Lords Sitting of 16 December 1993

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

London Underground: Funding
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will now withdraw the cuts made in the last two years to the finance available to London Underground for maintenance and improvement.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the Government's funding plans for London Transport were announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his budget on 30th November. These plans are aimed to protect investment in London Transport's existing business, and mean that London Underground should be able to invest more over the next three years than at any time in the 1970s and 1980s.
Lord Jay: My Lords, do the Government recognise that after the past few years in which, largely as a result of the underfunding and undermanning of London Transport's maintenance services, there has already been a fatal accident at King's Cross, another serious accident which might well have been fatal three weeks ago on the Central Line and I believe that another was reported today? If the Government persist in underfunding and there is another serious accident, will they not bear a very heavy responsibility?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the accident today to which the noble Lord alludes was a signal failure on the Central Line. That is expected to be corrected by tonight. I can tell the noble Lord (as I am sure he has read in previous issues of Hansard in the past few weeks) that the investment which we are now planning for London Underground is more than at any time since the 1970s and 1980s. In real terms it has considerably increased from previous investment and there will be something like £3 billion invested over the next three years.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that last week his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked a similar Question and that in answer to it he was advised that an urgent inquiry into the recent failure due to the electrical circuit was being undertaken by London Underground and that the Government would take serious note of the results of that inquiry? If it should demonstrate that additional expenditure is required to avoid incidents of this sort in future, will the Government be prepared to respond?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I read with interest the Question of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I also remember well the Question
1452
which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked just before that. Therefore, we have covered this territory well. We must see what the report brings forth.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, are the Government aware, despite what the noble Earl said about what happened this morning, that 20,000 passengers were held up for nearly three hours in the early rush hour in the East End of London because of yet another signal failure, which is becoming almost a weekly occurrence? Is the Minister further aware that London Transport officials have said that that will be a very frequent cause of failure unless the Government increase their funding?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, what the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, would have read was my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, of about 10 days ago. I then said that 50 per cent. of the signal faults were on the Central Line, which is why that line had been prioritised and why so much money was being spent to update it.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Sir Wilfrid Newton, the chairman of London Transport, has said that the sum which the Government are in fact allocating is,
"nowhere near what we need to run a decently modern metro"?
So despite all the complacent talk of the Minister, is it not a fact that the people who are seeking to run the Underground are grossly dissatisfied and recognise that what has been happening over the course of the past few weeks, and even today, represents a serious danger to the safety and well-being of the metropolis?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there is no complacency whatever in what I said. The proposed investment by London Underground, with taxpayers' money, will be the highest in real terms at any time since the 1970s and 1980s. We appreciate that there is a considerable amount of work to do. Does the noble Lord recall the investment (in 1993–94 prices) of what happened under his government when he was a Minister? In 1977 they cut the investment very nearly in half to a mere £83 million compared with an expected out-turn of £464 million this year.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is it not futile for the Minister to go back to a period more than 14 years ago? Should he not in fact seek to dwell on the present? Is it not a fact that the ideological hatred of public transport on the part of the Thatcherites is still not being rectified by this gang of Majorettes?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, of course the noble Lord does not like my answer because his, government may be exposed for the sham which they carried out. If he looks at the figures he will see that there has been a consistent overall improvement in investment in London Underground since the Conservatives came to power.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, to move to a perhaps more mundane and more topical level, does my noble friend have any information to give on the introduction of stored value tickets for London Underground—with which, of course, Sir Wilfrid Newton will be fully familiar as they are used throughout Hong Kong? They

1453
would not only make it much cheaper to issue a ticket but would also greatly reduce the frustration of travellers who all to often find that the ticket machines which are meant to give change have the sign "exact money only". That of itself is a reflection of the sloppy management of London Underground.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend asks a most interesting question, but I believe it is a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Jay: My Lords, the Minister gave figures. Has he also read the Government's own excellent Red Book on the Budget which shows, on page 119, that the external finance available to London Transport last year was £880 million and that for the present year it has been reduced to £720 million?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, indeed I have read the Red Book. We discussed that with the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Barnett, only a week ago.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Arthritics' Society of Woodford made representations that both entrances to the station should remain open? Cannot the Government at least authorise some funds to enable that to be done?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Government have authorised funds at record levels. It is up to London Underground management to apportion those funds in the way they think best.

Russia: Relations with NATO
3.8 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton Lord Belhaven and Stenton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the report in the Daily Telegraph of 3rd December relating to the admission to NATO of countries in central Europe where a "British source" is reported as saying that "there are certain areas where the Russians have a particular interest" is accurate and, if so, what the British source is and what areas are indicated by this statement.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the Daily Telegraph report on 3rd December misrepresented the outcome of the North Atlantic Council meeting of 2nd December. I cannot speculate on the identity of the "British source" quoted. I can confirm to my noble friend that we and our NATO allies recognise the importance of enhancing relations with Russia if the alliance is to be successful in promoting stability and security throughout Europe. We have no wish to resurrect the barriers of the cold war or create new divisions within the European continent. A future NATO summit will decide on the shape of the new relationship.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Can she confirm that Her Majesty's Government recognise the independence of
1454
the former Soviet republics and the former satellites or does she think that circumstances may compromise that independence and that Russia has a right to take advantage of such circumstances? In view of the recent Russian elections, is my noble friend aware of the deep anxiety and, indeed, fear felt by Poland and all of Russia's neighbours that Russia could expand into their territories again? Are there any plans to give more concrete guarantees of security to the democracies in central Europe?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the full Russian results are not yet in. It looks as if Mr. Zhirinovsky and his fellows will gain no more than a quarter of all the votes once they are fully counted. I think that they are very unlikely to dominate foreign policy. Under the new constitution, we would expect Russian decisions to follow very similarly the lines of those taken before the election, but we are obviously keen that the total independence of the former Soviet satellites should be safeguarded. I do not believe that their future is compromised. In view of the elections, I am sure that the NATO discussions in January, the WEU discussions and the EC association agreements will ensure that that independence is safeguarded.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, despite the noble Baroness's complacency about the results of the Russian elections, does she not remember that Hitler began in much the same way as the leader of that important party which is now winning votes in Russia? Is it not time to tear up the foolish Options for Change which assumed a peace dividend requiring us to reduce our defence forces when, obviously, now is the time to do exactly the opposite?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the Government are in no way complacent about the matter. We are planning to thicken the relationship between NATO and the countries of the former Soviet Union and the former Soviet bloc. In any event, the concept of a partnership for peace that has been initiated is something to be developed. We certainly will not deny the need to keep a very watchful eye on what happens to those former communist countries which now want their independence and a full place in the democracies of Europe.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, in view of the Minister's penultimate answer, which, if I may say so, was very sensible, does she not agree that any move to suck the central and eastern European new democracies into the western military system may tend to hasten rather than prevent the Russian will to suck them back into the Russian military system?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am always concerned when the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and I seem to agree. That aside, I am quite sure that the now independent nations are determined to stay that way. All NATO and WEU members are determined to help them to stay that way. We should be very careful not to make any false moves which might excite the expectations of extremists in Russia.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the Minister nevertheless agree that the election results have major implications for NATO planning not only in relation to our handling of those central and eastern Europeans but also in our calculations of warning times? Can the Minister say what special studies have been started in NATO leading up to the summit so that there can be a review of the important changes in Russia?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we should be cautious about jumping to conclusions. As I said, figures for the Russian parliamentary polls are still coming in. It seems that the reformist groups may yet be the largest bloc in the Duma. I note that the communists have already publicly distanced themselves from Zhirinovsky although they may co-operate to block the reformists' legislation. Nevertheless, we do believe that the foundation fur a democratic society is enshrined in the new constitution. Of course, we are also putting work in hand for the NATO summit in January.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as events unfold and policy develops, will the special and rather vulnerable position of the Baltic states be kept at the forefront of the Government's mind?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, yes.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that in the light of the very worrying Russian election results, the former Warsaw Pact countries of central and eastern Europe will be increasingly anxious about their security position? In view of that, can she tell the House what line the Government will be taking at the NATO summit in January on the proposals for a partnership for peace in order to make those proposals meaningful for the former Warsaw Pact countries in central and eastern Europe?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, the partnership for peace places emphasis on practical military co-operation between NATO and the countries of the former Warsaw Pact. We believe that the partnership for peace will form the basis of the discussion and we hope for a much more open relationship with those countries than was previously possible. But that is all for the NATO summit in January.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that pending NATO's consideration of the security situation, it may be helpful in reassuring the countries of central Europe if their economic position received greater attention and if the European Union, as it styles itself, stopped interfering with their export of goods—exports on which they rely to make their living?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that there should not be any interference. That is why we can rejoice in the outcome of the GATT round. I believe that the resources that the countries of the European Union are devoting to the development of those markets and to commercially oriented countries such as Poland will shortly become clear.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, from the sound of her voice, she ought to be at home in bed with a good, strong whisky toddy?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I appreciate the thought and I am most graceful to the product of the Scotch whisky distillers who last night came to the same conclusion and gave me the wherewithal.

Northern Ireland Electricity
3.17 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they expect electricity consumers in Northern Ireland to be getting value for money following the recent privatisation of the local electricity industry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, yes. The structuring and privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity will lead to increased efficiencies and greater competition in the electricity supply industry in Northern Ireland, which is the best guarantee of consumers' interests.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that Answer, but is he aware that even in these momentous times in Northern Ireland, the ordinary cares of domestic life continue? Is he further aware that in Northern Ireland one of those principal cares is the high cost of domestic and industrial electricity which is between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. higher than in Great Britain as a whole? Does the noble Earl agree that one of the contributory reasons for that is the bizarre system of charging by the generators who charge Northern Ireland Electricity not according to the units of electricity supplied, but according to their available capacity?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, points out, these are indeed momentous times at this moment in Northern Ireland. But I think that the reports of a substantial disparity between electricity prices in Northern Ireland and those in Great Britain have been considerably exaggerated as domestic prices are only 0.1 per cent. higher than in Great Britain; this is mostly brought about through a heavily oil-dependent country, obviously, and also a widely dispersed population. The answer to his second point is that the higher availability which has been achieved since the industry's transfer to the private sector is in actual fact a measure of its own increased efficiency. The benefit for customers of higher plant availability lies in the fact that it delays the time when expensive new generator plant requires to be added to the system.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that widespread concern is felt by industrial consumers of electricity in Northern Ireland about the costs to their enterprises that are likely to

