least a decade. That was an Anglo/French collaborative project and it was designed in the mid- to late 1960s. It was given a long gestation period because all such collaborative projects take longer than anyone expects. At that early stage it was decided—and now one thinks, wisely—to plan a successor for the 1990s.
At first it was thought that the Jaguar replacement would be a very different type of aircraft. Later other possibilities were included; for instance, purchase from the United States was considered, and so forth. No firm decision was taken but towards the end of the 1970s the situation began to firm up. The decision to go ahead with the project which we are now discussing was taken in 1981 against a background of heightened East/West tension. There had been the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan and developments of Soviet military capability which were then seen as threatening NATO security.

315
In the 1981 RAF debate, the then Minister of State, Mr. Blaker, stated:
"The Soviet tactical air forces have also been greatly enhanced and now number about 5,000 aircraft".
He went on to describe them. In speaking about one of those aircraft, called a Fencer, he said that it:
"is a light bomber with the ability to carry a heavy weapon load over long distances and in certain flight profiles could reach South-East England. By the middle of this decade we expect 1,000 of these aircraft to be available".
Of course, that did not happen. Mr. Blaker continued by saying:
"When one takes into account the greatly improved avionics and increasing accuracy of their [Soviet] weapons and delivery systems, the threat from the air to the United Kingdom and NATO can be seen to be great and continually increasing".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/6/81; col. 149.]
How does that compare with the situation today? What is great and continually increasing? What actual threat do we face? The truth of the matter is that we are into a situation and the reason why we do not want to get out of it is not in itself totally invalid; it is simply because we are in it! That poses problems all round. A great deal of money has been invested in the project. We do not need the project any more; we have no purpose for it whatever.
In addition, employment is involved. We have witnessed the rather sad spectacle of Labour Members of Parliament who have a constituency interest going to the German Embassy and threatening the Germans with a breakdown in international relations between the two countries if they dare to pull out of the project. In other words, they were saying, "If you are sensible, if you are not as silly as we are and continue with something for which we have no use at all, you will disrupt the relationship between our two countries". I hope that the Germans take no notice whatever of such silly threats coming from Back Bench Members of Parliament of whatever party.
Why do I say that this project is undesirable? Let us ask one or two questions about why it is desirable. What purpose does it serve? No possible enemy has planes as good as our Tornados. Why are we investing in new planes? I hope that we are not going to try to sell the new aircraft. Are we going to increase armament exports and, if so, where to? Perhaps we shall sell them in the Gulf. Are we contemplating Saudi investment to replace the German investment, if the Germans pull out? If the Germans pull out, the cost per aircraft will have doubled. It is already an extremely expensive operation when the Germans are paying one-third of the costs of the 450 aircraft which have been ordered. The project becomes an absolute impossibility if we reduce the project to 250 aircraft and carry the cost ourselves. Therefore, if we are to continue the project, we shall be forced to sell the armament all over the world.
It is extremely undesirable that modern aircraft should become available in any part of the world, and particularly undesirable in the Gulf. I have a letter from five American Congressmen, including two Republicans, addressed to the Prime Minister, begging him not to develop a modern aircraft and, above all, not to sell that aircraft in the Gulf. I have not seen the Prime Minister's reply but I have tabled
316
a Question asking whether it is possible to place a copy of the reply in the Library so that we can see what he says to American congressmen who have seen, as clearly as the Germans have seen, that this project is of absolutely no value to us whatever and, indeed, has become an embarrassment.
Would it not be more productive to prevent threats by controlling the arms race? That would be better than continuing with this outdated project, which is outdated before it begins. Will the Government respond to the call from Democrats and Republicans in the United States to halt the sale of F-15s and Tornados in the Gulf, let alone developing a new and even more alarming aircraft which we may have to sell once the project is completed?
I understand that the Germans are going to abandon the project and that the German Air Force does not want it. I do not know whether or not that is the case. The Minister is shaking his head. He may have more up-to-date information and it may be that the Germans have changed their minds. However, there is no political support for this anywhere in Germany, and certainly there is no support for it among the German people.
Therefore, at present the position seems to be rather unsatisfactory. I have a document here which was prepared by the House of Commons Research Department. Therefore, it may be considered to be a reasonably objective document. It reaches this conclusion:
"the debate now beginning about the future size and shape of the UK defence budget could place this in doubt by 1992".
This document was written in 1989 and published in February 1990. It goes on:
"The problem is not that the requirement has disappeared, but that the scale of the requirement may have fallen since the project was begun and that a reduced order for EFA could undermine the economic viability of the whole enterprise".
