Lords Sitting of 20 January 1993

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

War Crimes Act 1991
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
When it is expected that the first prosecutions will be brought under the War Crimes Act 1991.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the prosecuting authorities will consider each case at the conclusion of the relevant police investigation. The investigations are continuing and I cannot predict whether any prosecutions will be initiated.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that it is not surprising that no prosecutions have yet been brought, bearing in mind the length in time that some of the cases have been under investigation? How many detectives and other police staff are directly or indirectly employed in the investigations currently in hand? Secondly, bearing in mind that the total financial provision under the Act has escalated to £36.6 million, which is far more than was originally anticipated, at a time when we are cutting expenditure elsewhere and being told that we must pay more taxes have the Government in mind any expenditure ceiling beyond which they will repeal the Act?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is difficult to say the exact number of people involved in the investigation. The figure of £3 million which was given by my noble friend Lord Ferrers in an Answer to the noble Lord in December is a good estimate of the cost to date. As regards the future, the Answer also contained an estimate of the total amount provided, which was about £36 million. Precisely what happens in relation to that will depend on the progress of investigations. They are necessarily difficult and complicated and it would be unwise of me to try to forecast ultimate results.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, my noble and learned friend will be aware that in a defamation case in a Scottish court a few months ago a person was by implication found to be a Second World War criminal. Should not such matters be determined one way or the other through the proper procedures now available and, if possible, before too long?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is true that in an action of defamation brought in the Scottish courts allegations were made which certainly had a bearing, to say the least, on the question of whether the person who was the subject of the publication was guilty of war crimes. That action was determined in accordance
886
with the rules applying to civil actions for defamation. No doubt the evidence which was considered in detail by the judge in that case is important in relation to the investigation of war crimes. However, as my noble friend well knows, the standards and rules in those two types of case are very different.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, in view of possible prosecutions will the noble and learned Lord state the average age of those suspected war criminals who are currently under investigation?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is not easy to give an average age. However, it would be fair of me to say that they are all of considerable age.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that the cost of the proceedings and the time which they take should not excuse the appalling crimes which were committed during the Second World War?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I cannot be certain of the implications which lay behind the question I was asked about cost. I assume that it was not thought that cost would excuse any crime. However, cost may well be a relevant consideration to take into account in deciding whether a particular investigation should be pursued. That is a matter for the prosecuting authorities to decide in the light of all the circumstances, one of which no doubt is the likelihood of a successful prosecution.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend not consider that the time of the prosecuting authorities and the investigative authorities might be better spent investigating those who have illegally taped various telephone conversations, who bought them, how much was paid and who is responsible for them?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the prosecuting authorities in England and Wales and in Scotland have quite a variety of material before them where there are allegations of criminal activity. It is a matter of no little difficulty to form a judgment about priorities among those. No one is better qualified to understand the difficulties of that kind of operation than my noble and learned friend from his years as a distinguished Attorney-General.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords—
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Can the noble and learned Lord assure the House that if prosecutions are brought under that Act against various people, those people will have ample opportunity to defend themselves?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am certain that if prosecutions are brought the ordinary rules with regard to fairness will prevail. No person who is the subject of an allegation put forward by the prosecution will be convicted without a fair trial.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. Is it not a fact that the Chalmers-Hetherington Report went into those matters in

887
considerable detail? That includes Part II, which we understand cannot be published for obvious reasons. Why is it necessary for the police and the prosecuting authorities to go over that ground all over again?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the investigations that are required for the purposes of a prosecution need to be quite detailed. Of course, it is not necessarily the case that the only allegations that are now current are those which were made to Hetherington and Chalmers. Therefore, the investigating authorities have a large field in which to work. There is also the possibility of developments as regards the evidence; for example, the development to which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy referred where a considerable amount of evidence was discussed in the context of an action for defamation.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, do not the facts which my noble and learned friend has disclosed indicate that the measure was an expensive disaster?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, what I have said indicates what are the costs so far. I do not think it would be right for me to express a view on the wisdom of an Act of Parliament which proceeded on a free vote and was enacted in accordance with the relevant statutory procedures.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, may we now be brought up to date and ask the noble and learned Lord how many alleged war criminals are at present under investigation?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in England and Wales the number is in the order of 99. The level of investigation in respect of those varies a good deal from one case to another. That is one reason that I thought it right to answer the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in the way that I did. Obviously allegations are sometimes put forward at different times. One must take account of those.

Homelessness
2.48 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many people are currently registered as homeless or are living rough; and what measures they propose to deal with the problem.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, in the third quarter of 1992, 35,520 households were accepted for permanent rehousing by local authorities in England. The latest count of rough sleepers last November found 419 people sleeping rough in central London. We recently announced that a further £86 million will be made available to help rough sleepers in central London over the next three years. My honourable friend the Minister for Housing also announced on 21st December additional measures to increase the supply of short-term leased property which will be available for accommodating homeless families.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is he aware of the tragic scenes, shown on television at the weekend, of bailiffs smashing their way into a council property in which there was a woman and children? While the doorway at the side was open, the bailiffs were smashing their way through the window with a sledgehammer. As a former chairman of housing in Manchester, I have no time at all for people who simply will not pay the rent. However, there appear to be an increasing number of people, among the 3,000 families evicted in London, who cannot pay the rent. Can the Minister give any further hope, in addition to what he has already said, which will relieve us of seeing those distressing scenes repeated?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord was a most effective chairman of housing in Manchester. Clearly, evictions by local authorities must be a last resort. It is for those local authorities to take the action which they believe to be most appropriate in the circumstances.
Nationally, we have undertaken a number of measures over the course of the past few months to alleviate the plight of those who find themselves without a home. The Chancellor of the Exchequer recently announced a £750 million programme to boost the housing market. Another £30 million is being made available in London and the South-East for cash incentive schemes. We are spending the money and we believe we have the problem in hand. We are consulting with voluntary organisations to improve our policies.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I understand that the £750 million must be spent by April. Is the programme of spending proceeding and will all the money be spent by the appropriate date?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I cannot tell my noble friend whether or not the money will be spent by the appropriate date. However, I can confirm that the programme is proceeding apace and it is reasonable to expect that the money will be spent.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I acknowledge the response the Minister gave to the Question. We welcome his endeavours. Does he not agree that the bulk of the problem lies with local authorities in London, particularly Westminster council? The situation creates problems for our police who nevertheless handle it well. Is it not about time that the Government, senior police officers and local authorities got together to deal with the matter on a month to month basis?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the largest incidence of sleeping rough occurs in central London. Consequently, my honourable friend the Minister responsible for housing on Monday made a speech where he launched a consultation document to discuss with voluntary organisations how best to spend the £86 million on the rough sleepers' initiative over the course of the next three years.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will my noble friend tell noble Lords what proportion of the people who are

889
sleeping rough in our towns and cities have been prematurely discharged from mental hospitals where they were regarded as mentally ill, and what is being done about that? Will he also tell us to what extent people who are living in that way, but who are not mentally ill, have refused to accept local authority accommodation?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I cannot give my noble friend an exact figure but it is understood that there are some people who suffer from mental illness who end up on the streets. I can also confirm that the Department of Health and the Department of the Environment have a number of schemes specifically aimed at counselling those people, either to find them suitable hostels or give them appropriate help.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, while I appreciate that London and the South-East are in most serious need of help and that special government funds have been made available to deal with the problem there, a similar problem exists in other areas and in other regions. Is the Minister considering grants for cities such as Glasgow and even Edinburgh or Liverpool which have similar problems that require urgent attention?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as already stated, the primary responsibility lies with local authorities. However, this year we are providing £6.1 million of funding from the Department of the Environment for the National Homeless Advice Service to provide advice to all those who are homeless or who are at risk of being homeless and to fund 150 projects nationally run by voluntary organisations to provide direct practical help to the single homeless. We are not complacent about the matter either as regards London or nationally.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that unfortunately a large proportion of the people who are now homeless are homeless as a direct result of marital breakdown? The man of the family is forced to leave home and is often sleeping rough on the streets having lost his job.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I confirm the fact that one of the major causes of homelessness is the breakdown of relationships, whether marital or other relationship.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the measures he and his honourable friend in another place have announced are welcome but founder on the one essential fact that until we can provide enough affordable housing at the far end of the scale we will never begin to solve the problem of homelessness? All the expedients that have been announced are only scratching the surface of the problem. Thousands are trapped in hostels and are unable to escape into permanent accommodation and thereby free hostel accommodation for the homeless because no permanent accommodation is being built for them. Does not the Minister consider that such accommodation is an essential feature of any future programme?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, one problem is the increasing number of households comprising single parents and people who want to live on their own. That figure has increased faster than the level of new house building which has over the past few years been at a record level. As regards the figure for temporary accommodation, I am delighted to inform the noble Lord that it fell by 23 per cent. in the 12 months to the end of September.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, if the Minister agrees that only homes can house the homeless, will he permit local authorities to spend the £5 billion of capital receipts—their own money—on
new housing, thus providing work for the workless and homes for the homeless?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we have allowed local authorities to spend their capital receipts in the current year on providing the kind of things the noble Baroness suggests.