1457
ensue? Will he confirm that the new bulk supply tariff suggests an average cost increase of 10 per cent. to industrial users in Northern Ireland? If the Government's policy is that competitive forces will reduce prices, when is that competitive policy likely to take effect?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, these are early days for the privatisation of electricity in Northern Ireland. There is much coming on stream as regards competition in Northern Ireland in the electricity sector. There is the anticipated system of the gas and electricity interconnector from mainland Scotland in 1997 coming through, and also the possibility of an interconnector from the south of Ireland. Overall, the prices have not increased as a result of privatisation. In fact, the price increase on 1st April this year was, in large measure, due to increased world oil prices.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the high cost of electricity presently charged is largely a result of the manner in which the generators were privatised. That, unfortunately, is now water under the bridge. The total bill for electricity in Northern Ireland will not decrease for many years. So far as can be seen, it will be about 2010 before any real reduction from competition can come through the system.
Noble Lords: Question, question!
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, is the Minister aware that large users—above 1 megawatt—are paying average increases which are 30.2 per cent., higher than they would be if they were positioned in the south west of England? Is the Minister aware that in a recent survey by the CBI, out of 77 responders, 35 expected a delay in investment because of the high cost, and 25 expected further development outside the UK? Will the Minister—
Noble Lords: No.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, perhaps I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh that the questions he asked, in the first instance, are a matter for the Director General of Electricity Supply in Northern Ireland. Of course, naturally he is aware of the concerns which large industrial consumers have about electricity prices, but he also has a responsibility to protect domestic consumers' interests.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, as the Minister and I fell out over statistics, does he agree with the report issued yesterday by the regulator in Northern Ireland, Mr. Geoffrey Horton, who said of electricity prices in Northern Ireland:
"The standard domestic tariff is the highest in the United Kingdom. It is only just above the next most expensive, but it is substantially above the UK average"?
I find that difficult to reconcile with the 0.1 per cent. extra that the Minister quotes. I wonder whether he would care—perhaps not now but later—to check his statistics.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that is the figure that I have at hand. That is the figure that I believe to be correct. I think we really must ask the noble Lord, Lord Holme, to wait for further movement in the competition of the electricity supply in Northern Ireland, which we hope will bring down prices in the next few years.

Habitats and Species: EC Directive
3.24 p.m.
Lord Moran Lord Moran asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they intend to implement the EC habitats and species directive.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, the responses to our consultation paper on implementation, issued on 4th October, are being considered before the introduction next year of transposing regulations under Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972. The policies and programmes which will help to achieve the objectives of the directive will be taken forward in the context of the biodiversity action plan arising from the commitments entered into in Rio last year. That plan will be published in January.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. I welcome the Government's plans, so far as they go, but will the Minister take account of the representations made to her department that the Government's proposals do not take adequate account of the key objective in the directive requiring restoration of habitats such as lowland heaths and wetlands, and the restoration of endangered and vanishing species, to attain what is defined in the directive as "favourable conservation status"? Does she also accept that in the case of—
Noble Lords: Reading!
Lord Moran: —strategic environmental assessment under Article 6 of the directive there appears to be a danger—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Moran: My Lords, I am asking whether the Minister accepts that there is a danger that the Government might be in legal breach of the directive, and—
Noble Lords: No, no!
Lord Moran: —that, in respect of Northern Ireland, it appears that progress has been so slow that it will be difficult to meet the June 1994 deadline.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to reassure the noble Lord that we believe the regulations will take full account of all the requirements of Article 6; and that the Government intend full implementation across the UK. Northern Ireland has already issued a consultation paper. Favourable conservation status, a point upon which the noble Lord dwelled, is a general concept running through the

1459
directive which will influence interpretation of numerous aspects. We shall seek to agree a common interpretation with colleagues in other member states. The noble Lord can be assured that our commitment to the habitats directive is 100 per cent.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this morning at a conference on biodiversity in the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre across the way the Government received, at the very most, one-and-a-half cheers for what they have been doing? What do the Government propose to do, under present obligations and powers, as well as under future ones, to stop the leach and damage to SSSIs, stemming largely from landowner neglect?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, as the biodiversity plan has still to be published I am surprised that it received one-and-a-half cheers. There seems to be some scaremongering about SSSIs. English Nature reports that in recent years only one SSSI in England has been lost.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is concern among NGOs that the Government appear to be pursuing a piecemeal approach to environmental methods, especially marine environmental matters? Will the Government make it a statutory requirement that each designated site should have a management plan and that there should be a designated lead organisation for that plan?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I have heard about the concern among NGOs that the noble Baroness expressed. The department has consulted them extensively, and will continue to consult on the criteria. Nature conservation agencies have the opportunity to develop management plans for protected areas. The Government encourage that. We believe that conservation is best achieved, where possible, by voluntary activity.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that she has no plans to restore the habitat for wolves in the Scottish Highlands?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Lord will be reassured to know that we are planning legislation by regulation to implement the directive.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, so far as Scotland is concerned, is it envisaged that Scottish Natural Heritage or, where appropriate, the Red Deer Commission will be consulted before sites or special areas are designated?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to say that on all issues there will be full consultation with those who are expert in the field.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the regulation that the Government are about to issue is under the European Communities Act 1972? Will she further confirm that such a regulation is designed under the Act only to meet the minimum requirements of the directive? Will she further
1460
understand that such a regulation cannot be debated paragraph by paragraph by your Lordships and is not amendable and that furthermore it is the practice of your Lordships not to vote on such regulations? Will the Government come clean and introduce primary legislation which we can debate properly to implement this directive?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to tell the noble Lord that we believe that the framework of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 has worked successfully and will continue to work successfully. The regulatory route is the one which will allow us to implement the directive successfully.

Business
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
I know that it is for the convenience of the House to have as much advance notice as possible of the times of our Recesses. On the eve of the Christmas Recess it may therefore be for the convenience of the House if I were to indicate that, subject to the progress of business, it is expected that the House will rise for the Easter Recess on Thursday 31st March and that the House will return on Monday 11 th April.

Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision about police areas, police forces and police authorities.; to make provision for England and Wales about magistrates' courts committees, justices' clerks and administrative and financial arrangements for magistrates' courts; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will have been grateful to the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal for reminding the House on 2nd December that the Companion to the Standing Orders states:
"The First Reading is almost always accorded without dissent or debate … but it is not unknown for the First Reading to be discussed, opposed or refused'".
It is not my intention to seek to oppose or refuse the First Reading of the Bill, but I do intervene at this stage in order to seek answers to questions which may improve informed debate at Second Reading. Before I do so, I wish to thank the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for his kindness in writing to me today offering to send a copy of the Bill to me if it were inconvenient for me to pick it up tomorrow. I understand that he has written in similar terms to other noble Lords. That was a real courtesy.
In order to improve the quality of debate at Second Reading it would be helpful if the Government were

1461
able to improve the quality of information which is available to noble Lords who will take part in that debate. First, it would be enormously helpful if the Government would publish an analysis of the responses which were made to the White Paper on the reorganisation of the police force. I understand that a list of respondents was made in answer to a Written Question in another place but that it was omitted from Hansard and will not now be available until the Bound Volume has been produced. Nevertheless, it is not just a list of respondents that we need. We need an analysis of the responses if we are to debate this matter properly.
Secondly, it would be very helpful if the Government were able to give more than is normally given in the Financial Memorandum about the cost of the reorganisation of police forces. It was indicated at meetings with the local authority associations in November that the cost might be approximately £12.7 million. Can the Government undertake to circulate to noble Lords or place in the Library a more detailed statement of what appear to be horrendous costs for this unnecessary reorganisation?
Thirdly, as this was not a manifesto commitment, can the Government explain the lack of independent investigation before a decision of this kind was taken? The tripartite relationship, which is after all to be replaced, was decided upon after the establishment of a Royal Commission. Why is this being done without any such independent investigation?
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I were to read again what the Companion says:
"The First Reading is almost always accorded without dissent or debate, both as a matter of courtesy and because the House has normally no knowledge of the Bill until it is printed; but it is not unknown"—
as the noble Lord said—
"for the First Reading to be discussed, opposed or refused".
My noble friend listened carefully to the points that the noble Lord raised, but I do not believe that it would be appropriate for him to give answers to matters relating to a Bill until the Bill has been published.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he would be good enough to recall that his statement in the House two weeks ago was made because his noble friend Lady Blatch accused the Opposition of inadequate attention to the Education Bill as we did not intervene at First Reading on that occasion.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am not sure where this exchange will get us. I gave advice to the House because it was in the Companion which sets out the rules of the House. The rules of the House have been around for some time and have been tried and trusted. I believe that it is right that it is not normal for there to be a debate on First Reading, both as a matter of courtesy and because until the Bill has been published noble Lords will not have seen what is in it. I should have thought that that was the best way to proceed. But of course my noble friend has listened carefully to what the noble Lord has said.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—and I hope I am in order—noble Lords really must take note of what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and indeed by the Leader of the House. I have listened to what the Bill is about and the point I want to make—I think that this is the place to raise it—is that it seems to be a conglomerate Bill. It is about the reorganisation of the police and it is about the reorganisation of the magistrates' courts. Those are two separate matters and therefore those two matters should not be contained in one Bill. It would be for the convenience of the House if we had two Bills as we are dealing with separate issues. That is my point. And, depending on the reply, I may decide to divide the House on the matter.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, it is up to the noble Lord as to whether or not he thinks his comments are more informed if he knows what the Bill says. However, I think your Lordships would probably consider it better for the Bill to be published so that informed discussion can take place upon it.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the Question is that that this Bill be now read a first time. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content".
Noble Lords: Content.
The Lord Chancellor: To the contrary, "Not-Content".
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Not-Content.
Noble Lords: Content.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think the "Contents" have it.
Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Mental Health (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
3.39 p.m.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend Section 145(1) of the Mental Health Act 1983. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Hayhoe.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Licensing of Domiciliary Care Agencies Bill [H.L.]
3.40 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for the licensing of domiciliary care agencies; to make provisions consequential thereon; and for connected purposes.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Ashley of Stoke.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Statutory Sick Pay Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House
3.41 p.m.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill to be taken tomorrow.—(Lord Wakeham.)
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I rise merely to remind your Lordships of the fact that when the House discussed the recommendation of the Procedure Committee that debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill be banned, we were told that the better alternative was to have a debate on financial and economic affairs related to, and at about the time of, a Consolidated Fund Bill. Will my noble friend say whether such a debate will be arranged?
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I wish to raise an even more specific matter concerning the Consolidated Fund. I wish to ask the Leader of the House directly whether he considers it proper, in the circumstances I shall outline, to proceed with the passing of the Consolidated Fund Bill tomorrow, more or less on the nod.
I am well aware of the convention by virtue of which formal consideration only is given to the Consolidated Fund Bill. Certain arguments have been adduced as regards the necessity of a debate concerning the general state of the economy, the Finance Bill and so on, with which I agree entirely. But even more specific circumstances have arisen which could not possibly have been in mind when the original convention was established.
In the course of exchanges across the House over the past few weeks, it has been established that payments were made from the Consolidated Fund to the tune of some £2.5 billion annually into the funds of the EC on the authority only of the proceedings of the European Council or Council of Ministers. British assent to payments from the Consolidated Fund have been made at prime ministerial level at various conferences without the prior authorisation of Parliament. Therefore, we are left in a position in which a substantial amount of taxpayers' money—approximately £2.5 billion—is paid out without any prior authority whatever. There is no opportunity to debate the European budget which provides for those expenditures and revenues. It seems to me, and I hope that it may seem to your Lordships, that at least that one point—the authorisation of the bulk of the £2.5 billion or thereabouts, as distinct from its detail—should be the subject of informed debate in your Lordships' House.
In the circumstances, perhaps the Leader of the House will consider it wise to defer consideration of the Consolidated Fund Bill tomorrow under the abbreviated
1464
procedure in order that a proper debate through the usual channels can be organised in this House. This is a very grave matter which involves considerable expenditure of taxpayers' money and it should be discussed in your Lordships' House.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I support my noble friend but for different reasons. We heard the Budget introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day; it came across very well. But what emerges from the measures which the Budget seemed to implement is a considerable increase in taxation for the average person. An opportunity is available to this House to hold a considered debate on the subject as a means not simply of informing ourselves through questions which we may ask the Government but of informing the country at large about the real implications of the Budget.
We are given less than a day's notice between First Reading and what would effectively be the Second Reading debate. I accept that the House has no power to vary the Consolidated Fund or to reject it. But we can at least debate the measure and seek to elucidate its implications for, as I said, our own sake and that of the country. I support the request that the Leader of the House should arrange for a suitable debate on the subject when we come back in the new year.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I should explain to your Lordships that the effect of the Motion that I have proposed is simple; namely, to dispense with Standing Order No. 44 for the purpose of taking the Consolidated Fund Bill through all its stages tomorrow. It is on that matter that I seek the agreement of your Lordships.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter refers rightly to discussions that have taken place about debates on economic matters. Of course I am happy and. willing that we should have as many of those as are required and for which time can be found. I remind my noble friend that during the debate on the Queen's Speech, one whole day was devoted to economic affairs. There was also the recent debate on an Opposition Motion of censure on the Government's policies in which economic matters featured fairly largely. I agree that that may not be enough to satisfy my noble friend but we shall do our best. We have not ignored his requests.
I know that, as always, the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, are offered in a helpful spirit. However, I wonder whether they are entirely on cue in this regard. The authority for the payments to which the noble Lord refers is to be found in the European Communities Act 1972. That legislation empowers Ministers to deal with the matters referred to by the noble Lord. Therefore, I have no doubt that there is nothing at all improper for your Lordships to consider as regards the Bill to be dealt with tomorrow.
I remind your Lordships that this is a supply Bill. Your Lordships may either pass or reject such Bills but it is not possible to amend them. I believe that that is the answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. The Budget is enacted by a Finance Bill and not by a supply Bill. The Finance Bill has not yet passed through the House of Commons and, consequently, has not yet arrived in this House. I am sure that proper arrangements will be made to deal with it at that time.