Since that was written, the requirement has disappeared. We do not need it. Therefore, we are continuing with the project because we cannot conveniently get out of it.
I suggest to the Government that they should think again about this matter. Are we really going ahead with the project simply because we got into it at a time when it was sensible and are we now continuing with it when there is no requirement whatever? I suggest that the time has come to abandon the project and replace it with something much more sensible.
5.25 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have been most interested to listen to the debate on the Question posed by my noble friend Lo rd Kinnoull. I look forward to hearing the response by my noble friend Lord Cranborne. My intervention is prompted by the fact that I have recently been appointed a member of the parliamentary delegation to the WEU—the Western European Union. I attended my first plenary session some two weeks ago in Paris. It was addressed by Volker Ruhe, the new German Defence Minister, Pierre Joxe, the French Defence Minister, and the new Swedish Defence Minister. In passing perhaps I may say that I hope that my right honourable friend the

317
Secretary of State will attend a future plenary session of the WEU to state our case and to answer questions in the same way.
As I was aware of the importance we attach to the development and production of the European Fighter Aircraft, I took the opportunity to ask Volker Ruhe if he would comment on Germany's continued participation in the project. Naturally enough, he did not care to comment in any great detail, emphasising his budget difficulties and not in any way attempting to make the case which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has just attempted to make. I suppose that that was hardly surprising only two days before my right honourable friend the Prime Minister was due to meet Chancellor Kohl and this issue, I understand, was on their agenda.
However, I found it to be of considerable interest. I wish to draw attention not so much to the response I received from the German Minister but to the fact that other colleagues in that assembly—one from Italy and one from Spain—returned to the question. They supported the fact that I had raised it as an issue and left the German Minister in absolutely no doubt that it was not only of UK interest but that Spanish and Italian jobs were also on the line. Indeed, their political priorities were very much involved.
Unlike my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, and possibly because I do not have the same depth of background knowledge of defence matters, I am inclined to believe that the European partnership or collaboration that has developed on this project is almost as important as the development of the aircraft itself. It seems to me that it is exactly the sort of commitment which we sought when we negotiated the security provisions of the Maastricht Treaty. It is certainly one of the reasons why the UK should, in my view, continue the process of ratification of that treaty.
Therefore, I ask the Minister to give some reassurance that the United Kingdom Government at the meeting of WEU foreign and defence Ministers, which I believe is due to take place tomorrow, will continue to emphasise the importance of this issue, not just from the UK's point of view but as an excellent example of a viable Euro-project.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Hollick: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for initiating this debate on the EFA project at such an opportune time. I am sorry that my late arrival deprived me of hearing his opening remarks. I look forward to reading them in Hansard tomorrow. I should like to preface my remarks by informing the House that I am a director of British Aerospace, the prime British contractor in the EFA project.
As it approaches the end of the £6 billion development phase, the EFA project has, following political changes in Germany, reached a critical juncture. The new defence minister has cast doubt on the need for Germany to continue with the EFA project, citing two main issues; first, operational necessity and, secondly, cost. It is unsurprising that a new broom in the defence ministry in Bonn should
318
raise those issues, particularly in the light of the costs of unification in Germany and also the approaching general elections in that country.
With regard to the operational necessity, it is widely agreed that the Tornado will not be a match for the USF22, the French Rafale or the new MiG-29, which are to be deployed at the turn of the century. The dramatic improvement in European security following the collapse of the Soviet Union, to which my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney referred, can, and will, lead to a progressive reduction in defence expenditure. But it is vital that the leading western European nations maintain the minimum necessary effective force to be deployed in the event of trouble, not only in Western Europe but further afield. The Gulf war was a case in point. The rapid deployment of advanced aircraft ensured air superiority and led to the swift expulsion of the Iraqis from Kuwait and, most importantly, helped to keep casualties at a remarkably low level. In a world which remains uncertain and unpredictable the need for advanced aircraft which can match the operational capabilities of those being developed by the US and Russia, and which can also be sold to other countries, has persuaded politicians of all major parties in the four participating countries to support the project since its inception in 1985.
The high cost of advanced military projects is always an anxiety, and rightly so. At constant prices the cost of EFA is some 20 per cent. below the cost of the air defence variant of the Tornado. Since the beginning of this year, and with a little encouragement from the politicians, the project costs have been further reduced by more than 5 per cent. The cost will continue to be scrutinised in the year or so before production begins. Because of the importance of the project to the long-term wellbeing of the businesses involved, all the participating companies have a strong incentive to deliver a cost effective aircraft which can meet the high level of operational criteria required.