Hardship Payments: Suspension
2.57 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the concerns expressed by the Social Security Advisory Committee about the withdrawal of income support hardship payments from unemployed people thought not to be actively seeking work, they will arrange for payment of benefits to continue until cases have been heard by adjudicators.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, no. The effect of such a concession would be to undo the regulations which came into effect on 3rd December 1992.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Does he agree that the principal tenet of English justice is that a person is innocent until he is proved guilty? To deprive a person of benefit and all the supplements that go with that — that is, the passported benefits—before he has even been proved not to be actively seeking work is against natural justice.
Lord Henley: My Lords, no decision to suspend will be taken until there has been a very detailed personal interview, with the individual being given every opportunity to explain his circumstances. If at the next two-weekly signing-on day the normal conditions are satisfied, payment of benefit will be resumed irrespective of whether or not the adjudication process has been concluded. But we would in fact very much hope that that adjudication process has been concluded.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, given that the Government's own Social Security Advisory Committee and the chief adjudication officer have both expressed concern about the decision to suspend benefit in the first place, and given that two-thirds of

891
those investigated whose benefit is suspended for these offences are subsequently found innocent of any impropriety, does the Minister think it decent to fine people by withholding their benefit before they are found guilty of any impropriety, and these the poorest of the poor?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Baroness will know, we have already responded to the Social Security Advisory Committee and we have responded to some of her particular points. There is no need for me to rehearse all the arguments that have been produced in this House and in another place in debates before Christmas. As regards the adjudication statistics, I think I ought not to correct the noble Baroness but make it clear to her that if she looks purely at those cases that go to adjudication on actively seeking work alone—that is, only on that particular matter—she will find that only a third are successful: 70 per cent. are in fact disallowed benefit. I think the noble Baroness would find that the figures are even higher if she looked purely at those relating to income support and not those relating to unemployment benefit.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the Minister seems to be enunciating a curious principle: that if 70 per cent. of people are found guilty of an offence, then all should be penalised. What effect would that have on our criminal justice system?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that in 70 per cent. of cases people are found not to have been actively seeking work. In all cases the individual is given a very long interview and adequate opportunities to explain his position and to explain why he is not prepared actively to seek work. We do not see any case for extending his right to abuse the system any further.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is there not considerable danger in drawing a false analogy between the burden of proof and standard of proof in criminal cases and the case of those who are seeking support from social security?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble and learned friend makes a very valid point. I have to say that there is nothing new in the right to suspend benefit. There has always been a power for the Secretary of State to suspend benefit where there is a doubt that the conditions of benefit have not been fulfilled.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, where a person is not actively seeking employment, there is a case for looking at a scheme of workfare?
Lord Henley: My Lords, workfare takes us on to a rather wider question. The point that I should like to make is that the actively-seeking-work rules have worked very well despite the allegations as to what would happen which were made by the Opposition some two or three years ago. The actively-seeking-work rules have worked very well over the past three
892
or four years. We are not changing the actively-seeking-work rules; we have merely brought in a sanction for those who abuse them.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is there a definition of actively seeking work? If there is a definition, will the Minister please explain what it is? For example, is it in order for someone to say to the investigating officer that he is actively seeking to be a Member of Parliament at the next election? Would that fall within the definition of actively seeking work?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall not speculate on whether seeking election to Parliament in four or five years time would count as actively seeking work. Actively seeking work means exactly that—actively seeking work. Reasonability is taken into account. Elaborate guidance is issued to our adjudication officers and to officers in both the employment service and the Department of Social Security as to how they should interpret those words.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, given that when the department suspends benefit while a case is under investigation the claimant also loses all passported benefits, including housing benefit, is the Minister really comfortable that such sharp fines should apply to a doubt—to use his word—rather than to an offence?
Lord Henley: Yes, my Lords, I am perfectly satisfied.

BBC: Expenditure
3.2 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the £50 million of BBC licence payers' money recently overspent can be properly accounted for.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the audit committee of the BBC has reported that the money in question was used to make programmes from which viewers will benefit in the future. The Government are of course concerned that a significant overspend should have arisen on the BBC's network television budget; but it is important to recognise that last year the BBC as a whole came within its budget.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I believe that it would be in order to congratulate the chairman of that committee on the speed with which he conducted his inquiry, and on the recognition that some reform is necessary and desirable and will be put in hand. Can my noble friend ensure that steps are taken so that any overspends which may arise are revealed speedily and do not exceed £50 million before action is taken and an inquiry begun?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, a net overspend of £38 million on the network television budget for 1991–92 came to light when the accounts for that year were produced last May. As I have said, the BBC as a whole came within its budget. The problem was confined to one directorate. The matter was immediately referred to the BBC's external auditors. The report of the

893
auditors was subsequently placed before the audit committee. That is chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, who is vice-chairman of the board of governors. The BBC published the audit committee's report on 3rd December.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am not sure whether I should be gratified by receiving the commendation of the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing; but I am grateful. As the Minister kindly said, I chair the audit committee, and I should be glad to help your Lordships whenever I can. As the Minister also said, the overall budget is in balance. Is he aware that any overspend on network television, which I very much regret, was offset by underspending elsewhere within the BBC's budget? Is he also aware that the problem arose because of complex systems and controls, both of which have now been corrected and new controllers put in place?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am sure that the House is grateful for that explanation by the noble Lord. As he said, the BBC has implemented a number of measures to deal with the identified shortcomings of control which, if they had not been corrected, would have led to continuing overspending during the current year and in future years. A new finance team has been appointed within network television. The BBC's internal audit capacity is being strengthened. The relevant financial systems are being reviewed and improvements are being made.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, the Minister mentioned that the external auditors had reported on this matter to the internal audit committee of the BBC. Do not the external auditors have a responsibility to report to somebody outside the BBC; and, if so, to whom?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am not sure of the answer to that question, but I believe that the external auditors should report to the governors and the chairman of the BBC.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, bearing in mind that the House has been advised that the losses suffered were compensated for by savings elsewhere and the budget met, that the people responsible have gone and new people and new financial systems are in place, and that the report of the audit committee was openly published, is there any point in pursuing this vendetta any further?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not believe that there is any vendetta. I am here purely to answer any questions which are asked on subjects which relate to my department.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many people will resent the suggestion that there is a vendetta? Ought we not to congratulate my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing for drawing attention to a matter which we would not have known about if he had not asked his Question?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as I said yesterday, the Government have the fullest confidence in the chairman of the BBC and the board of governors, and their management of the BBC.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I should like to say a word about this afternoon's debates standing in the names of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. As the mover is allowed 15 minutes and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of the debate in the name of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, all speeches should be limited to seven minutes. In the case of the debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, the number of speakers is such that it is not necessary to propose a formal time limit, but I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it would conform with the spirit of these short debates if the speeches were kept within the 15 minutes which apply to the mover of the Motion.

Business of the House
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the Social Security Bill to be taken through its remaining stages on 28th January.—(Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Select Committee on Broadcasting
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Ardwick be appointed to the Select Committee on Broadcasting in place of the Baroness Phillips (deceased) and that the Lord Morris of Castle Morris be appointed to the Select Committee on Procedure of the House in place of the Lord Carter. —(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Proportional Representation
3.7 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy rose to call attention to the case for and against adopting a system of proportional representation; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
I put this subject down when Parliament returned after the general election in the hope that I would be successful in the ballot within a few months. My intention is to initiate an informed and analytical debate, unaffected by immediate electoral considerations or temptations.
In the first months of last year, during the pre-election skirmishing, at the hustings and in the media reporting, an impression was given that a change to proportional representation (PR) was a fairly simple operation and that a formula for counting votes in a different way could be quickly