1465
I do not believe that the Consolidated Fund Bill provides an opportunity for the noble Lord to express his views. I hope that he can find a more appropriate occasion on which to do so.
Lord Peston: My Lords, before the noble Lord the Leader of the House sits down, I should like to assure him that we on this side of the House are aware of the view that was taken about the Consolidated Fund Bill which has been tabled for tomorrow. I, for one, as I shall be dealing with the matter, will not seek to prolong it. However, I hope that the noble Lord will take note of what his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said.
We were promised a debate following the new unified Budget. It disappeared. Therefore, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House to accept from me that I made it very clear to those in what I think one might call the Whips' Office that I expected such a debate; indeed, my view was that this afternoon would have been the ideal time for it. Speaking for myself, I shall certainly not let the matter go. For the very first time in modern history we have the unified Budget and, therefore, I believe that your Lordships are actually obliged to debate it. I must tell the noble Lord the Leader of the House now, as I have the opportunity, that I shall be pressing him on the matter. We must have such a debate. It would look appalling if we do not.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. However, it is a matter for discussion through the usual channels.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Hereditary Peerages
3.50 p.m.
Lord Diamond Lord Diamond rose to move, That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty may be graciously pleased to allow that Her undoubted prerogative may not stand in the way of the consideration by Parliament during the present Session of any measure providing for an amendment of the law relating to hereditary peerages that may be introduced.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Although it is a formal matter, it would perhaps be for the convenience of the House if I offered just a few words of explanation. In the new year I hope to introduce a Bill to provide that hereditary peerages will, except where there is a male heir already, descend to the eldest child whether male or female. The opportunity for full debate is of course a Second Reading and, although the Motion that I now propose is an essential preliminary, it is, so I am advised, a purely formal matter. I commend the Motion to the House.
Moved, That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty may be graciously pleased to allow that Her undoubted prerogative may not stand in the way of the consideration by Parliament during the present Session of any measure providing for an amendment of the law relating to hereditary peerages that may be introduced.—(Lord Diamond.)
Lord Elton: My Lords, can it be confirmed that, for the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, the object or end of his Bill is to further the trend of girls now to take still more of the cake, thus proving that diamonds are still their best friend?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I understand the purpose behind the Motion proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. However, the Motion is very wide. It covers any measure dealing with hereditary peerages and not merely the limited one to which he referred. Why is it necessary to take such a wide cover for what is really quite a narrow proposal?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I believe that I should rise to say briefly that I support the Motion tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. The Motion is a formal one and one which we are advised is necessary in order to enable the noble Lord to introduce his Bill. I hope that your Lordships will agree to the Motion. I suggest that any debate on the merits of the proposed Bill to be introduced by the noble Lord should be deferred until such time as the Bill is given a Second Reading. In supporting the noble Lord, I hope that I do not indicate that I necessarily support the Bill. I believe that the substance of it should be discussed on Second Reading.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I should like to follow the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. With the deepest respect, it seems to me to be somewhat unfair to Her Majesty to ask for Her prerogative to be used when, for all Her Majesty knows, the Bill may be one which orders execution for every hereditary Peer. I should have thought that it would be somewhat undesirable to put Her Majesty in that position. I know that I shall have the support of every hereditary Peer in the House in saying so.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I am in some doubt as to how far the House will be committing itself in approving such a Motion. I agree that the detail will eventually be discussed when the Bill is presented, but the Motion must mean something or nothing. By committing ourselves to agree to move along the line proposed, we will be making a commitment which perhaps we ought not enter into.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Leader of the House confirm that the assumption of his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is correct; namely, that not only would the Motion allow the introduction of the Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, but that any other person who feels like producing a Bill dealing with some aspect of hereditary peerages would also be allowed to do so once the Motion is passed? Indeed, we could have any number of Bills of varying character benefiting or disadvantaging the hereditary peerage once the Motion has been passed.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend follow up that point and answer my earlier question to which he did not respond; namely, why is it necessary to have a proposal which would cover any amendment to the law affecting hereditary peerages when we are told that the only purpose is a limited and,

1467
arguably, sensible one? Why cannot the Motion be restricted to that? Why must the Royal prerogative be suspended right across the field?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I intervene with some trepidation among the life Peers who have spoken in this short debate. It seems to me to be perfectly obvious that, although the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, (the purpose of which he explained), is the subject of a very much narrower Motion than that which we have in front of us, it is quite possible that the Bill will be amended in any way whatever. Therefore, it seems to me that we need the wider Motion proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, which my noble friend the Leader of the House has supported.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. This is a customary Motion that is put forward. As I see it, it is a Motion which will allow your Lordships to discuss the Bill and, presumably, any amendments that may be made to it. Its purpose is also to seek Her Majesty's agreement to the Bill. If the Motion is passed, it will go to the Home Secretary who will give Her Majesty advice on it. It is in accordance with our customs that, when a Private Member's Bill is directed substantially to the Queen's prerogative, the practice is to move an Address for the consent of the Crown before the introduction. I repeat, it is in no way committing us to agree to any part of the Bill or any amendments that might be made to it; it is in order to have a debate and to obtain the Queen's consent for such a debate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GATT
3.57 p.m.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister about the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the successful conclusion of the world trade negotiations.
"In Geneva yesterday, trade negotiators from 117 countries reached the most wide-ranging agreement ever. After seven years of long, hard and often fraught negotiations, it is a superb outcome. It is a result for which industry, commerce and consumers alike have pressed. It is a conclusion for which this Government have worked tirelessly through many crises, when protectionism threatened British markets and British jobs.
"The new GATT settlement will: help British industry by bringing down barriers to exports of manufactured goods and services; give manufacturers greater protection against piracy of their copyright, patents and designs; bring down prices for consumers, particularly of food, electronics and other manufactured goods; and, strengthen the world trading system against unfair practices by individual countries.
1468
"Britain is the fifth largest exporter in the world of goods and commercial services. We export more, per person, than either the United States or Japan. Our markets are already among the most open. So we stand, therefore, to be one of the biggest gainers from cuts in worldwide tariffs, quotas and other restrictions.
"Sharp reductions in some very high tariffs in the United States and Japan will help Britain in strategic markets. The overall tariff reductions—across all countries of the world—will be around 40 per cent. An independent study has indicated that a new GATT settlement could add up to 4 per cent. to our national output—generating up to 400,000 extra jobs over the next decade.
"The European economies as a group are estimated to be the biggest single gainer. So the GATT deal can be expected to give a much-needed boost to confidence and recovery in our biggest market. As late as last weekend, there was a real and frightening danger that negotiations might unravel. The world faced the choice between a retreat into protectionism, slump and higher unemployment—or free trade, growth and jobs. Happily, it has made the right choice. The Director-General of the CBI has rightly called this, 'a momentous and welcome event'.
"The Government have fought consistently to keep negotiations going. It has been a long struggle. Last year, we faced the prospect not only of failure but of a lurch into trade war between Europe and the: United States. Exports from Europe were threatened by new and punitive American tariffs. We were able to use our Presidency of the European Community to get both sides back to the negotiating table and to make progress on farm trade.
"We encouraged the new United States Administration to extend Congressional authority, in order to permit the GATT round to be concluded. We pressed for the agreement on tariffs at last summer's Tokyo summit—another crucial building-block in the final result. And at this autumn's Commonwealth summit, we launched a special mission to all the key governments of the developed world. This sent the clearest possible signal—on behalf of a quarter of the world's population—that free trade was a prize for developing countries too. Trade, more than aid, is the most certain route to economic development.
"Great credit is due to Sir Leon Brittan, the European Community's negotiator; and to Peter Sutherland, the Director-General of GATT. But others have played a crucial part, including the US negotiator, Micky Kantor. All three had the courage to take on their tasks at a time when it was far from certain they would be rewarded by success.
"Madam Speaker, let me now outline the main features of the agreement. First, industrial goods, where final details are still being worked out. A number of our largest export markets will move towards the total abolition of tariffs in industries which include pharmaceuticals, steel products and spirits. For example, the Scotch whisky industry,