The EFA project is the single most important collaborative defence project in Europe. It exemplifies the economic and industrial co-operation that lies at the heart of the EC. On the one hand, European nations are co-operating to promote continuing security and stability; on the other, they are working together to consolidate Europe's position as a major developer and manufacturer of advanced aerospace technology. The continuance of the EFA project is an important test of the resolve of European nations to work together and to stick to negotiated agreements despite short-term political difficulties or expediences. The collapse of EFA at this time would undermine the confidence in the whole notion of European co-operation, which, following the result of the Danish referendum, has begun to appear a little shaky. If Europe cannot see the EFA project through, then the four countries will probably have to turn to the United States for their future advanced combat aircraft needs. That would seriously undermine the defence and the civil aerospace industry in Europe and hand a dominant position in this market to the US. I am not surprised that US politicians are lobbying our Prime Minister to close down the project.

319
Europe, with the exception of France, which is developing its own smaller and less sophisticated Rafale combat aircraft, will be quitting a major industrial sector which it will be virtually impossible to re-enter. The adverse effect on jobs, on the technological and industrial base and on the economy in each of the four countries will be far reaching. While I am sure that German politicians pay close attention to proceedings in your Lordships' House, I think it is for the Germans themselves to calculate the consequences for their own economy of a decision to pull out. However, I should like to focus on the likely consequences for the British economy of a German withdrawal and a subsequent collapse of the whole project.
I turn first to jobs. Over the past three years the aerospace industry has had to shed 25 per cent. of its workforce in response to defence cutbacks and the recession in civil aviation. The industry estimates that the cancellation of the EFA project would lead to further job losses of more than 30,000 within the aerospace industry and a further 30,000 in supporting companies. That is only part of the story; it is estimated that the project will, overall, create up to 100,000 new jobs in the UK economy. With export packages such as training, infrastructure and maintenance included, that number could rise two-or threefold. The 60,000 or so jobs that will be lost in the event of cancellation will be lost immediately and there will be little prospect of those highly trained staff of engineers, draughtsmen and production workers being redeployed. The loss of those valuable human skills will be compounded by the loss of the advanced technology products which are being developed as part of the EFA project.
Our technological base in this country is effectively a large pool of expertise in research, development and production which is available to both the military and civil businesses. EFA technologies will be rapidly applied to the civil aerospace sector under the so-called "trickledown", and will strengthen our position in that sector. Almost all the major defence technology products which are under development are incorporated into EFA and the abandonment of the project would mean that those key defence technologies would be lost to the defence and the civil aircraft businesses alike.
The financial consequences of cancellation are extremely serious. The anticipated production value to the UK of the whole project is just short of £10 billion, and the latest estimate for the value of export orders is around £20 billion. In the event of cancellation the Treasury would be expected to lose some £300 million annually as a result of lost tax from former aerospace workers. That is before the further cost to the Government in the form of unemployment benefits and support for the badly affected economies in the South-West, South-East, and so forth. In addition, the Exchequer would forfeit its substantial share in the overall project through VAT and corporation tax. Replacements for the Tornado air defence variant, the Jaguar and eventually the Harrier would have to be purchased abroad, and it is unlikely
320
that there would be any offsetting production arrangements in the UK. As a result, the full cost of re-equipment will fall on the taxpayer with no offsetting economic activity in this country. That will in turn leave a large hole in our balance of payments.
The effect on the 30 or so main suppliers and the 60 sub-contractors would be devastating. EFA represents about one-quarter of the UK's anticipated military engine output and some 40 per cent. of expected new business. Without EFA the military engine and defence aerospace business would be undermined and we should be reduced to a minor player in the world league.
In 1991 defence aerospace contributed some £2 billion to our balance of trade. The prospects for export sales based on EFA technologies will allow the industry to continue to make a contribution of that order over the next decade.
If Germany does pull out, can Britain, Italy and Spain go it alone? I believe that they can and, for the employment, industrial and economic reasons which I and other noble Lords have outlined, I believe also that they should. The key question in such an eventuality is whether the programme could be managed without a significant increase in cost. Germany is of course committed to its full share of the development budget and its contribution will represent a windfall to the other partners. The production work planned to be completed in Germany will be moved to the other countries, with the consequent employment and economic benefits. The removal of production from the high cost German economy will help to offset some of the increase which will follow their departure. Industry estimates suggest that EFA can continue without the Germans at no significant increase in costs. The continuation of the project will bestow even greater technological and economic benefits on the three remaining partners, serving to improve the competitiveness of their respective aerospace industries.