895
adopted, producing fairer results. It was of course only one of many subjects at the general election and could be given only brief mention and superficial consideration. PR deserves better than that because such a change requires other important changes in our political practices which have not yet been taken fully into account by many commentators or the general public.
For example, PR would involve the acceptance of coalition governments from time to time because it would be much less likely that one party would gain an overall majority. In Britain coalitions have occurred rarely—in wartime and in perceived national crises. "Hung" parliaments, now regarded as awkward and to be avoided, would be common rather than exceptional. Only if adversarial politics had been replaced by consensus attitudes would the description "hung" no longer apply and would be dropped. However, I suggest that it will not be easy for the other place to change quickly from its present adversarial traditions. There would often be lapses of time after elections before results were known or governments formed. The very recent situation in the Republic of Ireland is relevant. It was six days before final results were known and seven weeks before a government could be formed. I suggest that the British public would find that disturbing unless they were well prepared for it.
Another change to be foreseen is that programmes adopted by governments after elections are likely to be modifications of the pre-election proposals of those political parties involved; they may be compromises agreed in post-election negotiations. That is very different from our present practice. At present it would be open to the objection that commitments were being abandoned. Party manifestos would probably disappear.
There is a bright side to this. The programme adopted by a government might then have the support of as much as 80 per cent. of the voters rather than about 40 per cent., as can happen now. In case any noble Lord thinks that I am about to present all the possible objections to PR and to reject it, I should make it clear that I favour change to such a system. That is largely because I am an optimist. I hope that our present adversarial system will be modified in time.
Time is needed to choose the most appropriate system of PR for the United Kingdom and to prepare the public for the consequences which would be very different from what they had become used to. That requirement for prior work, consultation and dissemination of information has been underestimated by some strong supporters of PR.
Our present system which is known as "first-past-the-post" should not be abandoned until the circumstances for change are suitable, and the public have been prepared. The present system helps to provide strong government because it produces the executive within Parliament besides Members being elected. Particular attributes of our present system are that it is simple to understand and only one vote per person is needed. There is a single Member for each
896
constituency who can identify with it personally. The results are known within a few days and a government can be formed immediately.
I now turn to the subjects of strong government and stability. With regard to strong government, no government in the United Kingdom since World War Two has received more than 50 per cent. of the total vote although that was near at times. However, several had overall majorities. For example, in 1987, the Government won 42 per cent. of the vote and had a majority of 102 seats. They were fully able to govern without making pacts.
Our present system is based on very large parties —usually two. Unless a party is above a certain size in membership and support, it has no prospect of becoming a government on its own. Foreign observers sometimes comment that our two largest parties are in essence themselves coalitions, combining their left and right wings, and, a topical example at present, their pro and anti-Europe factions. Given the evolution of those elements of our present system, the system works, is understood and should not be discarded lightly.
It has some less favourable characteristics which changes could improve. It now matters more where a party's votes are cast or concentrated than how many there are. Conservative votes in strongly held Labour constituencies do not carry the smallest weight in the UK results as a whole. The same is true of Labour votes in strong Conservative constituencies, usually in the South. I regret that this accentuates the North-South divide. If one considers the figures as a whole, the country is not as polarised as it appears to be from first-past-the-post results.
Our present system also encourages tactical voting in which the voter deliberately votes for a candidate who is not his first preference. In contrast, most PR systems give some weight to the first preference. It has some effect, although it may be small on the overall results. While our system is simple, it can thus lead to cynicism in voting intentions.
On stability, the first-past-the-post system gives the winning party an advantage of more seats than its share of the total vote would apportion under PR. That assists stability even in adversarial circumstances. But for how long, my Lords? It is for not more than five years—until the next general election. When the government's majority has been small, as in 1951, 1964 and 1974, another general election has followed within a year and a half. When parties in government have changed, major reverses of policy have taken place. Those have been signalled beforehand by the main party in opposition. Industry, commerce and financial firms do not regard that as stability. They have to look ahead for much longer periods than four to five years. It is not surprising that the CBI has publicly favoured PR for several years, although with many of the qualifications that I put forward today.
There is then the important question of choosing the system of PR to be adopted. There are many systems, but I believe that only four are suitable for any reform in this country. That decision is not one that can be taken overnight. Some leading supporters of PR disagree among themselves on what would be

897
the best system. There must be time for discussion and consultation. I remind the House of the four likely possibilities.
The first—it is not strictly PR, although it is included in electoral reform options—is the alternative vote. By use of a second round of polling, and eliminating losers, it ensures that the elected person has been supported by at least 50 per cent. of the final vote. France is the prime example of that system.
The second is the additional member system (AMS). That is practised in Germany where half the representatives are elected directly by the first-past-the-post system. Voters have a second vote for a party. The other half of the chamber is composed of names from party lists, proportionally taken on a regional basis. There are no by-elections. Mid-term vacancies are filled from the party lists.
The third possibility is the single transferable vote system (STV). Several members represent each constituency. In the Republic of Ireland there are usually three to five members in each constituency. Voters mark preferences for any or all of the candidates in order. The thorough reallocation of preferences which follows is complex and slow.
The fourth system is party lists. That also entails multi-member constituencies. In Sweden the average is 11 members per constituency. That is the most used system in Europe, including Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands and Norway. The votes are for parties, not for individual candidates. There are variations, but the principle is that seats are allocated to parties according to the amount of support in the election. The parties, having put forward their lists, assign seats to individuals, taking account of preferences indicated by the voters where the system so provides.
Those are the four main options. In some applications, thresholds are included to avoid large numbers of small parties. For example, a party must obtain at least 4 per cent. to 5 per cent. of the total vote, either in a country or in a region, to be considered.
Noble Lords will have observed that there are two further novelties for the British public in two of these systems, in addition to those which I mentioned earlier. The first is multi-member constituencies. We have not had them in Britain since 1885, except for a very few which were abolished in 1950.
The second is lists, produced by parties, of candidates who gain seats without having stood in constituencies during the general election. That is a completely new notion for British electors and likely to be objectionable to some, although it has been accepted before long in other countries. My point is that it needs to be thoroughly explained and understood beforehand.
The Hansard Society in the 1970s commissioned an inquiry into electoral reform in the UK and its report was published in 1976. The chairman was my noble friend Lord Blake who, I am glad to know, is to speak today. He was well qualified to chair the commission: besides being an eminent historian and commentator on constitutional and very recent political matters, he is highly numerate. I am well aware of his numeracy because, as he has told the House on a previous
898
occasion, I once had the privilege of instructing him in mathematics. That was in mathematics and gunnery when he was an officer cadet at Larkhill in 1940 and I was a captain instructing his squad. Other members of the commission were the noble Baroness Lady Seear and my noble friend Lord Holderness who, I am also glad to see, is down to speak.
The commission recommended change to proportional representation, both for the other place in the UK Parliament and for the European Parliament. But it also made most of the reservations about adversarial politics and the need for preparations beforehand that I have been making today. The commission would have used either AMS or STV. The majority preferred AMS, but the noble Baroness opted for STV and that was recorded.
The kind of AMS advocated was as follows: three-quarters of the Commons in single member constituencies (first-past-the-post); there would be one vote for candidate and party; a quarter of the Chamber would be from the additional seats to be allocated within regions, to redress distortions and approach the proportions of votes cast in accordance with a formula. There would be a 5 per cent. threshold in each region. This was a modified version of the German system. Although in Germany there have been coalition governments for most of the post-war period, they have not been weak. PR does not automatically mean coalitions; it just means that they are more likely.
Changing to a system of PR is less difficult where elections are to an assembly from which a government or executive does not also have to be formed. Questions of hung parliaments, coalitions and compromising on programmes do not arise.
The European Parliament is a particular case of this kind and a challenge for the UK. In this House, a sub-committee of our Select Committee on the European Communities examined the possibilities and presented a report in January 1983. I was a member of that sub-committee and I am surprised to see that I was able to attend almost all its meetings. Although it did not make a recommendation, I believe that its report and minutes are useful to anyone studying those matters.
There was also a recent exercise in the United Kingdom—although unofficial—on the possibility of a Scottish Assembly by a body calling itself the Scottish Constitutional Convention. It recorded less than a year ago broad agreement on PR. There is nothing surprising about that. There was little agreement, however, on the system—and there is nothing surprising about that either. But I should relate that the convention's deliberations were complicated by another factor not expected when the work began. There emerged a requirement that the assembly should contain the same number of women as men. Admirable as that concept may be, it makes the procedure even more difficult. I make clear that in this debate I do not regard the gender factor as a necessary one for PR and I hope that I shall not be accused of sexism in saying that.
If PR is eventually adopted in this country, I suggest the following basic requirements: the system

899
must be acceptable to the electorate and not too complicated to understand. The close relationship between a member and the constituency should be maintained and the aim should be to minimise the occasions when a government's programme has the support of considerably less than half the electorate.
When politics are less divisive, all this will be more acceptable, so providing conditions for political parties trying to put together those policies upon which they broadly agree, rather than emphasising and campaigning on the differences.
Until that time arrives, I hope that there will not be a repetition of the paradox last year. Before the general election, voices were heard warning of a hung Parliament which would paralyse the effectiveness of a new government. The same voices proposed that a new government in that situation should then do a deal to introduce PR immediately. With what result? It would have had the anomalous result of hung parliaments for ever more.
I hope that attitudes and circumstances will change in ways which will make PR attractive and not too difficult to adopt. Until then, a measured approach to PR is advisable in this country, if the necessary changes are eventually to be carried out successfully. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.29 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, with the agreement of my noble friend Lord Shackleton I have exchanged places with him on the list of speakers. I add that this was not at my instigation in case it should be thought that I am trying to get in early!
We are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for initiating the debate. The subject is nothing new; it is therefore interesting to find out why at this stage there should be increased interest in it. Last year there were two polls, MORI and ICM, both of which declared in favour of a change from our present system to one of proportional representation. It could, of course, be argued in the light of the poll experience last year that it all depends on how the question is put.
It is not my intention in seven minutes to go in detail into all the various systems that would be possible in our electoral system. They have been debated a number of times over many years. Pamphlets on the subject have appeared throughout the past century. The earliest publication I have is a Fabian document on objections to proportional representation, published in 1924. The arguments have continued since that time. We have had these discussions and debates over a long period.
Why, then, the current interest? First, I believe that there is growing support for the view that seats gained should have a relation to votes obtained. It is increasingly recognised that that does not apply in the United Kingdom. There is also the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that at no election since 1935 has a single party obtained more than 50 per cent. of the overall votes. For all those years, no government in the United Kingdom have secured a majority of the votes cast.
900
It has also been stressed that, at the general election last year, 40 seats were won without the successful candidate having an overall electoral majority. In 1987, 43 per cent. of candidates did not have an overall majority in the constituencies for which they were elected.
On the redistribution procedure for constituencies, the objective is for constituency electorates to be as equal as possible and the intention is that each elector's vote should be equal to another's, no matter what the constituency.
As the noble Lord stated, there are areas of the country where no matter what efforts are put in, no matter how many votes are secured by a particular party, it has very little effect on the number of seats gained. The only effect is that the party does not gain many seats at all. Is that a situation we desire to perpetuate? I give two constituency examples. In last year's general election there were five candidates in Inverness. The MP was elected with only 26 per cent. of the votes. At Islwyn, which had five candidates, the MP was elected with 74 per cent. of the votes. How does one relate those two examples?
There is also the matter of developments within the European Community. Of the 12 member states the United Kingdom is the only one which does not have some sort of system of proportionality. We are the only one which has a first-past-the-post system.
There are, therefore, two particularly important questions: what would be the advantages of any change from the present electoral system; and what might be the consequences of any change? The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, endeavoured to describe some of the consequences that might ensue from any change. It was those questions which prompted the Labour Party to set up its working party—the Plant Commission—to examine electoral systems. It is not my intention, and I would not be permitted, to report on the work of the Plant Commission. I am very pleased that my noble friend Lord Plant will speak towards the end of the debate. The committee has not come to any conclusions. But it analysed in some detail what political representation is. The interim report published in July 1991 (consisting of 109 pages) is one of the best records of a discussion of these problems. I felt very privileged to be a party to those discussions.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, asks the House first to consider all the functions of the various institutions of our representational system and then to assess and look very carefully at the various electoral systems, the problems that they could introduce and the problems that could also arise in a different way in different institutions. There is not just the House of Commons to consider. One has also to consider the future of the second Chamber; possible regional assemblies in Scotland and Wales; possible regional assemblies in the English provinces; the position in local government; and representation in the European Parliament.
Some systems appear to, and perhaps do, provide greater fairness than the present system. But a number