1469
which already has exports totalling about £2 billion a year, will benefit from the complete abolition of Japanese tariffs.
"Cuts in high US tariffs on scientific equipment, chemicals, steel and ceramics, for example, will help us in one of our biggest markets. Our textile manufacturers will gain from tariff cuts in the United States, and gain greater access to many economies along the Pacific Rim.
"Secondly, agriculture, which for the first time will be fully covered by GATT rules. Tariffs are being cut and subsidies reduced substantially, offering families in this country the prospect of lower prices for staple foods.
"In Europe we have already begun the process of reducing farm production subsidies. Overall, these cost every family over £20 a week. The changes to the CAP already agreed—if passed on to the consumer—should over a period lead to price cuts equal to 20p off a pound of beef, 6p off a pound of butter. Under the GATT agreement, other countries—notably Japan and the United States—will have to cut their agricultural subsidies too.
"Thirdly, Madam Speaker, for the first time we have an international set of rules for free trade in services—the fastest-growing sector of the world economy. Services account for two-thirds of our output in the UK, but only about a quarter of our exports. So if we can break down barriers to trade, there is great potential for growth. The services covered range from insurance to consultancy. Many countries have made commitments on financial, telecommunication and transport services.
"This is only a start. Further negotiation with the United States must follow on maritime and on financial services. But we have meanwhile maintained the freedom of the City of London to attract new international business.
"Fourthly, so-called 'intellectual property', where, Madam Speaker, in too much of the world, the law of the jungle still rules. Expensive research and development by British pharmaceutical companies can be pirated—that is, stolen —by countries which offer no protection of patents. The same is true of Britain's record industry, which estimates that as much as half its market in the developing world is stolen by pirate goods. For the first time, we now have an agreed set of international rules, on which we can begin to rely in our fight to give these industries the markets they have a right to expect.
"Madam Speaker, free trade increases the need for businesses to be internationally competitive. But in Britain, we have world class companies, ready for the challenge. This new GATT settlement removes the threat of collapse of the world trade system—a system on which economic growth has been based for nearly half a century. It extends the benefits of trading rules into vast new areas of business. It brings further, welcome reductions in tariffs on British goods.
1470
"It is a platform for recovery, growth and jobs—in Britain, the European Community, and the rest of the world. I commend it to the House".
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Prime Minister's Statement that was made in another place. As he said, these negotiations have taken seven long and eventful years, and it is a tribute to the staying power of the negotiators involved that a conclusion has finally been reached. We on these Benches welcome this agreement and we hope it will provide a significant boost to world trade at a time when many economies are experiencing recession and unemployment.
We should place on record our congratulations to the three people most directly involved in this settlement; namely, Mr. Kantor for the United States, Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the European Union and Mr. Peter Sutherland on behalf of GATT itself. We should congratulate them not only on their negotiating skill but also on their collective commitment to the efficacy of creative insomnia. It seems to me that more has been achieved by their staying awake at nights over a period of time than has ever previously been achieved in international negotiations.
I am sure noble Lords on all sides of the House appreciate the importance of the conclusion of this agreement. It will cut tariffs; it will, hopefully, open up markets and it represents an historic opportunity to kick-start the global economy. However, it is vital that the signatories to GATT recognise this and translate the full potential of this agreement into growth, jobs and investment. I wish to ask about three specific matters which were dealt with in the Statement.
First, as regards trade in financial services, can the noble Lord the Leader of the House confirm that access to the United States will still be limited? If that is so, where do we go from here? What sort of negotiations—and in what forum—does he envisage in order to persuade the United States that their commitment to free trade in financial services should be as great as their commitment to free trade in other sectors?
Secondly, I wish to comment on French agriculture and the changes to the Blair House agreement. Can the noble Lord the Leader of the House confirm that, whatever changes take place to the Blair House agreement, that in no way prejudices the reform of the common agricultural policy, and indeed would not add any burdens to Community expenditure on the CAP? Thirdly, will the noble Lord the Leader of the House recognise that, while for the developed world this may be a great breakthrough, and indeed probably is, for some developing countries it will cause immediate problems? That is certainly true for some African countries. If the Government recognise that, what steps do they propose to take—as they should—to try to alleviate the difficulties that some of the primary producing countries are bound to experience as a result of this agreement, which will almost certainly result,

1471
initially at any rate, in a fall in the export prices of their primary products? I should be grateful to hear the Minister's comments on those three points. In summary, it was important for the world economy that this agreement was successfully concluded and successfully negotiated. We are pleased that that occurred and we hope that we can now build on the agreement.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, we can certainly agree on expressing general satisfaction at the outcome of the negotiations and join in the congratulations, particularly to Mr. Peter Sutherland and Sir Leon Brittan. In good wishes to Sir Leon on Monday I indicated that in my view he has found his ideal métier as a high-grade international negotiator of complicated matters.
It is also worth noting that the outcome is a considerable triumph for the European Community, or Union as I shall have great difficulty in getting used to calling it. I have no doubt that in the tough and protracted negotiations, had we been dealing with the power of the United States as fragmented, individual nation states of 50 million people, the Americans would have carved us up to a much greater extent. I do not believe that they have done so. People often ask what are the concrete benefits of the Community. Here is one very clear and large benefit.
We must recognise that the main beneficiaries of the agreement are Europe, the United States, Japan and the other Pacific rim countries. It is a classic example of to those that hath shall be given. In a way it is right that that should be so because I am in favour of providing a stimulus to the OECD and industrialised world at present. However, we should be aware that some do much less well. Compensation is a rather hallowed word in the GATT, and the Government and other comparable governments should give great consideration to the compensation, whether in the form of aid or of trade benefits, which they are prepared to give to those who come out of the agreement much less favourably than we and other rich countries.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for their remarks. I am very pleased that they used such warm words. They are right to congratulate, as the Prime Minister did in his Statement, those who had the principal responsibility for negotiating the agreement. It has been a formidable exercise and it has involved many thousands more people than just the leaders. I should like to pay a personal tribute to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister whose personal involvement, I know from my own experience, was essential at various times during the round. He played a very large part.
I shall comment on the points raised by the noble Lords. When we achieved this agreement my reaction was one of relief because the alternative to reaching the agreement would have been utter disaster. The agreement provides us with formidable opportunities.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked me about financial services. For the first time financial services will be included under the trade rules. The agreement includes many worthwhile commitments which will
1472
increase the opportunities for UK companies to expand their overseas markets. It is disappointing that the United Kingdom has not obtained as much as it hoped in the opening up of financial services. The position regarding the United States is that the existing access will be maintained but negotiations are continuing to open other markets further. Those negotiations will be undertaken by the United States and the EC, whose interests on these matters are very similar.
As regards the position of French farmers and agriculture, no special measures are needed to compensate EC farmers for the effect of the agreement. Indeed, at the European Council meeting in Brussels on 10th and 11 th December it was made clear that any further measures must be financed within the financial limits on expenditure agreed at the Edinburgh Council.
The third point which the noble Lord raised concerned the under-developed world. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, also asked about that. First, it would not have been possible to reach agreement on world trade unless the other major trading blocs had agreed. Other trading blocs, particularly the Cairns Group, have consistently been among its strongest supporters and have welcomed the agreement. In addition, the Limassol agreement of the Commonwealth countries, both developed and developing, demonstrated the desire of developing countries to see a conclusion to the negotiations. It is important to remember that developing countries earn three times as much from trade as from aid. The other important safeguard is that the changes will be phased in over a period, in some cases of 10 years. Therefore, there will be opportunities for both developing and developed countries to adjust.
4.16 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, should not my right honourable friend and Her Majesty's present Administration be congratulated on pushing so hard for free trade and free access? Is it not also true that it is the. European Union which has benefited from this savage push for free trade which is so necessary?
Having said that, when the agricultural positions finally come into being in 2005, how much subsidy will still exist in both the United States and the European Community on agricultural products? Is it not now time, to start thinking about the potential of Eastern Europe and the Ukraine, despite the appalling mess which exists at the moment in relation to their agricultural produce, bearing in mind that that area exported in the region of 15 million tonnes of grain in 1913?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, my noble friend is right. It is a complex agreement. All the details do not emerge at once and we do not have them all yet. The EC itself has more than 10,000 separate tariff lines.
I am not sure that I can answer my noble friend's question in relation to agricultural support. However, under the agreement there is a commitment to a steady reduction in EC tariffs on imported agricultural products. For consumers that means an average reduction of 36 per cent. and not less than 20 per cent. for any particular foodstuffs over the six years. In addition, where there was previously low or minimal