We must hope that the Germans decide to remain in the project. However, if they do decide to pull out, it is important that the other partners keep their nerve and accept the challenge of proceeding with EFA to the great benefit of both national security and industry, and of the economy.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I too would like to add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for raising this Question. From the list of speakers it seems that myself and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, are the only two who do not fly, produce or have great knowledge of the production, procurement or other operations of this aircraft. I shall therefore approach the subject in a spirit of humility and learning. However, I hope that the future for the European fighter aircraft is promising and indeed fruitful.
I have read reports in the media of the continued expenditure on this aircraft. The noble Lord, Lord Hollick, has just made a very forthright speech in support of the aircraft. The continued expenditure on the part of our German colleagues may not be entirely popular throughout that country. In their latest

321
opinion poll, such as one can take them, 84 per cent. of those questioned believed that continued expenditure on this operation was not in the interests of German defence and did not make economic sense. That may be hardly surprising. Perhaps other noises are being heard from Mr. Theo Waigel, a Minister representing the Bavarian Christian Social Union. I understand that most of the enterprises engaged in the production and development of this aircraft, and hence the employment, are situated in Bavaria and Baden-WŨurttemberg. We might obtain a great deal of support from that area. We may find that some of our German colleagues are perhaps singing a happy duet.
It is never safe to assume what might be a cliché —that is to say, that the cold war is over. All noble Lords who have discussed defence in your Lordships' House over the years will know that we have three watch words in any defence debate—"You never know". Many of us remember speaking in a powerful defence debate in July 1990 and within a fortnight there had been major and long-lasting developments in the Gulf.
We heard from my noble friend Lord Trefgarne that the decision had already been taken. I believe he mentioned the year 1988 as being relevant for a decision on one part of the aircraft, be it the development, procurement or something else. The message from your Lordships' House this evening should be that as far as possible we should ask our German colleagues to stick to this decision. Strong support for that was given by my noble friend Lady Hooper.
We have heard of alternatives to this aircraft such as the Su-27, the MiG-29, the F-22 from the United States and the French Rafale. To myself, but perhaps not to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, with his notable aeronautical experience, all these might appear to be interesting toys. They will all do different things. They have different power-to-weight ratios and so forth. With all these alternatives we must look at the cost and the effectiveness. Above all we must consider availability of spares. A notable comment was made by one of the honourable Members down the corridor about another alternative which on the face of it seemed to be cost-effective. He made one point: where will we get the spares? Will they be there when we need them? The answer was no.
My noble friend Lord Trefgarne also mentioned the Turin parameters. We must see that these are met. He and other noble Lords have focused on the essential aspect of this aircraft; namely, that the operational requirements of the Royal Air Force for the next 20 and perhaps 25 years must be met. It is in that spirit that my support will be added to that of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull and, I hope, that of my noble friend the Minister when he comes to wind up. I hope that we can send a message to our German colleagues, "Please stick to it", or in European terms, "Bitte, geben sie nicht auf". I support everything that my noble friend has said.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Prior: My Lords, perhaps I may crave the indulgence of the House to make one point only. Having listened to the debate, and declaring my interest as chairman of GEC, I draw your Lordships' attention to a book written by Correlli Barnett, whom I consider to be one of the great historians. It is called Engage the Enemy More Closely. It is an account of the Royal Navy from the Battle of Jutland to about the end of the Second World War. The point that he makes and its relevance to this debate is that, if only we had carried on with the technologies of the First World War through the period of peace between the two wars, we should not have been in the terrible state that we were. We should not have had to rely on the bravery of British troops and sailors. We would have had a technology which matched that of other nations.
What we need to do is to keep that technology going, as noble Lords have pointed out this afternoon. There will be an enormous tendency over the next few years, when the Treasury is trying to cut the defence budget, to go on saying that we need not go into these new technologies because they will not be needed or used. But we never know whether they will be. It is a very unwise policy not to keep the technologies going. That is the crucial point and why the European Fighter Aircraft has to succeed. All the talk about co-operation and keeping technologies going is very important.
5.47 p.m.
The Earl of Harrowby: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me too for rising. I do so as a recently retired chairman of an industrial company which is not the prime manufacturer of the EFA and the EAP but which has a very significant part in it. I am told that it is the tradition to make just one point if you are an intervener, and that I will do.