901
of those systems are in no way proportional. They institute a different type of system from first-past-the-post without having any proportionality.
In considering the systems, we are not helped by those who have endeavoured to put forward PR by concentrating on one system alone. That is why on many occasions in this House I have criticised the single transferable vote. It contains some anomalies; it has some iniquities; and, if we are talking about a change, we should not be considering just one system.
In seven minutes, one cannot say a great deal. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, dealt with the possibility of governments not being effective or firm. If one looks at the international scene, one can pick out countries where quite definitely the PR system has led to weakness. Israel is one, Italy another. But one could pick other countries where, under the PR system, there are firm governments, sensible governments and governments that get on with the job.
The position of hung parliaments has been mentioned. I understand that a quarter of our present county councils have hung administrations. Some 100 district councils also have hung councils. It would be interesting to know from the experiences of people who serve on those councils what the result is.
There is no perfect system. I recognise that. But despite what I have said on previous occasions, and despite my background, I believe the time has come seriously to consider whether we should not change from first-past-the-post. That means, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Campbell said, analysing very carefully exactly what different systems would entail. Any change should come from a consensus. I believe that the public in this country wants a change of some kind. I hope that this debate may assist in getting on with the job of discussing possible systems.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, the whole House will wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, not only for choosing this extremely important subject for debate this afternoon, but for the admirably clear and cogent way in which he introduced it. I must say that his revelation that he was himself in favour of proportional representation did not come as a surprise to me, as I have happy memories of working with him on this very subject long before I had the honour of being a Member of this House.
There are two cases for electoral reform. One is the narrow one; the other is the broad one. The narrow case is that of unfairness and misrepresentation. It is not just a question of party misrepresentation—although it is a very serious anomaly that it takes about 42,000 votes to elect a Conservative or Labour MP and nearly 300,000 votes to elect a Liberal Democrat. It is not just geographical misrepresentation—although it is a very serious anomaly that two-thirds of Conservative MPs of the governing party come from a line south of the Wash to the Severn, and that Glasgow, Liverpool, Newcastle and Manchester are entirely Conservative-free cities, albeit many thousands of people in those cities vote for the Conservative Party. One can make a very noticeable
902
comparison with 1951, when there was a rather comparable Conservative majority of 17. Yet at that time the broadness of the base of the Conservative parliamentary party was such that it represented all parts of the country and all classes of people rather than preponderantly suburbia and the rural areas. No other comparable democracy has a system which draws its fault line exactly down the line of socio-economic disadvantage. Truly, Disraeli's "two nations" are still with us.
It is not just a matter of misrepresentation in terms of MPs. The noble Lord referred to women MPs. We have fewer women MPs than most other democracies. Switzerland and Italy, which are two countries far from being politically correct and socially progressive in terms of their attitudes to women, nevertheless have many more, and a much higher proportion of women MPs than we do. That is a product of the electoral system. But the case is overwhelmingly one of personal misrepresentation. The majority of people in this country do not get the government they want; and a very substantial minority—over 40 per cent., as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said—do not get the MP they want. The consequence is that there is a very low level of ownership in the political system. Very many people do not feel that the system is theirs and that Parliament belongs to them.
The broad case for changing the electoral system —for which, incidentally, there is support in all parties, and one of the most impressive things about this debate this afternoon, as has been the case in previous debates in your Lordships' House, is that support comes from across all paths of the political spectrum—is, in the end, about the health and quality of our democracy. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, referred to the issue of strong government. The ultimate strong government is perfectly simple: you have a dictator. Is it not time we started to think in terms of good government? We could do with a bit more good government in this country, government whose policies rested unequivocally on the support of the majority, policies that persisted over time because they commanded popular assent: less of the poll tax.
It is probably not too fanciful to suggest that we are faced with something of a crisis of confidence in our institutions as a whole and hence this is a timely debate. Neither the Crown nor the courts, neither Whitehall nor Westminster are immune from legitimate criticism. There is now an unequivocal case for us as legislators to look at the case for democratic renewal and regeneration in this country. The first indispensable step is to reconnect people to their Parliament; to achieve for ourselves in Britain what we have prescribed and sometimes achieved for others —self-determination and self-government. That means electoral reform.
I realise that at the end of the debate this afternoon the noble Earl will play a straight bat. We have a majority in the country for electoral reform but it will not suit the Government. I should therefore like to address myself to my friends in the Labour Party. There are extremely welcome signs of progress on the issue in the Labour Party. In a slow but evolutionary way, over a series of debates, the speeches of the noble

903
Lord, Lord Underhill, have moved closer and closer to outright advocacy of electoral reform. We on these Benches welcome that.
There are other welcome signs of progress from the Transport and General Workers' Union to the engineering union; from the Scottish Labour Party to the Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform; from a two-thirds majority of new Labour MPs who support reform to Mr. Robin Cook. The support is swelling in the Labour Party for a fair electoral system. The puffs of smoke that are being emitted from the Plant Commission appear to be promisingly drifting in the right direction. But I wonder where stands the inscrutable Labour leadership on this important issue.
Some leading Labour figures—I understand why —say that for the party to support electoral reform would be an admission that Labour cannot win on its own. I know that that argument bulks largely in the calculations of those who perhaps approve of electoral reform but do not feel that the Labour Party should come out for it. But I must tell my friends on these Benches that should Labour not support electoral reform, and thereby offer this country the prospect of a broadly-based alternative to this endless Conservative Government, they will never win at all.
I believe that it is make-your-mind-up time for the Labour Party. Do they want to put themselves firmly, as I hope they do, in the camp of reforming our democracy and of becoming a modern European society? Or do they prefer to continue to dwell endlessly with the Conservatives in the run-down Ruritania which Britain has sadly become? I urge the Labour Party to embrace this cause.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, this is a subject which will not go away it seems —surprisingly because it has never won acceptance by the majority of opinion. That is largely because the ins and outs of Parliament have never managed to arrive at the same point at the same time. It is also probably the case that opinion in the country at large still prefers the simple majority system which is judged to have and deliver an approximate kind of political justice; or, what is variously called stable or strong government. Those may be two rather different commodities but we all feel some sense of attachment to them as a distinctly-felt part of our national tradition.
I do not dissent from the idea that the simple majority system has served the nation rather well in the past, on the longest perspective. It has contrived somehow, and perhaps in defiance of logic and mathematical probability, to give us a series of workable political results in a crucial period of our history—that is, the two centuries of gradual transition from the politics of patronage and privilege to parliamentary democracy.
All the same, simple majority has considerable disadvantages. First, it shows a definite bias in favour of two dominant parties in the House of Commons. That may not greatly matter if both parties are close to the centre of the political spectrum at large. But there have been moments in the past 20 years when
904
that essential condition was not met, and when both parties in succession occupied positions closer to the political fringe. By happy chance that did not occur simultaneously, and self-interest and logic having prevailed over ideology, both parties have now returned closer to the centre. Your Lordships may feel that the mechanism is thus self-correcting, and I agree that it may look like that. But experience and caution suggest to me that we cannot always rely on that result. Ideologists are often, by their nature, blinkered in pursuit of their goal.
The second large disadvantage of simple majority is that the entry of a third party as a serious contender is rendered extremely difficult. In our system it is hard for a party which has lost its way, or its relevance, to be replaced by another. The long period—say three decades earlier this century—which it took for the Labour Party to supersede the old Liberal Party illustrates the point.
I suggest that those shortcomings are increasingly evident to many people. It is not difficult to understand why PR systems have attracted continuing interest in this country from the days of Bentham and Mill to the present. We should not allow the apparent acceptability of simple majority to serve as a kind of permanent certificate for the future. Such a rough and ready method of conducting our political affairs could easily produce a false and misleading result.
My suggestion is a modest one—thatthere is a case for some careful and limited experiment with alternatives. We have already begun to do that in Northern Ireland; and if we find PR acceptable there, there is no reason why we should regard it as permanently off the agenda in the rest of the United Kingdom.
We should not forget that the progenitors of PR in the last century were British, and as a principle it was approved by a Speaker's Conference as long ago as 1918. We used it for 30 years from 1918 as a method of electing Members from university seats to the House of Commons. I suggest that the obvious step is to sanction its use for elections to the European Parliament. I recall that we are committed by the Treaty of Rome, Article 138(3) to that principle and also by the terms of the Council decision of 20th September 1976, which binds us to find a uniform electoral procedure. I believe that we came close to reaching agreement on that, using a PR system, 10 years or so ago. I hope that we can arrive at that point again.
I should like to say something about the experience of PR in Italy. That is often, I believe, misunderstood in this country, where the Italian example is cited as a reason for rejecting PR here. It is commonly said that PR in Italy has caused weak government and constant changes. That is a very topsy-turvy way of looking at it. The problem in Italy was to devise an electoral law appropriate for a country where there were two large political parties—the Christian Democrats and the communists—each holding around one-third of the national vote.
Had Italy practised a simple majority system since the war, I have little doubt that the communists could have won an election, and in the days of the cold war,