1473
access for agricultural imports the agreement provides for improved access at reduced rates of tariffs. It is certain that the agreement will lead to a cheaper and wider range of food imports. I am not able to give the exact figure and I doubt whether it is known.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, following his noble friend's question, can the noble Lord the Leader of the House confirm that the present agreement, that a reduction of 30 per cent. in agricultural prices will be compensated by area payments, will not be affected?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, that is my understanding of the position, but I shall check for the noble Lord.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, it is pleasing to note the unanimity of acceptance of the outcome of the negotiations. However, there is one item which I believe ought not to pass and which worries me a little. In relation to financial services the noble Lord, Lord Richard, implied a criticism of the United States in not having given even more. It is sad that that, even as an implication, should be on the record because the United States moved considerably. In answering that point, my noble friend seemed marginally to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard. If we begin, even by implication, to criticise the Americans for what they have not given we may encourage people on the other side of the Atlantic to criticise France for perhaps asking for too much. That atmosphere ought not to be allowed to develop in these early stages if we can possibly avoid it.
Lord Richard: My Lords, before the noble Lord the Leader of the House replies, perhaps I may give this information to the noble Lord who criticises me. The Americans gave nothing on financial services. It is not a question of saying that they have given a bit and that they should have given more. As I understand it, on financial services the position remains identical to what it was before the agreement was negotiated.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I shall do my best to answer both points of both noble Lords. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is wrong. The fact is that the United States has agreed that financial services will come within the trade rules for the first time. That is a substantial move in the right direction. However, I do not believe that I am criticising anyone particularly. It is a wonderful agreement and everyone had to give and take a little to achieve it; but it was absolutely vital that we did so. However, the British negotiators would prefer to have more access to the United States market for financial services. The United States recognises that as a reasonable request, and we continue to negotiate. That is in no sense a criticism; it is in the context of seeking to make improvements for the future.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, we are all encouraged and delighted at the result of the negotiations. Quite specific estimates have been made as to the growth in world trade, employment, and so on, as a result. Have any specific calculations been made on the impact of the agreement on the third world? There is a suggestion, in particular from representatives of the African states, that it is a triumph for a rich man's club
1474
and that those states will not benefit greatly from the new agreements. Since any subsidies paid from the European fund will be limited within the total budget, as the noble Lord mentioned, will subsidies, assistance or aid programmes to the third world be limited to the overall claim on the European funds from the common agricultural policy, television companies, and so on? Have any calculations been made of the total impact on third world countries? Is the agreement defensible on those terms?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, at least the developing countries think it is defensible. They very much supported the agreement for a number of reasons. For example, they believe strongly that the agreement provides protection by proper rules on intellectual property rights. That will encourage western companies to invest in factories and plant in their countries and will provide many advantages.
However, everyone gains in the long run from a more liberal trade regime. It is not possible to work out a fixed gain/loss scenario. Some studies were done before the round was completed but they have all been based on assumptions about the balance of tariff cuts which may or may not be the final outcome. There will no doubt be other detailed analyses of the precise impact on specific areas but they will not be available for some time. Most of the previous analyses were done before the final outcome was known.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, the agreement has been a remarkable success despite the ingrained protectionism in some areas, which included some proclaimed protection of culture. Is there any doubt whether the agreement will receive the necessary number of ratifications within the time required in order that the actions intended can be carried out?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I do not believe that anyone who signed the agreement in Geneva does not expect that his country will ratify the agreement, but the process has to be gone through. The United States Congress has to ratify. By achieving the 15th December deadline it ensures the fast track procedure. It is hoped that there will be a final signing ceremony; I believe some time in the spring in Marrakesh or somewhere rather pleasant.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, perhaps I may press the noble Lord the Leader of the House on the issue of third world countries. He is quite correct that no estimates have been made of gains and losses since the agreement was reached. However, I believe that I am right in saying that the OECD calculated that the loss to the poorest countries is likely to be of the order of £9 billion a year. If one gives or takes £2 billion a year, that is a substantial sum of money. I hope and believe that Her Majesty's Government and other signatories to the agreement, in particular the European Community, are taking urgent steps to consider what compensatory arrangements can be made to compensate for that substantial loss, which will afflict the poorest people in the world.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am not prepared to accept the premise of the noble Lord's question that there are losers. I am sure that some will gain more than others; and I believe that there is a proper analysis of the matter. Certainly the developing countries have very much welcomed the agreement. I was referring to the OECD study when, in answering the noble Lord on the Labour Benches, I said that the assumptions of that report were not necessarily those in the final outcome. No doubt we shall return to the subject.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I believe that all nations, even those who might be held to lose under the agreement, will share the noble Lord's relief that agreement has been reached. The round was becoming known as the "general agreement on talking and talking", as some noble Lords may have read.
I believe that the organising, disciplinary body that will be set up to head a GATT will be called the Multilateral Trading Organisation. Does the noble Lord have information on how that body will be composed? Will there be a majority representation of the richer countries? Will the representation be based on population, region, or what? Will there be a rotation of nations which serve on that body? It will be necessary for the developing countries to have good representation on that organisation in order to put their views forward and make their concerns known to everyone in the organisation.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I do not have the full details; I doubt whether they have been worked out. However, I should have thought that every signatory to the agreement would be represented in some form or another on the world trade organisation. The organisation will put the international trading system on a permanent institutional basis for the first time. That has been welcomed by the developing countries and by the more developed countries. The organisation will be able to apply effective disciplines on unilateral action and set up better systems for settling trade disputes. That has to be done in a manner that is considered by all signatories to the agreement to be fair and proper. Most importantly it will have tougher powers and will be able to act more quickly than in the past. That must be in the interests of those who believe in world trade and in fair world trade.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, it is surprising to support the noble Lord the Leader of the House for his Statement today, but there is anxiety that there may be losers. The continent of Africa has been referred to as a possible loser. I accept that it may be too early to make projections. However, I hope that the Government will consider the evolving trade situation and will bear in mind that it is of the utmost importance for the stability of the world at large that there are not seen to be losers, and that living standards do not drop as a result of the new regime. I hope that the Government will take active steps to ensure that that does not occur.
Secondly, what plans do the Government have to take advantage of the increase in world trade from this agreement? Specifically, what plans have they to invest in British shipping and containerised trans-shipment
1476
points so that British companies can take advantage of the increase in world trade? Bearing in mind the sad decline of our merchant fleet over the past 15 years under this Government, what plans have the Government for investing in a modern merchant fleet which can take advantage of the increase in world trade?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the noble Lord kindly started by saying that he agreed with much of what I said. However, I am sorry to disagree with him on his other points as I do not believe that he has the matter in the right perspective. A substantial increase in world trade will flow from the agreement. I do not believe that anyone would have signed it if they thought they would be worse off. They will all be better off. It is possible that some may be better off than others and if there are problems no doubt they will be addressed in the future. However, we do not expect that to be the case. Certainly the developing countries have welcomed the agreement.
The noble Lord's last point was that the Government should use the additional trade and aid that we obtain to invest in this and that. First, I thought that we had gone past those stages years ago. Secondly, the new agreement almost certainly makes that kind of government subsidy no longer permissible.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord help me with one question? He said that there would be a substantial increase in world trade as a result of the agreement. I hope that that is absolutely right. However, I have heard figures bruited abroad that the increase will be 200 billion dollars a year, on a total trade of 4.5 trillion dollars. I calculate that to be just under a half of 1 per cent., which is not a substantial increase. It may be that I am completely wrong, and if so I should like it explained to me.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the figures I have and which I quoted are an increase of 4 per cent. in our trade. I would expect that to be reasonably fair across the world, although we may have done slightly better than others. The estimate is of 400,000 extra jobs in this country as a result of the agreement.

Companies Act 1985 (Insurance Companies Accounts) Regulations 1993
4.32 p.m.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23rd November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper and it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to the Insurance Accounts Directive (Miscellaneous Insurance Undertakings) Regulations 1993.
The regulations are for the purpose of implementing the EC Council directive on the accounts of insurance undertakings which was adopted in December 1991. They are primarily concerned with the presentation and content of the annual report and accounts of insurance companies to their shareholders or members. They also deal with consolidation of the accounts of insurance

1477
groups. They will apply to accounts prepared in respect of all financial years starting on or after 23rd December 1994 although companies may follow them earlier if they wish.
The first, and by far the larger, of the two sets of regulations is that made under the Companies Act 1985. It will apply to almost all British insurance companies. Its rules for the preparation of accounts will replace those currently set out in Schedule 9A to the Act.
The second set of regulations applies what is essentially the same set of rules to a very small number of insurance undertakings which are covered by the directive but which are not currently required to prepare accounts under the Companies Act.
Up to now, although insurance company accounts have had to be audited, it has not been necessary for the auditor to give an opinion on whether or not the full accounts are true and fair. Under these regulations, however, it will be compulsory for insurance company accounts to give a true and fair view of company assets, liabilities, financial position and profit or loss. It will no longer be possible to have hidden reserves, permitted under the current law.
The regulations require considerable disclosure of information. Standard formats for the balance sheet and profit and loss account are prescribed. There will be detailed rules concerning accounting treatments and the valuation of certain types of asset and liability and a specification of matters to be disclosed in the notes to the accounts. Almost all of this detail derives directly from the directive.
The Government have consulted extensively with the insurance industry and other interested parties over the last two years since the directive was adopted. I am pleased to pay tribute to the admirable assistance we have received from those quarters. Their views and comments have been invaluable in drafting these regulations.
We believe the new style of accounts prepared under the regulations will be welcomed by all users of accounts—shareholders, members, intermediaries, analysts and others. I therefore commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23rd November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Goschen.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Peston apologises for his absence and has asked me to say that these measures have his full approval and that of these Benches.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Insurance Accounts Directive (Miscellaneous Insurance Undertakings) Regulations 1993
4.35 p.m.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23rd November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to this set of regulations with the earlier set of regulations. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23rd November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Goschen.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pastoral (Amendment) Measure
4.36 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It may be for the convenience of the House if I explain as briefly as possible the content and purpose of the Measure. It is a Measure dealing with redundant Church of England churches. The reason for its short title is that it amends the existing legislation on the subject, the Pastoral Measure 1983. The word "redundant" conjures up rather negative images, but the Measure is in fact a positive one. It aims at improving the arrangements for Church buildings which, for whatever reason, are no longer required for their original purpose. If I may put the matter in context, your Lordships may like to know that 20 to 30 out of 16,000 Church of England churches are declared redundant each year and that between 10 and 20 new places of worship are opened each year.
The future of the buildings and all that belongs to them is obviously of major concern to the Church of England itself, but it is also of concern to the wider community. One reason is that the local community often sees the church building as a vital part of its history and a focus of its life, both now and in the future. At a national level, the state, as well as the Church, contributes substantial sums of money to the Redundant Churches Fund to help it care for some of the most important redundant churches for which no suitable alternative use can be found. Because of that, the Government and the Church Commissioners joined together in 1989 in asking Mr. Richard Wilding to review the operation and financing of the Redundant Churches Fund. When he reported in 1990, he made over 60 recommendations and the Government and the Church Commissioners have accepted the majority of them.
Some of the recommendations do not require legislation, but at least one calls for an Act of