The wind has been taken out of my sails by my noble friend Lord Prior, who has made much the same point as I wanted to make—that is to say, that the Government have to find a way. This issue will come up in future. I hope that the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, are manifested and come to fruition. However, sooner or later there will be an issue which arises where a project will not go forward. The Government have to find some way of making it possible to maintain the advance of technology even if a project is not going forward. My noble friend Lord Prior said that in much better language. I want to emphasise the importance to your Lordships of finding a system which will not grind technological advance to a halt.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, we on these Benches agree with a large number of the comments that have been made by the noble Earl in introducing this debate; not least the tribute he paid to the British aerospace industry. There was evidence of surprise and delight shown when it was announced that the development of this project was on schedule and within budget. That is an almost unprecedented

323
achievement by the Ministry of Defence since the Polaris project for which I was partly responsible many years ago. We also agree very much with the noble Lords, Lord Hollick and Lord Trefgarne, about the appalling impact on the aerospace industry and employment if this project does not go ahead. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that the Germans would be doing themselves no service by backing out.
I am a little puzzled by the contribution made by the previous two speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Prior, said that we should have kept on the technology of the First World War to the Second World War. He did not mean it. Nevertheless, it struck a slight note of alarm with me. At the back of my mind I have a horrible feeling that in putting all our cards on the manned aircraft rather than on the surface-to-air missile we might be making the mistake, made by so many defence planners through so many periods of British history, of fighting the next war with the weapons of the last.
I was interested that the admirable Commons Select Committee on Defence went into this matter with its usual skill and penetration. But it never asked the question: What about the development of surface-to-air missiles by the end of the century? That is a question which one is surely entitled to ask. I know that it was asked 30 years ago. I believe the question appeared in a defence White Paper. However, to ask that question then was premature. Quite rightly, we continued to produce manned aircraft. I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, who said that Iraq still shows the enormous power of the manned aircraft. However, Iraq has also shown us something else—the stupendous increase in the power of surface-to-air missiles. Therefore, I believe that it is legitimate to ask the question again: What is the future of manned aircraft?
At the end of the century when the European Fighter Aircraft becomes fully operational, what new advances will have been made in the Patriot-type missile? We know now that land-based missiles can shoot down not only aircraft but missiles in flight. Where would we rather he at the end of the century —in the cockpit of the EFA or with the hand-held Patriot on the battlefield? I am not saying that that should in any way deter us from going ahead, but I have been stimulated by the previous two speeches. The advance of technology does not necessarily mean an advance in the field of manned aircraft. It might be a terrible trap.
I return more directly to the question under dispute. Everybody agrees that the development of the European Fighter Aircraft has been successful so far and should go ahead. I do not question that at all. However, I should like to ask the Government a question. Granted that we go ahead with the development, what reasons can we give the Germans and ourselves for saying that we must now commit ourselves to production? That is the question. I have read in the newspapers that, according to the public opinion polls, 84 per cent. of the German people are against the EFA. If this question is put to the German
324
Government now, might it not be counter-productive? How can we be sure about the outcome? Instead of demanding that they commit themselves to production, suppose that we put to them the demand that they continue with development, which is about 5 per cent. of the cost, for a year or two. What do the Government feel about that? I do not know why we have to commit ourselves to production now rather than in one or even two years' time, which would give us time to sort out some of the other problems.
In the meantime, could the Defence Operational Analysis Establishment make a new study of the anticipated development of surface-to-air missiles? It must have done so previously. Strangely, again, I see no sign that it has done so or that the Government have taken that factor into account. The admirable Select Committee on Defence in another place never asked that question—although that was before Iraq and before Patriot. Nevertheless, although it is an elementary question, it is a profound question, so I should like to ask the Government whether the proper analyses have been made, and if so, with what result? If they are not hurrying up with the commitment to production, that would give them an opportunity to make such an analysis.
In addition, if we do not now take the decision on production, we can assess the threat a little better. I do not think that we should rule out altogether the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney. The noble Earl has described Russia today as a "wounded elephant", as a cause of fear and apprehension to us all. However, I do not think that that is a realistic assessment. It would be going too far in the opposite direction to describe Russia as a "one-legged beggar" but the truth is somewhere between the two.
Let us consider the changes that have occurred since the specifications for this aircraft were drawn up in 1985. Perhaps it is worth reflecting for a moment on the atmosphere in the Ministry of Defence at the time that the specifications were laid down. This is the Ministry's assessment of the threat for which the EFA specifications were designed:
"The Soviet Union inherited the product of many centuries of Russian expansion; … These traditions … have been combined with an ideology dedicated to the ultimate victory of communism. The evidence suggests that these ideological goals will be pursued with caution and discretion, but that opportunities will be grasped if the price is limited and acceptable"
And so on. That is a past world. Even in 1991 when the revised assessment of the threat was made and described in the report from which I have just quoted, the Russian threat was greatly exaggerated.