905
one such victory would have been enough. The purpose of the Italian PR system was to enable the non-communist majority to win sufficient seats in Parliament to enable them to form a non-communist coalition. Seen in that light PR was the saviour of parliamentary democracy in Italy. Of course, it brought troubles in its train, and I shall not dwell on them. I note that communism having evaporated in Italy as elsewhere, there is now a move to reform the Italian voting system. I expect that they will retain a substantial element of PR, whatever system they adopt.
I have examined the Government's position on the question of the European Parliament elections. So far as I can make out, the last authoritative statement from the Government Bench was given by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, on 12th March 1991, (at col. 71 of Hansard) when he told the House that,
"The Government will consider any proposals for a uniform procedure for the European Parliament whenever such proposals are put forward".
That is not such a forthcoming statement as it might appear, as this country is seen abroad as being responsible for blocking proposals in the past. I hope that the Government will feel able to look at the question again, perhaps after the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty is completed. An indication of willingness to proceed would open the door and help to repair the damage done to our reputation in the European Community, which resulted from the lengthy procedures for ratification which we are now employing.
If we wish our electoral system to reflect both our political convictions and the desirability of broad consensus of action, PR is much the most likely method to produce the result we want.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the one thing that has become very clear indeed from this debate is that the adoption of any of the various methods of PR—my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy in his admirable speech indicated that there are at least four of them—would undoubtedly be highly complicated and almost certainly not fully understood by the great majority of the electorate.
The electorate today understands our system, the system of single member constituencies, with whoever achieves the heaviest vote in a constituency being elected to represent it. Whatever view your Lordships take of the merits, that is a concept which is very easily and fully understood. Your Lordships must face the fact that to move to any of the other systems about which we have been hearing this afternoon would produce a situation in which very large numbers of the voters would not understand what was happening and what it was all about. If one happens to believe in the working of a democracy, that would seem to be a considerable disadvantage flowing from that system.
The great advantage of our system is that it gives strong government. The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, seemed to think that strong government is equivalent to dictatorship. I do not believe that many of your Lordships think that. But what is important in these very difficult times, when the
906
handling of the British economy involves skill, determination and courage, is that one should have strong government. Our electoral system helps to conduce to that because, as we have seen in the years since the war, it provides in general that one will get governments with a complete overall majority able to govern and governments who, though not supported by a majority of the electorate, are supported by very substantial elements in it, governments who have more public support than any of the other parties which are against them. That is a very important aspect of our present system which I feel we should be very hesitant in any decision to discard.
Our system results in governments who can govern and governments who have no alibis if they make a mess of things. If a government do not have a majority in Parliament, there is every excuse if things go wrong for that government to say, "We would have got things right if we had been allowed to, but our allies, colleagues and temporary supporters would not allow us to". Under our system a government have no such alibi. A government, supported by a majority in another place, are answerable, without excuses, for what they do or what they do not do. That is a very valuable part of our democracy.
After all, what is one seeking from a general election? I do not think one is seeking a mathematically exact indication of the views of different political parties and different voters. We arc seeking a government who can govern, and can govern with the support of at any rate a very substantial element in the country. That is a product of our system which we should be very cautious indeed in deciding to discard. It works; and it works on the whole very satisfactorily and very sensibly.
It also works so as not to have frequent general elections. If one has a government, as one undoubtedly would under PR, who in most cases have no overall majority, one would have frequent dissolutions of Parliament when that government lose control of the legislature or lose what they regard as vital measures. Instead of having, as we have under our system, a Parliament that generally lasts for four years or so, one would have quite frequent elections. Is that an advantage? Is that what we really want? Will that help the working of this country? What we are concerned with above all is a system which will help the efficient administration of this country, help it towards prosperity and help it to do its job. To dismember it and substitute a system in which no party has a majority, in which there is no strong central element of government with public support, would be to sacrifice the reality of that for what seems to me, with due respect to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, a rather theoretical advantage.
In the minute that remains to me I have only two other points to make. First, our system of single member constituencies is an extremely good one. One has an individual member of another place with knowledge of his constituency after he has been there for some years and answerable individually and personally to the electors. It would be a great mistake to substitute for that a number of separate members,

907
all of whom jointly represent that constituency. My other point is that one would have, as I have already indicated, frequent elections.
We have evolved in this country a very good system. It has reached its present state of evolution with universal franchise only in this century. It works. With all the other problems that we face, in the economy, in finance and in government, to discard that system in favour of one or other of what are thought theoretically to be more justifiable systems of proportional representation would be, in the view of many of us, a terrible mistake.
3.57 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, an old friend associated with the Oxford Union for many years told me that in his time the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was the finest orator he recalled. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, another fine Oxford speaker, will confirm that verdict, but at any rate I bear that in mind in listening to him. It leads me to view the noble Lord's remarks with great suspicion. I am nervous of fine oratory, which is often indistinguishable from rhetoric. We all recall that Saint Augustine was professor of rhetoric and later described himself as having been a professor of lies. So I view the noble Lord's remarks very carefully.
One of the noble Lord's remarks was so feeble that no one but a fine orator could have offered it and made it sound fairly good. It was the suggestion that the British public, alone among the peoples of the world, is incapable of understanding proportional representation. Speaking as an Irishman, one is well aware that the Irish people have understood it perfectly well for many years, and Ireland is not the only country. That remark was not tenable.
I have toyed with the question of PR for many years. I toyed with it as a student and I toyed with it when I was teaching pupils such as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and others. I have always recognised the abstract argument that PR produces the best reflection of public opinion. On the other hand we all agree that an abstract argument is not all that should be taken into account in making political decisions. However, after all these years I have come to the conclusion that proportional representation should be adopted in this country. I say frankly that that is in the interests of my own party.
Although there is some prejudice against interrupting speakers in these short debates, I do not mind being interrupted on this point. Is anyone going to say that it is not the duty of a party member to consider the interests of his party? If he believes his party to be of great value to the country, it is his duty to consider such matters. Therefore, if one is a public spirited person, one must consider, among other factors, how change will affect one's own party.
When I joined the Labour Party more than 50 years ago, having belonged to something else unmentionable before, I said that I believed that all human beings are of equal and infinite importance. I said that then and I say that now. It is a view which may be held within the Labour Party and also outside it. Not all
908
my socialist intellectual colleagues thought that that was the most important thing. Some of them spoke in terms of the class factor. I remember one very gifted professor of philosophy addressing a middle-class audience in this way: "Well, comrades, they tell me there is a boom on. What does a boom mean to working chaps like you and me?" That was distorting the working class appeal. Others found in nationalisation the salvation of everything.
I still stick to the idea that we are all of equal and infinite importance. Is there any chance in the foreseeable future of the Labour Party winning an election on that issue and with that doctrine? I do not agree that the Labour Party can never win an election. It could win an election but it could only do so by seriously diminishing the doctrine which is its essential raison d'être. I believe that I have quoted before the poet Crosland, who had nothing whatever to do with Mr. Anthony Crosland. The poet said, "I have trod the road to hell. There are things that I might have sold, and did not sell". If the Labour Party were to win an election there would be a great danger to its soul. That is my point of view.
One might ask what bearing that has on PR. As regards who would benefit from it, palpably it would be the Liberal Democratic Party, which would become much stronger. The Conservative and the Labour Parties would lose something. Therefore, the chance of any party winning a clear majority would be much diminished. We have to look at that scenario from the point of view of the Labour Party, although everyone can look at it from his or her own point of view. I believe very strongly that the Labour Party would have more chance of retaining its essential doctrine if it remained as it is now, and not in power. I hope that in time to come it will be the largest party. It may have a minority party to assist it—I must not call it a junior partner.
That is the situation in Ireland today although PR has worked very well in that country. I believe that the Labour Party will retain its essential message more clearly if it remains as it is; namely, dedicated to the principles which I have mentioned rather than striving desperately to win on its own at all costs. That is my attitude. It is a fine calculation. I believe that, in the interests of the Labour Party and also in the interests of social morality, PR should be adopted in this country.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for initiating this debate and, with others, thank him for the extraordinarily lucid and cogent introduction which he offered us. I do not propose to follow the noble Earl, Lord Longford, in his rather theological discussion of the precise benefits which various electoral systems might or might not bring to the Labour Party. It would be intrusive for me to enter into that particular controversy, although I am delighted with the conclusion to which it led him as it is one with which I wholly agree. Nor do I propose to take on board all the arguments deployed by the noble