1479
Parliament. No doubt, your Lordships will be asked in due course to consider a Bill to deal with the matter. The Measure before your Lordships today includes the provisions which the General Synod needed to pass to implement the Wilding report. Many are of a financial nature. For example, they lay down more flexible arrangements for the financing of the Redundant Churches Fund.
Apart from financial matters, the Measure changes the name of the Redundant Churches Fund to the Churches Conservation Trust which reflects the fact that the fund is a practical and positive body whose churches take on a new and positive role in the community when they come into the fund's hands. The Measure also includes a few other provisions which the Church Commissioners, the Department of National Heritage or the Redundant Churches Fund have suggested in order to improve the practical working of the 1983 Measure.
I refer to Clause 7, which the Ecclesiastical Committee mentions in its report. That clause deals with the provisions for removing the legal effects of consecration—as opposed to what I might call the spiritual significance of consecration—when a redundant church or land is being disposed of. The main effect of removing the legal effect of consecration is that it is no longer necessary to go to the consistory court for a faculty before making alterations to the property.
Clause 7 makes the existing provisions for removing the legal effects of consecration slightly wider. But it does not affect the provision in the 1983 Measure under which the scheme dealing with a particular church may always preserve the effects of consecration where that seems desirable. In any case, removing the faculty jurisdiction does not necessarily mean that the new owner is completely free to deal with the property as he likes, because of the restrictive covenants to which I have already referred.
The Ecclesiastical Committee drew attention to the ecological importance of many churches and burial grounds and the need to safeguard this. It is widely recognised that churchyards are often the main, if not the only, sanctuary for wildlife for many miles around. The Church and other bodies are doing a great deal to provide encouragement, information and advice about wildlife conservation for all those who are responsible for them. There is always, in any case, an opportunity for members of the public and official bodies to make representations before a redundancy scheme is made in order to deal with concerns about wildlife, and those would be given due weight if any such representations were made.
That concern for the environment highlights one aspect of the matter which I mentioned in opening; namely, that the future of redundant churches and all that belongs to them is of concern to the wider community as well as to the Church. The Measure which is now before the House seeks to ensure that the best possible arrangements are made for them. I therefore ask noble Lords to support the Measure, and the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Guildford.)
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, we have no difficulty in supporting this Measure, and the Ecclesiastical Committee had no difficulty in declaring it expedient. Obviously, it needs to go through this House and to get Royal Assent as quickly as possible. The only point that I had intended to make, and will still make, is that which the right reverend Prelate just mentioned; namely, the ecological value of burial grounds and churchyards in some cases. In areas where there is a great deal of chemical farming, such places are quite often the last haven for wildlife, for plants and for animals. It is very important that that point is recognised, and I am very relieved to hear the right reverend Prelate give it his attention. I hope that the Measure will go through as quickly as possible.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, as a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee I too can find nothing that we should comment on in the general bulk of the Measure before us. It seems admirable, and it has been given due and proper consideration by the Church authorities. I too would like to draw attention to the ecological point. It is important. I think it probably was the noble Baroness who drew the attention of the Ecclesiastical Committee to this particular point when we considered it.
It was in the days of high farming, when relentless war was waged on conservation right across the courtly, that the Churches maintained their tradition of being, in a way, a sanctuary for wildlife. These days it is not quite so important. With low farming and set-aside, conditions are less threatening outside. Nevertheless, it remains important. At the species diversity conference this morning, which I mentioned earlier, consideration was given to the fact that it is not enough to have SSSIs and particularly designated small areas. Rather, it is important that there should be a network over the whole countryside so that there is not just a single area which may be quite insufficient for the retention and for the breeding of a single species. It is important to have such a network over the countryside. It is absolutely right that the Church, with its strong doctrine of creation, should safeguard that.
The right reverend Prelate said that there was machinery for dealing with this matter. He said that it would be given "due weight". That phrase is a little ambivalent. I would welcome something much stronger. "Due weight" depends on what your attitude is when you do the weighing. I would like a commitment that it will be given very strong weight and will be taken very seriously into account. It is a matter about which the whole of Parliament probably feels very strongly; and I am sure that the whole Church feels very strongly. Therefore they should reach agreement on it.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I had not intended to interfere in this debate, but I would like to say that from the whole of the discussion it would appear that a wildlife sanctuary in the churchyard is very

1481
important. I disagree. I believe that the main aim should be to preserve the architectural beauty and the historical importance of such sites in the community. I live and work in a high farming community. There is a lot of wildlife. If it had to depend on the well-kept churchyards in that county, there would be no wildlife at all.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that a great deal is done to ensure that churchyards, though they are finally designed to be resting places for the departed, are also fortunately places for life.
Perhaps I may give a further reassurance: the code of practice for the care of churches and ecclesiastical jurisdiction measure contains specific recommendations about the importance of wildlife within churchyards; so does the Churchyards Handbook. None of those documents is the kind of matter that noble Lords would normally read in bed, but they are documents which are readily available to those who have these responsibilities. An information pack produced by a number of conservation bodies is available and contains a number of leaflets, including Discovering Butterflies in Churchyards, and so on. So due weight is given to the importance of wildlife in churchyards. But we have to recognise that that is not their only purpose. Therefore, with due deference to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, I would wish to stick to the phrase "due weight". But I assure noble Lords that the matter is taken seriously and I hope that noble Lords will support this particular measure.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Dog Control and Welfare Bill [H.L.]
4.48 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Perhaps I may say at the outset that if I tend to lean on the back of a Back Bench, it is for physical support and not for political comfort.
This is the third time that I have moved the Second Reading of this Bill. But I assure noble Lords that I have no intention of making a habit of it. Until now there has been a strategic purpose behind everything I have done on this Bill. And there will continue to be that purpose, unless the speech of the noble Lord on the Front Bench differs from what I think it is likely to be.
I can also promise not to be guilty of tedious repetition. I shall not take your Lordships over the speeches that I made before. Indeed they are somewhat irrelevant to our position today, which I hope to deal with very briefly. In fact I should have been very happy to be left alone with the noble Lord on the Front Bench who will speak for the Government. I hope that I can do business with him this afternoon. Whether he has any business to do with me is another matter. We shall see.
This Bill originated three Sessions ago but it did not arise out of any events connected with dangerous dogs. We had not heard of dangerous dogs at that time. We
1482
had heard a great deal about a national registration scheme for all dogs. Your Lordships agreed an amendment to the Environmental Protection Bill which staggered the Government because it instructed them to go into the question of a national registration scheme for all dogs and they did not like it. But the Bill went to the other place and gained so much support that the Prime Minister became gravely anxious. There was rebellion in the air.
There seemed to be a general desire in both Houses for a national dog registration scheme. The time came, on a crucial vote in the other place, when the Whips apparently advised that there were so many people in favour—Ministers and Back-Benchers—that they doubted whether the Government could hold a majority against the amendment on the Floor of that House. So enough money was spent to pay for two years for the Dog Control and Welfare Council in order to get back supporters from all corners of the earth. Even when that was done and the three-line Whip was dripping with ink, the Prime Minister had a majority of fewer than five. I do not know the exact figure, but it was a shocker. The smallest majority in the other place during her premiership was on the national dog registration scheme.
It struck me how futile it all was. Why was there so much debate about a national dog registration scheme without having some investigation into the need for it or its purpose? Should not evidence have been taken about it to find out what kind of consensus of opinion could be achieved? I then thought about how we had solved problems of that kind elsewhere. I recalled the time in 1979 when I went to see the chairman of the Conservative Party, who happened to be the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw. I went with a message from the Prime Minister at that time, my noble friend Lord Callaghan, to the effect that it was his intention, if returned as Prime Minister, to set up a standing Royal Commission on animal welfare and spread an umbrella over the whole area of animal well-being, their relationships with society and so on.
But the noble Viscount thought that it was better for each area of administration to find its own way into advisory machinery. He said that he would upgrade the Farm Animal Welfare Council and make it an effective body. He would also in the Home Office upgrade the Animal Procedures Committee under the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876. He did both. A department that is responsible for administering a controversial area of public affairs cannot expect to keep in close enough touch with the formation of opinion or go for the kind of advice that is needed in a developing situation.
This Bill is a copybook copy of the Farm Animal Welfare Council. In fact the Farm Animal Welfare Council did not need statutory support. It was done by regulation. But the Animal Procedures Committee set up under the 1986 Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act is a statutory committee with powers embodied in the Act itself. They were very strong powers that we insisted on at the time.
Let me turn to the Home Office. The Home Office does not have complete responsibility for the care, welfare and control of dogs. To some extent its work has

1483
been hived off to the Department of the Environment because it is responsible for keeping the parks clean and dealing with other nuisances in the purview of the local authorities. As a sop the Government added to the Environmental Protection Bill at the end of that controversy a huge slice of new material on strays and animal behaviour in municipal parks and on pavements. It was a kind of compensation for having been frustrated over the national registration scheme.
In previous speeches I have tried to make out a case for the Home Office having at its disposal similar advisory machinery. It got into an awful mess over the dog registration scheme. Strictly speaking, it was not the Home Office that was in the mess but the Government, because the Department of the Environment was also heavily involved. We thought that this was an opportunity for the Home Office to bring the dog situation under better control. By that time the issue of dangerous dogs had arisen and we saw what was happening.
This Bill presumes that the expense of the council will be borne by the Government. It does not provide for it. If the Bill goes to another place it will be there that the financial provision will be made. When I first raised the matter I was told that public expenditure was under review and things were getting very difficult. I was told that it was not a very favourable atmosphere for public expenditure on a matter of this kind. The second time round I received that message rather more strongly. In the intervening informal approaches that I made, it came firmly from the Government that there was no more money for this measure. Indeed, it was suggested by the Home Office that it did not think that the Bill was really necessary, the need was not as strong as I had made out, and it had plenty of advice at its disposal.
If noble Lords want to read a rather appalling account of what a Home Secretary can go through and what he can do, perhaps I may suggest that they read Mr. Kenneth Baker's chapter on dangerous dogs in his recent memoirs. He believed himself to be the hero of the piece, of course, and not the victim of the tabloid press, which in fact he was. I must not spend time on that; your Lordships can read it for yourselves. If anyone gets any comfort at all from reading the confessions of a Home Secretary in that situation, I shall be extremely surprised.
But there is more to come in regard to dogs than Members realise. Trouble is looming in relation to dogs. For one thing, there are so many of them; for another, they matter so much to individuals; and, finally, they arouse emotions for and against the canine world which stray into political attitudes.
I must come to the point of what I want from the noble Lord opposite. There is to be no money from the Government. But they add, "If you want to embark on the creation of a dog control and welfare council yourselves, not requiring any government money, you are welcome to have a go". That is the position that I bring to the House this afternoon. It is said that there is no Government money available. That is why the matter was not taken up in the House of Commons when the Bill went through all stages and was duly passed on 16th November 1992. The Bill has already been passed by
1484
this House. Why then do I have to bother again? It is because I cannot put it into effect except on the basis of what I am now saying to the Benches opposite.
Where is the money to come from and on what terms will we be able to use it? What is, in general, the attitude of the Government to the novel way in which they suggest we proceed? I know of no standing advisory committee of the prestige that we seek which is sustained on non-governmental resources. Yet this will have to be sustained on non-governmental resources. We shall have to obtain the money from some-where—we have a good idea where we can obtain it but that is beside the point. If we do that—we have reached the stage where, if we are going to do it at all, we shall have to embark on it soon—what will be the attitude of the Government towards this "chicken" created especially by private effort to give good advice continuously to the Home Office, which is always in need of it?
What we are offering is the prospect that, free of charge, the Government will have the facilities of a standing advisory council of the quality outlined in the Bill. It is not a fly-by-night; it is not a cook-up to enable the animal liberation people to sit on a government committee. Our privately created and financed council would be the one stipulated in the Bill. Our scheme would fit neatly into the Bill and that is why I continue to bring the matter before the House. I shall keep bringing the Bill before the House for as long as I can or for as long as I need to. It is like the Ark of the Covenant that we carry around with us and say, "This is the advisory committee that is on offer. What use will you make of it?"—but more important—"what will be your attitude towards it?"
I will suggest a few words to the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite and see what he says. He need only utter the right word and I shall sit down. Will the attitude of the Government be cordial? Will it be encouraging? Will it incorporate the spirit of goodwill? Will it offer co-operation? Will it establish a relationship which, although no money changes hands, will nevertheless be the sort of relationship where two parties come together in a common effort?
The noble Lord may wish to use other words that may be in his mind—indifferent, an intrusion, hostile, a nuisance. There are plenty more words if one looks in the dictionary. They are all there and he is free to choose whichever one he wants. I want from the Minister a suitable word of encouragement regarding this non-government funded council to enable us to go with confidence to those who will be asked to put up the money. They will not want to donate the large amount of money needed without obtaining some assurance that when the council is provided—no doubt based on a charitable foundation with some of the principal sponsors being trustees, who will appoint the officers of the council and its members—a suitable relationship will be established.
Would it help if we said that we are prepared to pay for the blessing of the Government if they do not rob the council of its independence? I throw out a few ideas. Perhaps it would help if we said to the Government, "You appoint a chairman", or "Would you like to