We are now living in a world where MiG-29s, formerly the arms of Eastern Germany, are part of NATO's order of battle. I hope that this is not typical, but I note that the war games of the German Ministry of Defence cast Britain and France—in heavy disguise —as the enemies instead of Russia. We are living in a different world, but there is no sign that there has been any change in the specifications for the EFA or in the number that we require.
Therefore, I should like an assurance from the Government not only that they will continue the

325
development but that, especially in view of the German situation, they will not demand now—either from the Germans or from themselves—a commitment to production. Let it be delayed for a year or two so that the other questions can be answered. If the Minister gives a good reply today, we shall support him. If he gives a good reply at some later date, we shall support him. But if the Government want the widest support for this project they must answer some of the serious questions that have been asked about it.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for tabling the Question, especially at this time because it is fraught with controversy. I shall try to answer some of the questions that have been raised. I shall also put certain questions which I hope the Minister will respond to.
Two issues seem to be involved. The first is the United Kingdom's defence requirement; the second relates to the jobs involved and the financial consequences of cancellation. I have nothing to add to what my noble friend Lord Hollick said about jobs and the financial consequences of cancellation, which seemed a persuasive argument for the project going ahead.
I endorse what my noble friend Lord Shackleton said about the Labour Party's support for the EFA programme. That was made clear in another place by my honourable friend Mr. Martin O'Neill on 2nd May last year. We are quite clear that we support the programme and we look forward to making continued progress with it.
However, there is no blank cheque. As my noble friend Lord Hollick rightly said, we must be absolutely certain that we are getting value for money. It is when we come to the point about value for money that we hope very much that the Government will exercise the very highest degree of scrutiny of the costs, especially if the Germans, as is feared, pull out of the project.
Perhaps I may first address the defence requirement and then put four questions to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, which I hope he will be able to answer. Indeed, the questions have already been raised in this short debate. I am afraid that I must differ from my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney and, in certain respects, from the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, on the point about the defence requirement. I agree that the European Fighter Aircraft was originally required to fulfil an air defence role due to the possible threat from new Soviet aircraft. That was the original specification. There was a secondary ground support application. Clearly, the Soviet Union has disappeared, but there must be considerable concern about the possible export from the former Soviet Union of MiG-29s and Su-27s to countries outside Europe. It is that threat that we have to face. It would be desirable to have an all-embracing embargo on arms sales from one country to another. If that could be negotiated, I would join in the cheers which I am sure would go up from all sides of the House. I have a feeling, however, that it is rather difficult to persuade people to deny
326
themselves that possibility, particularly given the economic conditions in which the successor states to the Soviet Union now find themselves.
If the United Kingdom becomes involved in conflicts outside Europe, the ability of the Royal Air Force to acquire and maintain air superiority may well be crucial to the particular operation. The Gulf conflict showed us that the Tornado F-3 was not especially good and especially agile in air-to-air combat with Iraqi planes. Indeed, I believe—the noble Viscount will correct me if I am wrong—that it was primarily United States aircraft that established air supremacy, thereby allowing the Tornado to carry out the functions that it performed extremely well in the Gulf. Therefore a replacement for the Phantom and the Jaguar, which is what EFA is about, to maintain air superiority in that kind of localised conflict is essential to the United Kingdom defence requirement.
Having said that, I have four questions for the noble Viscount. The first was put quite properly by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. Have the Government made a definitive decision about the number of aircraft to which they are committed? We are told that the original plan was for 250 aircraft. Is there any advance on that thinking?
Secondly, can the noble Viscount confirm whether or not the Government have made any assessment of the industrial consequences, to which my noble friend Lord Hollick and the noble Lord, Lord Prior, referred, of Germany's decision to withdraw from the EFA project? What would be the consequences? Who would pay what? And how would we then proceed? Thirdly, what is the Government's latest information with respect to the commitment of the Italian and Spanish governments to this project? If recent newspaper reports that the Spanish Government want to reduce jet production by 30 per cent. are true, will that affect the Spanish Government's commitment to the EFA project?
My fourth question is the crunch question and is the one raised by the noble Earl. If the Germans—against, in my view and in the view of other noble Lords, their own interests—drop out of the project, are the Government still committed to going ahead with it?
From what I have said your Lordships will recognise that many of us are saying the same thing. I join the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, in saying that we need a clear statement from the Government on where they stand. We believe that EFA is necessary for our future defence requirements. We believe that the employment and financial consequences of cancellation, if that should occur, are extremely severe and should be borne in mind. All these matters point to the need for a clear statement from the Government now about whether we are going ahead with the project and under what circumstances. I hope very much that the noble Viscount will be able to give us that clear statement.