909
Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, because I believe that that will be done by my noble colleague Lord Tordoff later on.
However, one of the most strange arguments I have ever heard for the first-past-the-post system is the handling of the British economy which the noble Lord seemed to think was proof that all was well with our electoral system. Nor did I feel that the argument that it works was a very good one since what is palpably the case today is that under the present Government the system does not work.
I wish to concentrate on a rather narrower point and in that follow the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. Almost three years ago I introduced a Bill in your Lordships' House for introducing electoral reform in the election of members to the European Parliament. That Bill was passed by this House and received overwhelming Cross-Bench support. The Bill was designed to bring this country's electoral system into line with that of all other members of the Community and to bring it into accord with Article 138 of the Treaty of Rome which reads:
"The European Parliament shall draw up proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all member states".
So far the European Parliament has not done that. The liberal democratic parties of the Community have brought a case before the European Court of Justice against the European Parliament for dereliction of its duty. That came before the European Court of Justice yesterday and it has not yet given a ruling on the case.
However, that injunction in the Treaty of Rome has now been reinforced, while we await the ruling of the European Court of Justice, by the De Gucht Report which was presented to the Institutional Committee of the European Parliament in November last year. It was adopted by 18 votes to two. It insisted on the introduction of PR for the next European Parliament. It is important to note once more the consequences in this country and in the European Community of the way in which our system works. As people will remember, at the last election the Conservative vote in the European election dropped by 5 per cent. and the number of seats dropped by 29 per cent. That is not a very sensible way of running a shop—that is to say, that a 5 per cent. loss in votes leads to a 29 per cent. loss in seats.
As a consequence, there is no Conservative MEP in Scotland or Wales, and if one draws a line between London and Bristol there is no Labour MEP south of that line if one excludes London and Bristol. There is no member of the Liberal Democratic Party in the European Parliament at all. That has had consequences not only in this country but also in the European Parliament. It has led to the socialist group being the largest single party and to the communists being the third largest party which it would not have been if the British Liberal Democrats had been represented proportionately.
Therefore, it is not a question to which we can plead that our electoral system is purely a matter for us; it is a matter which affects other people. For that reason the Community has a very real interest in pressing us to conform with a proportional system in accordance with the recommendations of the De Gucht Report.
910
The problem came before the European Parliament on Monday. It is to be deeply regretted that it postponed a decision on that report until the summer. That means that any change cannot be made in time for the 1994 election. That postponement was due, I regret to say, to the lobbying of the Labour Party which still cannot make up its mind on the central issue. The Labour Party also persuaded its colleagues that it was better to take no decision rather than to take a decision which we hope very much will emerge from the lengthy consideration being given to this subject by the noble Lord, Lord Plant. I must confess that I look forward with the greatest interest to hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Plant, has to say, in what way his mind is moving on the matter after his long and no doubt systematic consideration, and what kind of advice he is thinking of offering to his colleagues so that this business may be brought to a conclusion.
This is a matter where even the most cautious of your Lordships may feel able to take an experimental step (if you feel it is too early to plunge the whole way) by changing our electoral system, as I and my colleagues would advocate, and by moving to a proportional system in the election of MEPs. That is something that we shall be forced to do, something which I think we should do and something which I am sure would be of benefit to the European Parliament.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Holderness: My Lords, I have so far listened to seven very distinguished speeches and I admired the balanced introduction of the debate by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. I enjoyed the robust expression of view by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I was not wholly surprised by it. However, I was most intrigued by the sympathetic approach shown by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, particularly when I remembered the comparative lack of interest of the party opposite at the time of the Hansard Commission 17 years ago, although it is fair to say that Mr. Gwyn Morgan, with his close connections with the Labour Party, was one of the commission's members. I was another, as my noble friend said, under the benign and wise leadership of my noble friend Lord Blake. I remember wondering at the time about the source of his skill in mathematics. I now know.
The commission, as your Lordships will know, strongly recommended some form of proportional representation. I am not going to rehearse the arguments because my noble friend spent some time on them. However, we agreed generally that it was contrary to the spirit of a reasonably sophisticated democracy that a large number of the votes cast at any election should be without any value at all. I cannot say that the commission's recommendations were greeted with a wild burst of unbridled enthusiasm: they were not. There was the additional member system, which the majority recommended, and the STV method, suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
My noble friend has already talked about the various alternatives that were produced or might have been produced, but in fact the opponents of both the

911
single transferable vote and of the additional member system united in claiming, as they were justified in doing—as I am sure my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter would entirely agree—that the first-past-the-post system, although not demonstrably fair to put it mildly, at least had the merits of simplicity, clarity and comprehensibility. People knew where they were, as I think my noble friend said. They argued that the additional member system in particular would destroy, or at least undermine, the close relationship between a Member of Parliament and his constituents. It would put unwelcome power in the hands of the political parties, who would become collectively responsible for completing the list of additional members. Even more seriously, it would or might often leave doubt, as my noble friend mentioned, after an election for days or even weeks, about the shape and composition and perhaps also the policy of the new government.
I can remember the tales, apparently designed to chill the commission's blood, which were told of the likelihood of protracted post-election discussions, held in rooms which were always, for some reason, apparently filled with smoke, leading eventually, as the electorate anxiously waited, to a bitterly fought and not always admirable compromise.
In spite of the commission's recommendations, the first-past-the-post system has already lasted for another 16 years. Under that system, at the last four general elections since it reported the Conservative Party has gained and maintained its ascendancy. I am sure that calculations of past election results under different electoral systems—that is, what would have happened under the additional member or the single transferable vote systems—are not only well beyond my intellectual capacity but are probably unrealistic anyhow.
I think the only safe conclusion which is almost, if not completely, platitudinous is that the adoption of any system of proportional representation would lead to a fundamental change for better or worse in our national affairs. But I would argue that platitudes are not always entirely to be despised and the very uncertainty of the consequences of change strikes fear into the hearts of party organisers. That fear is perfectly natural, perfectly reasonable and perfectly justifiable. However, if the fear is rooted, as I think it is, in the knowledge that under the proportional representation system the party of one's choice might have to summon allies in order to form a government, or even to watch other parties coalesce against it to do so, there still remains a field, which has been significantly mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and, more recently, by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, where the introduction of proportional representation would achieve the object of fairness without introducing any of these unpalatable uncertainties.
The prospect of the European Parliament forming the basis of a centralised European government is, I believe and certainly fervently hope, exceedingly remote. Therefore in this field the arguments about uncertainties, coalitions, smoke-filled rooms, and so
912
on, have no force or relevance. In this context, the results of our present method of electing members of the European Parliament must arouse a little flush of shame in the mind of a democrat. Certainly it provides reasonable representation for my party and the party opposite, but not for the two smaller parties with about a quarter of the votes cast yet having not a single seat at Strasbourg.
I suspect that when my noble friend replies to this debate, he will in some ways follow the argument that others of my noble friends have made in the past. However, I beg for consideration of this strong plea that where members chosen in an election will have no part whatever in the formation of a government, we should try to move a little closer to the heart of the democratic principle which would allow—if I can use simple although unrealistic figures—20 million, 10 million, 5 million electors of all parties to choose representatives approximately in the proportion of 4:2:1. That would cease to deny the parties supported by a considerable fraction of the electorate any representation at all.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, in this debate I start from the premise that all people are important. Democracy is the ability of people to control their own destinies. It is not the ability of one small group of people to control the destinies of a larger group of people. If I say that PR is good, it inevitably raises a question mark. I remind your Lordships of the debates we had several years ago, when I stood up from these Benches and declared that I was in opposition to terrorism but objected to the Prevention of Terrorism Act. One has to be careful about the words one uses. I would say that yes, I am in favour of proportional representation but I am not in favour of those systems which are called proportional representation and are put forward by minor parties for their own specific advantage. Here I am talking about the Liberals and the Communist Party, both of which have espoused PR because it was the only way they could achieve power over other people.
If I may make just a small digression, one thinks in terms of how the Liberals achieve representation and what they do with it. I think that it was David Alton, in his campaigns in Liverpool, who used to throw a dirty old mattress into someone's front garden and then bang on the door and say, "We'll get the council to shift it for you, dear". He would, indeed, get the council to shift it; but then he would get another dirty old mattress and throw that into the front garden next door. That, to my mind, is not the kind of—
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I know that it is not usual practice to intervene in a timed debate; but I think that, in your Lordships' House, to cast such an aspersion on a Member of another place is unfortunate, to say the least.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I am only repeating that which I read in the Observer a few years ago, which was not challenged by the Member of another place, so I can only assume that it was true and that