1485
approve the members that we select? What do you want from us to make the council acceptable as a partnership?" How big are the Government and how big can they make the council? That is what I am after.
I congratulate the noble Lord opposite on coming from the back seats to the Front Bench in one leap. But I am quite sure that he has not come with any licence to utter a single word that has not already been written for him by the Home Office. I do not want to tell any secrets, but other Members of your Lordships' House sitting in his seat have come to me at times and said, "I must see whether the officials will agree to that". They must see whether the officials will agree to it. To what depth has ministerial representation come when he has to run like that to the officials?
I know too much about how those matters work behind the scenes. The office line is laid down, probably from higher up. It does not want to bother with it any more so the officials are given the right to supervise what junior people are allowed to say.
When looking at what comes out of the Home Office we need to look at what has been going into the Home Office over the past 10 years. At the beginning of the present Administration we had the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, as Home Secretary, then followed Leon Brittan; then followed Douglas Hurd. They in turn occupied the seat of Home Secretary for the first 10 years of this Administration—stalwart, steady, stable. Then the rot set in. The Prime Minister wanted to get rid of Geoffrey Howe. He offered him the position of Home Secretary even when Douglas Hurd still held it and had not heard a word about it, but he refused. But Douglas Hurd did move and then look what we got!
We have had four Home Secretaries in the past four years. First, the period of office was four years, then two years and then four years among the saviours of the Home Office whom I have described. Now we have tenure of one year or one and a half years. The new one may last. His head is full of crime. He wants to look at all the prisons he can so that he knows how to make more of them.
One wonders what 'direction one is getting from the Home Office as regards its great variety of worries and troubles at present. Kenneth Baker was Home Secretary for 18 months. There was something in the good old chestnut story that the worst Ministry to be posted to was the one which Kenneth Baker had just left. There was a good deal of truth in that. Kenneth Clarke was only in that position for a few months before he was being talked about for the Prime Minister's job.
The Home Office has now become a staging post. It is a junction at which people meet on their travels elsewhere even though they may be travelling out. So what confidence can we have in that set up? Then one must consider all the junior Ministers and permanent officials who have changed. An official can go from animals to prisons and then immigration. Just consider the list of things which the Home Office is dealing with from time to time. These officials are pushed around in order to get experience so that an experienced animal
1486
man is promoted to be a deputy secretary or something of that kind, and he moves off. The new man comes in, knows nothing and has to start afresh.
We have to train these fellows and we do not charge for it. We have to let them into the secrets of their new profession. There is no comfort in the Home Office at the present time. I wonder whether the noble Lord on the Front Bench will have the opportunity of lifting our hearts on this matter. Much will depend on what he says in a few minutes. We then have to decide what to do: do we manage without this measure altogether or try another route?
I have spoken partly for business reasons and partly for entertainment. I like the House to be buoyed up a little on virtually its last day and to have a bit of fun. I am glad that we had a little fun this afternoon. I am obliged to my noble friend on the Opposition Front Bench for appearing to be in support. I have to apologise to a number of my friends in all parts of the House who cannot be here this afternoon.
On 17th January we are calling together for the fourth time the most representative body of organisations representing dogs that we have ever seen in this country—there will be 22 of them. Everyone who knows anything about dogs is a member of our new dog law reform group. What is more, money came rolling in. We only had to say that we wanted money to draft new laws for dogs and we received a large measure of public support.
The bitterest moment as regards dogs is to come when I have to introduce the Dangerous Dogs Act (Amendment) Bill in the New Year. Then I shall not be so entertaining. Indeed, I shall look at my dictionary for a few new words which I can use about the events of 1991. I have spoken for far too long, but if noble Lords have not felt that it is long, then the strain on my ageing legs has been borne with happiness and contentment.
Moved, that the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, I rise to support this Bill in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. This is a very simple Bill, barely two pages long, but with very clear objectives in mind. I shall not dwell on its contents, which have already been outlined by the noble Lord, except to say that its aim is to work closely, not only with government, but with all the groups in the canine world.
I would like to say a word or two about the deregulation Bill which is due next year and particularly about the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973. The potential abandonment of that Act really is a cause for concern. It is becoming increasingly obvious that there are puppy farming establishments in Wales which are very substandard and which have no regard to the welfare of the animals in them. Some puppy farmers do not even have a licence to run an establishment. Some local councils do not appear to be very concerned and do not even make regular checks on the ones they do license. Sadly, it is left to inspectors, who have to cover a wide area, to check not only the licensed premises, but also to track down the unlicensed ones. This makes their job

1487
doubly difficult. I am not saying that all puppy farms are bad, but a great many are. Without the Breeding of Dogs Act what hope is there for the unfortunate dogs trapped in these situations?
The Bill we are discussing could draw up guidelines and, with government backing, see them enforced. While on the subject of puppies, let us think about those exported to Hong Kong. They are only eight weeks old, unvaccinated and often, within a short space of time of arriving, they are ill. I am sure that that cannot be right. If we care about our animals at all we should do our best to stop this sort of trade in such very young animals.
The deregulating of the Pet Animals Act 1951 will allow those who already run a bad establishment to become even worse, with little fear of prosecution. Quite frankly, I would like to see the sale of pets from shops ended altogether. If one wants a pedigree dog, then why not buy it from a reputable breeder whose establishment has been checked or, preferably, from a dogs' home, thereby giving an abandoned dog a chance of a decent life?
With the increasing movement of domestic pets between the United Kingdom and Europe as frontiers come down, I suspect that sooner or later we shall have to inoculate all our dogs against rabies. Surely, some sort of record will have to be kept as the disease also affects humans. Perhaps the Government will look at the permanent identification of dogs in future.
The deregulation Bill addresses a number of areas of welfare legislation with a view to stripping away controls. The Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will establish a body that can review these laws with a view to making them more effective, thereby ensuring that dog control and animal welfare legislation can be comprehensive. Finally, we hope that the Minister will give this Bill its due consideration.
5.19 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, on a subject he covers so well and so thoroughly, for putting the simple contents of the Bill so clearly to your Lordships. Whenever there are debates concerning dogs in your Lordships' House the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is always there, tireless as ever, supporting dogs. dog owners and groups who work for dogs. There is little for the rest of us to say except to give our support.
I know from past experience that, where the Government are concerned, arguments for dog registration fall, not on deaf ears, but certainly on unreceptive ears. A huge majority of people in this country favour some kind of dog registration scheme. The matter is further complicated by the opening of the Channel Tunnel. By and large neighbouring countries have sensible registration schemes of one form or another. But people whose journey with their dogs may have taken 25 minutes or thereabouts may then have to face something which they find frustrating and unnecessary. I refer to quarantine. Against the background of anarchy that prevails as regards dogs in this country, that could result in problems.
France has a tattooing system as part of its statutory vaccination requirement. Most people pay the fee which
1488
covers the registration. Some do not, but dogs found without the tattoo have only a very short period of time in which to be claimed; otherwise they are disposed of.
Governments in this country have always thought of registration as something bureaucratic, creating vast records and giving large numbers of bureaucrats the power to check on dog ownership. However, the large voluntary membership of registration schemes that already exist shows that there are other reasons for having a scheme. Dogs often stray. Even the most orderly dogs sometimes stray, occasionally over large distances. A registration scheme gives owners a much better chance of being reunited with their dogs. But enough said about dog registration.
All that this simple Bill seeks to achieve is that where decisions are to be made the Government shall consult the dog control and welfare council. Without putting it in perhaps such a dramatic way as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, I anticipate that dogs will be of concern to us for various reasons in the near future. It would be an enormous help to the Government, civil servants and all concerned if there were a body of the kind proposed in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, even dealt with the funding of the council in his admirable speech.
All that I would say from these Benches is that we welcome the creation of an expert body, however composed, with government participation and chairmanship, and with the participation of whoever the Government see fit to include. In our view, that would make any future legislation much more simple and effective. Without any feeling of rancour at this season, I feel bound to say that the dangerous dogs legislation, which was hurriedly introduced, proved a spectacular and expensive failure. If the Government had had available to them the kind of advice that such a council could provide when they reacted to the terrible scenes vividly depicted in the press, I am sure that they would have produced legislation other than that which is in place and which will eventually have to be reformed. I hope that the Government will look favourably on what is suggested in the Bill and that, sooner or later, we shall have some order in dog ownership in this country.
5.23 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is, sadly, something of a rarity. In a nation which is alleged to be composed of animal lovers, he is indeed a true friend of all animals. Unlike too many of those who loudly and publicly profess their concern for animals, the noble Lord has never been selective with his concern or confined his efforts only to those species about which public emotion can be easily stirred or political capital readily made. His concern for the laboratory rat and his efforts to improve animal welfare in spheres about which the public do not wish to know have been as great as for domestic pets or popular campaigns. He has never been afraid, unlike some of those who claim concern for animal welfare, to speak out against the causing of unnecessary suffering to animals in areas where it is politically incorrect to do so—for example, in relation to the ritual slaughter of farm animals. He has never