6.5 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, my first duty is to thank my noble friend Lord

327
Kinnoull for the clear and forceful way in which he has raised what is clearly one of the most important defence, industrial and technological questions facing this country at the moment. I seem to remember during a short career in another place a Back-Bench axiom which went something like this: "Beware when both Front Benches are in agreement. There is something wrong there". I have to say that there are exceptions to every good rule and it seems to me that this is one of them.
One of the most gratifying features of this debate was the extraordinary degree of unanimity, with perhaps one distinguished exception. That unanimity is extremely useful to the Government in being able to argue the case for the continuance of the EFA project. It is a unanimity which will be noted in areas where it must be noted during the present rising uncertainty. Although perhaps one does not want to rub in the advantages of sitting in your Lordships' House, it is clear from the extraordinary range of knowledge and skill displayed in the debate today that the conclusions which the overwhelming majority of your Lordships have reached in regard to the European Fighter Aircraft are conclusions informed by long experience and by an extraordinary depth of knowledge. I need only refer to the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, who delivered his case with very great clarity, and to my noble friend Lord Prior. I should also mention my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, whose seat I am perhaps merely keeping warm for him.
Much has been said about the nature of the threat. In all defence matters the nature of the threat is what we should start with. There can be no doubt that the Government see a clear and continuing need for an aircraft with the capabilities of the European Fighter Aircraft for the defence of the United Kingdom but also to support our armed forces wherever they may be required to operate. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and other noble Lords quite rightly referred to the unexpected nature of what can happen and to the importance of developing air superiority in any conflict, whether in defending the United Kingdom or in an out-of-area conflict such as the Gulf itself.
It is vital that this aircraft should be developed, because it is a key part of NATO's future flexible force structure. We know that there is considerable, and some would say increasing, instability in areas adjacent to those covered by the NATO pact. We also know that the former Soviet Union developed a series of extraordinarily sophisticated and effective combat aircraft. Those aircraft, even now, are operated by a surprising number of nations; for example, so far as I know, MiG-29 is already in service with over 30 countries worldwide.
We should bear in mind that, when the European fighter aircraft is developed, it should be in service for over 20 years. Therefore, those of its what one might call "half-hearted supporters" who argue that perhaps its capability should be downgraded must remember that that kind of penny pinching will not necessarily counter the threat from other forms of aircraft that are already in service, subject to new development or any
328
new forms of aircraft which may come along. In other words, much can change during the anticipated life of this extraordinarily versatile aircraft. If it is to work, it must be able to match the potential threat.
That potential threat is one which is spreading. The present financial situation of the former Soviet Union —that is, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has already said, the countries that used to make up the Soviet Union—makes, perhaps, proliferation of sophisticated weapons systems rather easier than any of us would like. We know that the systems of control of sales of weapons, however well intentioned, for example, the Russian Government may be, are by definition in their present situation leaky at the least. Therefore, the prospect of an Su-27, in the hands of someone like Saddam Hussein, confronting an F3 Tornado and trying to deny it air superiority in some future conflict really would be to send our own people out on the most unfair mission. That is where I have to agree with my noble friend Lord Prior. He drew attention to the remarkable book by the great historian, Correlli Barnett. His point was well made and, if I may say so, extraordinarily well taken.
As regards the question of how we counter the threat, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked whether in fact we were in danger of countering the threat of a future war with the weapons of the last war, however much they may have been updated. Of course, someone with the noble Lord's knowledge and experience is well aware of many historical instances where such a thing has happened. I must say that anyone who tries to satisfy a defence requirement to counter a perceived threat can only do his best. The best assessment that the Government and the Ministry of Defence can make is that there is indeed a very strong requirement for an aircraft with the versatility and of the nature of the EFA.
So far as concerns surface-to-air missiles, it is probably worth telling the noble Lord that studies have been made and continue to be made into that important question. It would perhaps horrify some of the more economically minded of your Lordships to know that some of those studies may come to the conclusion that both are theoretically needed. However, I should not like noble Lords to take me too far down that path. All I shall say to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, is that his point is one of whose importance the experts in the Ministry of Defence are well seized. Nevertheless, despite his advice, and the other voices raising the same question, there is no doubt in our minds that the European Fighter Aircraft is a requirement that we must satisfy. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, wishes to intervene. I gladly give way.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am much obliged. As I am perhaps a lone voice in the matter, does the Minister recognise that, in addition to the quotations made by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, the House of Commons Defence Committee, as recently as last April, said:
"It remains open to question how far the RAF still requires an aircraft with the full level of performance offered by EFA".