913
he was, in fact, proud of it. I happen to think that that is the kind of despicable political act of which no Englishman should be proud.
What do Liberals do when they get into any position of influence or power? There was an occasion shortly before Christmas when the Conservative Government—the Tories—were being challenged. There was a marvellous opportunity for the Liberal Party, the SDP or whatever they call themselves now, to join the anti-Tory alliance—something that they have been saying that they favoured for years—and to attack the Government. But what happened? They did not do so; they sided with the Tories. Those are just two examples of the problems that we face when dealing with the particular political systems that the Liberals, the SDP and the Communist Party seek to inflict upon us for their own advantage.
I said that I was in favour of proportional representation and I shall try to explain the ways in which I think that our current systems can be improved to become more proportional of the people who live in this country. First, we need to ensure that all constituencies are as near equal in size as possible. One only has to look at the electoral map of Britain to realise that there are some very large and some very small English constituencies, each of which sends one Member of Parliament to Westminster. We also have the anomaly of the electorate in Scotland sending, collectively, more members to Parliament than they actually need. So, there are inequalities and unfairnesses with the size of the electorate.
Secondly, we should ensure that every person in a constituency is counted and is allowed to vote. I shall give three examples of where people are not counted and not allowed to vote. The first is the mechanism of the compilation of the electoral register. It is compiled in October and it comes into force in February. It remains in force for the rest of the year, having been compiled the previous October. An election may be called at any point during a year and it has been judged that the register may be between 10 and 30 per cent. inaccurate. Therefore, in practice, between 10 and 30 per cent. of the electorate are disenfranchised either because they have moved out of the area or for some other reason. The second problem, which has become much more relevant during the past few years, is the underclass, the people who are not part of the system and who do not appear on the lists. That section of society has grown bigger over the past few years as a result of the poll tax. The residue of the horrors of the poll tax will stay with us for a number of years yet, I am afraid.
The third problem is that some people who live in a constituency are not permitted to vote because they are nationals of another country whereas other people are permitted to vote even though they do not live in the constituency. Recent changes in electoral law have permitted foreign nationals to vote in our elections, which seems anachronistic.
The third area in which we can improve matters is in the area of holding our representatives accountable. Here, we must recognise that one of the problems with the very existence of your Lordships' House is that we distract people from holding the House of Commons
914
accountable. We are somehow thought of as a backstop, a control, over the excesses of the elected Chamber.
My time has run out; but I should like to make a final point: whatever electoral system we have, it does not relate only to our national Parliament. We have local assemblies, national assemblies and international assemblies. I hope that we shall eventually have a world assembly. I hope also that the system that I propose, which is basically to improve our current system, will work at the local, national and international levels.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, when I saw in a newspaper —not, I hasten to add, the Observer, which is a curious source of information for anyone—that the Plant Commission had been appointed, I thought that it had something to do with the Rio Conference and was to be a commission to discover how we could preserve biodiversity. I was then taken aback to discover that I should have known that it was named after the then professor, now the noble Lord, Lord Plant of Highfield, and that its business was to examine proportional systems of election. However, there is a connection with biodiversity. Many of the plants that one was hoping to catalogue and preserve would have been very good for human beings (they might produce valuable medical or other products) whereas it can be said of all the electoral systems other than first-past-the-post that there is ample evidence that they are wholly deleterious to human beings.
That is not an argument about theory. It is something that we have established by practice. Various countries have been mentioned as having had various such systems. But what do we find if we look at the recent experience of any of them? Ireland has been mentioned. An Irish general election was held prematurely because the then Prime Minister was rude to the leader of his principal coalition partner. Ireland went to the polls and, as has been said, it took quite a time to work out the figures. However, when the figures were produced all the commentators said, "Well, at least the Irish people have been able to indicate their wishes. They want to get rid of Mr. Reynolds and the rule of the Fianna Fail Party." After seven weeks of negotiations, the Irish people find themselves landed with Mr. Reynolds with a larger majority than he had before. So much for the single transferable vote.
My noble friend Lord Blake is the great exponent of the additional member system—the German system —and will no doubt argue in favour of it. I do not think that it is altogether appreciated—or not often appreciated—that the three-party coalition which governs Germany (and has for some time) puts the Chancellor and his colleagues under considerable constraints. Not only must the Chancellor provide Cabinet posts for the two minor parties, but he must also allow them to decide who shall fill those posts. The Free Democrats, who have suffered in terms of personnel in various ways which we need not go into,

915
found it very difficult when the last reshuffle came along to find five more or less acceptable members for those Cabinet positions.
If Mr. Smith goes along with the Liberal Democrats and we have a coalition of that kind, then, looking along the Liberal Democrat Bench in the other place, I think that Mr. Ashdown might find it quite difficult to produce five suitable members for a Cabinet. Of course, distinguished members of the Liberal Democratic Party are Members of your Lordships' House—and most of them are speaking today—but it was certainly not the intention of those who advocated proportional representation either to make the changes which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy outlined, or to transfer much of the weight of government from the other place to your Lordships' House. That would upset the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, no end.
One could go on. I have often referred to the great tragedy of Israel. It has been and remains an obstacle to the peace process that under proportional representation all governments depend on small minority parties whose seats are guaranteed under the electoral system and which make up a parliamentary majority.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, spoke with great authority about Italy. However, it seems that in recent months and years, whatever may have been the justification for a measure to prevent the arrival of a Communist government, Italians have been extremely fed up with what they have. If one talks about electoral reform in Italy one means exactly the opposite of what is meant in this country; one means getting rid of proportional representation.
Other countries can be cited. In Belgium and Holland there are long intervals of time while ministries are formed and then uncertainties about their survival. In Denmark the presidency of the European Commission has been thrown into doubt by the operations of a parliament formed under a system of proportional representation.
I do not wish to be anti-European today and so I shall give something to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. On the whole I am in favour of PR for the European Parliament. It seems that in what is, after all, a vast boondoggle the spoils should be fairly shared among potential beneficiaries. It is of no political significance and therefore it does not affect what we think about the main issue.
Let us get down to what will, in fact, happen. The Labour Party is being asked by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, to adopt proportional representation as part of its platform. As the party cannot make any change before the election it will adopt the policy only in the hope that it wins it enough Liberal votes in certain constituencies to give it a majority. It is the hope of the Liberal Democrat Party that, bolstered by those votes, the newly-elected Labour Government will then proceed to enact proportional representation. I shall let the Liberal Democrats into a secret; nothing of the kind will happen.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who changed places with me in the list. I had hoped that if I spoke later in the debate I should be clear in my mind about what I wanted. The answer is that my mind is no clearer and that I could have spoken earlier. Therefore, I shall speak no longer than I would have done in those circumstances.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, because the issue will not go away despite the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and others. We must face proportional representation in some form. The noble Lord nods his head in a negative sense—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, shakes not nods.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, the noble Lord is an eloquent speaker. I know that because I heard him speak as President of the Union at Oxford. In this House we are able to reach a rational conclusion but unfortunately I cannot do so. It is as well that I admit that, which is probably the view of a number of other noble Lords.
The issue will not go away. The minority parties will not accept permanent disability. Nor is that acceptable to the Labour Party whose attitude hitherto has made electoral reform impossible. I hope that on other occasions we shall attempt to repeat the efforts made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I look forward to the publication of the report prepared by the noble Lord, Lord Plant, in the hope that he will make up my mind. After all, he is an important professor at Southampton University and I hope that his report will be conclusive. Until then I and many other noble Lords are inclined to share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. If they do not and if they want a permanent Conservative Government, which is what he really prefers and believes can be achieved under the present first-past-the-post system, we are rather doomed. I support any step towards electoral reform taken along the lines expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy.
4.35 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for his clear, well-balanced and interesting speech on such a complex issue. In the interests of true democracy surely the case for some form of proportional representation is unassailable. However, as other noble Lords have made clear, there is no perfect system and there are many practical difficulties.
I was first attracted to PR many years ago and for a few years I was a fairly active member on the National Committee for Electoral Reform. I was attracted for two reasons. The first was the tremendous damage that had been done to industry by the wild swings in policy between the two parties. One party carried through Acts of Parliament in one direction which affected industry. However, after a