1489
shirked from exposing cruelty in areas about which the British public would rather not know, such as some of our abattoirs and farms.
Above all, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has never been one for gesture politics. Nothing is easier today than to appeal successfully on almost every animal issue to a proportion of the British public by using sentiment, prejudice and emotions instead of fact, reason and judgment. That is not surprising because our population is now largely urban or suburban. It has been brought up from infancy on a diet of books in which animals think, speak and behave just like humans. Most people, sadly, have had little or no contact with animals in their lives, save perhaps with a domestic pet, and the results are accordingly not always in the interests of the animals themselves.
However, the noble Lord's way has always been to consider the problem with care and reason and in depth, and then to make considered proposals. As a result, he has brought about real improvements in animal welfare—often through his personal efforts—which are and will remain a lasting tribute to him. For all those reasons, when he introduces a Bill which is designed to improve the welfare and conditions not only of the dog population but also of the human population, that Bill surely merits careful consideration by the Government and, in this case, strong support also.
As many of us see it, animal welfare must be taken out of the field of political posturing. Independent study by experts must replace instant legislation resulting from media hysteria or pressure group clamour. If better illustration were needed of what happens when sensational press coverage is allowed to dictate legislation in this area, one need look no further than the Dangerous Dogs Act, which was steam-rollered through Parliament in the face of ill-informed advice in the last Parliament. It will be very interesting to see what benefits the Government will claim have derived from that Act when the noble Lord's Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill is debated in the New Year. I wonder what reduction in dog attacks, if any, will be claimed and what we will be told has been the cost of that legislation.
The benefits, in so far as they are apparent at all, have been to the legal and veterinary professions. Dogs have been impounded and kept at public expense while lengthy legal proceedings are conducted, no doubt often funded by legal aid and attended by expert vets and lawyers arguing expensively and at length over the paternity and antecedents of a hapless canine. The Bill that we are now discussing will, I hope, go some way towards ensuring that such hasty, ill-conceived and inappropriate legislation for what is a real problem will not occur in the future.
Just as the Farm Animal Welfare Council has produced invaluable advice for the Government in relation to legislation and has brought about real improvements, of which there would have been many more if the Government had had the political courage to adopt more of the council's recommendations, so the proposed dog control and welfare council would act first as a prod to Government where legislation is really
1490
needed; secondly, as a sounding board where advice is required and, thirdly, as a brake when the Government might be tempted to introduce loony legislation of the dangerous dogs variety.
There are so many areas of real concern and problems in relation to dogs which the council could usefully address. The noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, has already referred to the indiscriminate breeding of dogs, especially on some puppy farms where dogs are produced simply as a cash crop often in very poor conditions and with little or no concern given to the suitability of the buyers. The keeping of dogs in unsuitable conditions is bordering on a national disgrace. It must be a matter for widespread education. Far too many large and powerful dogs are kept in unsuitable conditions. Small sporting dogs, which are bred and designed to travel 20 miles or more in a day, are often kept in small, town flats with inadequate exercise and with consequently disastrous effects on their temperament, rendering them noisy, a nuisance, destructive and ultimately dangerous.
The selection by owners of breeds for them to own is often manifestly unsuited to their circumstances; prompted, I suspect, all too often by a desire to project a particular image. There are dogs—some within a close radius of my home—which live their lives on short chains, effectively kept as living burglar alarms. Straying dogs, and an inability to identify their owners, present a constant problem in the countryside, by sheep worrying, of which I have been a sufferer, in relation to road accidents in towns and in the countryside and, worst of all of course, when that results in an attack, especially upon children.
Dog fouling, as anyone who lives in a town or city knows, is a serious problem in many areas. It is clear that current legislation is inadequate. There is a need for a separation of play and recreation areas from dog lavatories, and for irresponsible owners to be made accountable. Then there is the major and growing problem, especially as we come up to Christmas, of lost, abused and unwanted dogs. Where I live, in Stokenchurch in Buckinghamshire, there is a large and excellent dog rescue centre. Every Sunday members of the public take dogs out for exercise in the neighbouring woods. The parade of those animals says more than words about the so-called nation of dog lovers.
There are, of course, the old, greying and ugly mongrels that were no doubt once appealing puppies but are no longer required. There are endless Dobermanns, Alsatians and other guard dogs—image dogs, if I may call them that—which are now no doubt too much for their owners. More than any other breed, there are discarded greyhounds—living examples of man's greed. They are all illustrations of man's failure to carry out his obligations to the animals in his care. We are not, in reality, a nation of dog lovers. If an animal is young, wide-eyed and appealing, we lavish affection upon it, until the time comes when it ceases to interest us and we turn our backs on it.
It takes a true animal lover like my noble friend Lord Houghton, with the tenacity and energy which he continues to display, to come forward with a sensible proposal like this to remind us all of where our duty and

1491
obligations lie, and the way forward in relation to all those problems. I hope that the Government will feel that the proposal deserves their support. I hope that the House, too, will give its support.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, this is the first occasion upon which I have had the opportunity to discuss dog-related matters with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I know that he has long been a most effective advocate, here and elsewhere, on matters pertaining to the animal kingdom. I am not sure whether I am giving a hostage to fortune when I say that I hope today will perhaps be the first of many occasions upon which we discuss these matters.
The noble Lord criticised some inhabitants of the Home Office over the past 14 years. Perhaps I should tell him at the outset that in me he may have drawn the shortest straw of all. I tread carefully in this debate as I am not keen on dogs, being allergic to them. In close proximity with dogs, I become unwell. I try to keep as clear of them as I possibly can. If it is any consolation to the Lord, cats are worse and rabbits worse still. Therefore to prepare myself for the task of replying to the debate I did some investigations in the Home Office about dogs and dog-related matters as they pertain to government. I proceeded to tread carefully in the field of dog-related matters. I discovered that—in the way only government can do—the Home Office is responsible for the front end of the dog and the Department of the Environment is responsible for the rear end of the dog. So I am more than pleased that I am not talking for the Department of the Environment.
On a more serious note, I agree with a great deal of what the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said about the ill-matched ownership of many dogs. Even as someone who does not like too close a contact with dogs, I often marvel at the matching pairs I see in the nearby park. In my previous life, when I canvassed—occasionally I still canvass—I was always amazed at the large dogs which seemed to be locked up in small town flats when their natural environment is the countryside. As the noble Baroness said, at this time of year in particular, many people receive dogs as pets. They are cuddly little toys and they do not realise that they are living animals which require a great deal of attention. The giving of that attention is soon transferred from the child to the mother and then, unfortunately in many cases, from the mother to no one at all.
I am aware that twice before—the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, mentioned this—he has introduced a Bill identical to the one he moves today. Indeed, as he also said, on the most recent occasion he got the Bill beyond its Third Reading in your Lordships' House. The Government then felt unable to support it.
The Bill envisages the establishment of a statutory council. The council would consist of people who are expert and knowledgeable in dog matters and could advise my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. He could turn to it for advice. I know, as we heard this afternoon, the noble Lord uses the FAWC—he has done that today as he has done in the past—which I understand he helped to establish, as his model.
1492
I understand the noble Lord's concerns and his motive in putting forward the idea of a council. I am bound to tell him though that the Government continue to have reservations about the establishment of a statutory council, as the Bill proposes. He has already told me that he will not be too surprised at that answer. I am sorry to disappoint him this close to Christmas, but I am afraid that I have to.
This of course is a Private Member's Bill, and, despite the Government's views which I am expressing, we do not propose to vote against it, as that would be against the tradition of you Lordships' House on Private Member's Bills.
We receive advice on dog issues from many quarters, both solicited and unsolicited. We consult the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the British Veterinary Association, the Kennel Club and others as necessary to ensure that the Home Office has access to expert opinion on dog-related matters.
Home Office officials met the chairman of the Kennel Club last month, and my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State met on Monday the Director General of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals when., among other things, dog matters were discussed. The Government value the contact which they have with the various organisations, because it enables us to hear, at first hand, a wide variety of expert views and we would not wish either to lose or to deny them the access now afforded to them. We consider that the present arrangements for consultation on these matters operates well. I fear that the establishment of a council, as envisaged in the Bill, may, in its operation, either subsume, or duplicate those consultation arrangements.
I do not expect the noble Lord to be too surprised to hear that the Government's reservations include the need for a statutory council and the amendment to Section 2 of the Dangerous Dogs Act, as proposed by the Bill. I know that the noble Lord has been exploring how effect could be given to the aim of the Bill without the need to establish a statutory council. He mentioned that point. The noble Lord recently met my noble friend Lord Ferrers, and, on behalf of my noble friend I should like to take this opportunity to thank him for keeping the Government informed of developments as to his discussions with animal welfare organisations and others.
I understand that the noble Lord's idea is to set up a charitable trust of a few people to administer a non-statutory council, with the council being funded entirely from outside government. If I heard him aright, he said that he had succeeded in making arrangements for that money to be available.
I admire the diligence with which the noble Lord is pursuing his idea. I can fully understand his desire to have an indication of the degree of backing which the Government would give to his proposal for a non-statutory council. I say to him that the Government cannot commit in advance to giving official backing to a body which is not a statutory body and to one whose reputation is as yet unproven. Recognition would afford it a special status not enjoyed by other organisations in

1493
this field and whose views it might or might not represent. I do not think we could treat the body as necessarily the only authoritative voice over all dog interests or afford it a special status over and above that of the individual organisations with which we are in regular contact already and which I mentioned earlier in my speech. That is not to say, though, that there may not be an argument for a forum through which those organisations that so chose could filter their views.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, was concerned about the effects of the deregulation review on animal welfare legislation. I assure her and the House that the Government's deregulation review is taking due account of animal welfare concerns. The general discussions on deregulation entail consulting all the major welfare groups in this field.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, will not be surprised when I say that our policy on registration remains as it has been in the past. We regard it as expensive and bureaucratic and we do not think that in practical terms it would assist in the control of stray dogs. In the context of dangerous dogs, your Lordships will know that in recent incidents the ownership of the dog in question has not in fact been doubted at any time. So registration would add nothing to the provisions of the Dangerous Dogs Act. In opposing dog registration we brought forward positive measures for the control of dogs in the Environmental Protection Act. Those comprise the seizure and detaining of strays and the duty on district and borough councils to enforce the collar and tag law. The presence of a tag on the dog is the simplest and most effective means of identifying the owner and of dealing with strays.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and all other speakers mentioned the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Your Lordships will be aware that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, introduced a Bill into your Lordships' House on 23rd November to amend the law relating to dangerous dogs. The Government will, of course, study carefully the content of that Bill and will listen closely to constructive comment on it. It would not be right for me to attempt to pre-empt any discussion which there
1494
might be. But I must say now that the Government do not intend to weaken the protection which is afforded by the Act. Recent tragic events have shown how wrong that would be.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that should he be successful in his efforts to establish a council, or other similar body, the Government will certainly give full consideration to any advice which it may offer, and we would pay proper regard to it. However, I conclude by restating that, for the reasons which I have given, the Government cannot support this Bill.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, there is nothing now for me to do except to thank the Minister for his especially well delivered and comprehensive statement. It does what I wanted it to do—it puts on the record where the Government stand on much that we have discussed on past occasions when the Bill has been before the House. For that I am very grateful.
I understand, but will not attempt to debate at this stage, some of the noble Lord's remarks. What is important is that the many supporters of the Bill and those who are gathering for other purposes of defence of animal welfare have established for them a more secure place in commercial and social activity. They want to know what lies before them and what reforms they may wish to embark on. For that I am especially happy. It is on the record now and has been explained to the House very fully and adequately. I hope that out of it all something will come.
In the meantime I shall leave the Bill on the Floor of the House so that if I need to turn to it later I can. But I am not prepared to go into the field of voluntary effort completely without a line of re-entry to the House on the matter. So thank you very much and a very happy Christmas.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before six o'clock.