329
The noble Viscount will realise that there are Conservative members on that committee—indeed, they are in the majority—as well as Labour members.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, there may be questions about the full level of capacity necessary to build into EFA. However, like the noble Lord, I had the advantage of reading the report of the House of Commons Defence Committee. I believe that he will agree with me that the committee fully supported the principle of the development of the EFA and that any criticisms made were put down as suggestions in the margin.
As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has intervened at this point, it may be a suitable opportunity, during the course of what I hope will be my reasonably brief remarks, for me to try to answer the question that he posed. He suggested that the cost of cancellation would be very high. I must tell him that the Germans have already made clear, as other noble Lords have said, that they regard themselves as liable to pay the full development costs of the development phase. In answer to the noble Lord's question, I understand that, in the event of cancellation, those costs are not returnable. That would no doubt seriously undermine the financial assessments that he made.
I believe it is clear—and something that is common ground very nearly throughout your Lordships' House—that the threat and the need are there. As regards the project itself, I can confirm to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne that progress in the development phase continues satisfactorily. The first prototype is nearing completion in Germany; indeed, it should make its maiden flight in the autumn. Moreover, the costs so far are within the original funding approval given in, I think, 1988 by my noble friend.
Once the design of the EFA has been proven, I hope that the full partners will be able to proceed to the production investment and production phases of the programme. I can confirm to noble Lords who raised the question that, so far as concerns Her Majesty's Government—and this point has lately been reconfirmed—Italy and Spain remain committed to the project. With the United Kingdom, those countries are doing all that they can at all levels to convince Germany that EFA is the most cost-effective solution to their requirements. I could enter into some detail on that argument. However, I do not want to waste your Lordships' time because most noble Lords already know the arguments. The only point that I make is that one of the European alternatives being suggested to the Germans as a possible alternative buy would be the French Rafale. It is worth pointing out, as other noble Lords have done, that this is an aircraft without the capability of EFA and that, according to Her Majesty's Government's assessments, even if customers were to buy the Rafale, they would, per aircraft, be more expensive than the EFA. It cannot be a good buy.
Many noble Lords have already pointed out that EFA is probably the largest collaborative programme in Europe at present. It is very important militarily, politically and industrially. Above all, it would be a great blow to the United Kingdom aerospace
330
industry. I can do no better than echo every word that the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, with his great knowledge and experience of such matters, said in his, if I may say so, remarkable analysis. I certainly would not dream of trying to improve upon it. However, if she will allow me, I should like to say that my noble friend Lady Hooper gave a most helpful contribution. I say that because it is worth pointing out to our European partners that it is not only British jobs that are at stake, but also jobs in Spain, Italy and Germany. Indeed, there are very good grounds for supposing that German public opinion, notably Bavarian opinion, is not united on the subject of cancellation—very far from it. I suggest to your Lordships that it would be unwise to assume that the Germans have cancelled. They have not done so yet. There are many reasons why they should not, and Her Majesty's Government, supported by a very large number of Members of Parliament, industrialists and Members of your Lordships' House, are engaged in trying to show our German friends why it would be a good idea for them to continue. That is not something for me to comment on; it is not for me to tell the German Government what their job should be inside Germany.
However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that one of the arguments that we are deploying—and one which he made with great effectiveness—is that the financial control of the project is in very good order. We are constantly reviewing the value for money aspects of contracts and we are continually making sure that Governments are getting best value for money. I can quite honestly reassure the noble Lord on that front.
I should like to finish by pointing out to your Lordships—and this is a point which has been made already in the debate—that the collaborative aspects of this project are as important as the industrial aspects. Many of your Lordships have pointed out that this is not merely a defence project, it is not merely an industrial project, it is a project in which the credibility of Europe is at stake.
We are all aware of the status that Germany has given for itself of being one of the principal advocates of a united and collaborative Europe. We greatly welcome the practical evidence of the German assertion that that is so which the European Fighter Aircraft project represents. We continue to welcome the fact that the Germans have not decided yet to withdraw. At the same time I have to say that, if the Republic of Germany is to continue with the rhetoric that it has employed hitherto about the future of Europe, its credibility would certainly be at stake if it were to withdraw from the European Fighter Aircraft project. It would be very difficult for any of Germany's European partners to be able to look Chancellor Kohl, or any of his successors or ministers, in the eye and to say, "We believe you when you tell us that you are good Europeans, that you believe in collaboration and that you believe in the future of European technology".
The debate this afternoon would, I submit, be very useful in making those points clear to our partners and

331
making sure that the Government do not have to decide how they are to proceed if the Germans indeed withdraw.

Llanelli Borough Council (River Lliedi) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with an amendment.

South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past six o'clock.