917
change in government the next two years would be spent by the opposing party going in the opposite direction and changing the legislation.
I remember in particular the position of steel. It was nationalised, denationalised, renationalised and then again denationalised. How can one wonder why there was not sufficient investment in steel and not understand the troubles that it faced? The same applied to fiscal policy, defence procurement and many aspects of industrial life. Perhaps those factors are now less important because there is less difference between the two major parties; the party opposite has virtually given up any idea of more nationalisation. However, the issue remains important.
The second reason I was attracted to PR was that I had always been anxious that, with our unwritten Constitution under which Parliament is supreme, it would be possible for a government elected on a minority vote of, say, 40 per cent. of the votes cast, to carry through far-reaching changes. In my view that would be against the interests of the country. That could happen in the case of extreme Right-wing or Left-wing governments.
I believe that in principle the case for PR is unassailable. However, there are objections which have already been mentioned. It is said that PR would lead to coalition and to weak government. However, as my noble friend Lord Campbell made clear, all parties are to some extent a coalition, and compromise is not always bad. Strong governments based on substantial majorities in the other place are valuable when big changes are needed, as they were in 1945 and 1979. However, such strong governments can easily deteriorate into dogmatic governments, which is not in the interests of the country.
Between 1945 and 1950 there was a spate of extreme measures. If there had been restraint through some kind of coalition or the balance of a Liberal Democrat Party, we might have avoided the dogmatic nationalisation to which I have referred. Between 1985 and 1990 we experienced similar problems from a strong government which had a large majority in another place. If there had been balancing opinions which were able to exert influence, we should probably have avoided the disasters of the poll tax and the absurdities of the privatisation of water.
There has been considerable opposition to change from the two large parties. It seems that they fear that they will never have the opportunity to have effective power. But if hopes were dupes, fears may be liars. Many believe that proportional representation would give real hope of improved government. That is what we all seek.
There are agreements on many issues and objectives between the parties. Sound policies command support when they are cogently argued, as they must be when there is not an overriding strength in one party. As my noble friend Lord Campbell said—and very wisely said in my view—if we are to have PR, there must be big changes elsewhere in our outlook on how we govern ourselves. That will take a long time.
For those reasons he advocated—and I agree with him—that we need a measured and careful approach to any change in our electoral system, however good
918
PR may appear to be in theory. I agree with that, but I hope that the measured approach will not be so measured that it means that we shall make no progress at all. This subject has been in the air for a very long time. It needs further consideration. Perhaps a commission could look into the matter and put forward clearly all the pros and cons so that a better judgment could be made for the future.
Above all, I hope that we shall not reject PR for the reasons which my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter gave; namely, that the electorate are not clever enough to understand it. I really do not believe that that is true.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Kagan: My Lords, it is extremely heartening to hear the widespread support in all parts of your Lordships' House for the need to review and reform the electoral system. The first-past-the-post system is defended on account of it having been there for a long time and having been effective and fair. Fair it is not and its effectiveness must be judged by the performance of this country in the past 50 years, because the governments that we have had are due to the electoral system that we have.
Just after the war we were the fourth largest industrial power in the world, and now we are somewhere near 25th. In Europe we have slipped below Italy and Spain and we are just above Portugal. Unemployment is rising and there is a whole generation of young people looking into a bleak future. Millions of householders are worried about whether they will still possess a roof over their heads. They fear repossession. The savings of people who have worked all their lives are jeopardised by a pound which has slipped from 12 marks to the pound in 1952 to 2.45 marks or 2.50 marks, and the pound is still not secure.
We are debating and wondering whether we are in a recession or in a decline. Is that a record that justifies the system? The electoral system is not the only reason for what has happened but it is a major reason. As the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, pointed out, governments have not enabled industry to perform and to see what its future may be. The system has produced short-termism in everything.
This country is in as mortal peril today economically as it was during the war when Churchill led us. Churchill felt that the national problems could not be solved on a one-party political basis because he needed support not only for the easy measures but also for the difficult measures, for his blood, sweat and tears. That is what we must look forward to in the future if we wish to avoid becoming a second-rate or third-rate nation.
We have been endowed with raw materials—oil and coal. We are the only country in Europe, apart from Norway, which has that. We have more than the Germans, and yet under proportional representation —although not only because of it—they have progressed from total ruin to where they are today.
The German ship of state has a keel with minority parties at the centre. That produces exactly the same result as does a heavy keel in any ship. It prevents the

919
lurches to which the noble Viscount referred so eloquently. For 10 years German politics have had a consistently firm financial and foreign policy, in spite of the fact that it was represented by Ministers of minority parties. Genscher was for 10 years Federal Germany's Foreign Minister despite the fact that his party represented only 5.7 per cent. of the national vote.
We do not need reminding in what peril we stand. It is not unlike 1933, 1934 and 1935 when all the bush fires were going up. Dictatorships have failed and it took 70 years to realise that. However, democracy as we practise it is also on trial. While we have governments which make extravagant promises in their manifestos which cannot be fulfilled, we shall not be able to correct or deal with the problems which arise.
Recently in America we have seen a new era: Clinton and Bush conducting a policy and supporting each other. I know that it will take a long time to review electoral reform but in the meantime, we need a truce where not only defence and foreign policies but also the economy must be taken out of the political playing field. We must stop those policies being used as a football.
On 5th December 1991 this House debated the same issue. The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, asked the Government whether they could now see the need for reform. The Minister of State, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, on behalf of the Government gave a terse reply. He said, "No, my Lords". I hope that this time he will not give the same reply.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Blake: My Lords, along with many noble Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for introducing this debate. He did that with admirable clarity and expounded the issues in a way which shows how good he was at instructing me in gunnery in 1940 at Larkhill. Indeed, he even instructed me in mathematics, which is not a subject of which I am naturally fond.
I was, as has been said, chairman of the Hansard Commission on electoral reform on which two noble Lords served with enormous success. They gave us great help. I am also president of the Electoral Reform Society, but I shall not presume on the strength of those qualifications, if they are such, to speak on this occasion at any length. Most of the arguments have been rehearsed during the course of our debate and it is superfluous to repeat them.
I merely wish to make three points. My first point is important and it is that the case for proportional representation depends very largely on what kind of proportional representation one adopts. There are many different kinds and one of the vital features of a system which might work is to have what is called in the jargon "a threshold"; that is to say, to have a system whereby, if a party obtains fewer than a certain proportion of the electors, it does not obtain any seats at all. That is what happens under the German system
920
with its 5 per cent. threshold. There is under the system of single transferable vote in Ireland a de facto threshold of somewhere between 5 and 10 per cent. I shall not explain the arithmetic of that as it would be tedious to do so at this juncture. Noble Lords can take it from me that that is the case.
The two systems which achieve a threshold and are viable are the German system; that is, the additional member system, and the single transferable vote. The Hansard Commission came down in favour of a modified version of the German system, the AMS, but was evenly divided on the merits of that and of the single transferable vote, which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, favoured.
I believe those are the only two possible serious runners for proportional representation. I consider the various other systems to have such defects that they should not be adopted. I believe, for example, there is no case for a system such as the Italian or the Israeli one. They were naturally prayed in aid, as always, by my noble friend Lord Beloff. He is quite right to say they work badly but the point is they have no threshold at all and give ample scope for minute splinter parties to control the fate of governments. The other systems do not do that. Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, may say, the German system has worked very well. One might say that Germany has flourished a great deal more in one way or another than Britain has under our system.
The second point is that proportional representation is often said to be too complicated. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter made that point. He said that the electorate would not understand the system. I do not believe that is the case. I think my noble friend underestimates the intelligence of the electorate. Does he really think the British electorate is notably more stupid than the Irish electorate or the German electorate? That may be the case but I do not like to think so and I do not believe it.
The point about systems of PR is not that they are complicated for the voter. In the case of STV one merely puts 1, 2, 3 or 4, or whatever the case may be, against the names, and in the case of the additional member system that can be carried out under our recommendations with just a single vote, or in the German case with two. The system is not complicated for the voter. I accept that it is more complicated for the returning officers but that need not affect the voter. Therefore it is not valid to argue that the systems are complicated.
Thirdly, I think the case for PR in national elections is a strong one. I shall not go into the arguments for that. I believe the case for PR as regards a European Parliament is very strong and indeed almost overwhelming. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, who made that point forcefully. I believe my next point has not yet been made. PR in local government would be an enormous asset. It would prevent tyrannical single party groups controlling various cities and counties for years on end. For that reason alone, some system of PR would be invaluable in local government. That is the end of what I wish to say.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, we, too, are extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for introducing this debate. In many ways it is a pity that we do not have more time to speak to enable us to debate in more detail the various systems which are available and the merits and demerits of those systems. That would be a useful teach-in for Members of your Lordships' House.
Many of the merits and demerits of the various systems have already been mentioned. I shall touch again on one or two of them. We in this party are undoubtedly firm supporters of the single transferable vote. As we have heard, my noble friend Lady Seear stood out for that measure in the Hansard Commission. I do not wish to give a long eulogy on STV nor do I wish to suggest we would not consider other systems in certain circumstances as it would be foolish to do so. As the noble Lord, Lord Blake, has said, there are many merits in the German AMS method. My problem with that is the one I have with any list system whether it be national, regional or AMS, in that it leaves too much power in the hands of the political party. The great virtue of STV is that it puts the power to select the candidate in the hands of the elector which is where it should be.
The matter of single Member seats has been mentioned several times. Single Member seats are well recognised in this country. Members of Parliament in another place seek to represent all their constituents, but in the days when I had a vote there were times when I would not have gone to my sitting Member of Parliament with any issue that I wanted to discuss simply because my political views and his political views were so widely divergent that there would have been no meeting of minds. What I would have liked is to have been in a multi-Member constituency where I had a choice of perhaps four or five Members of Parliament to consult and where I could have found someone who was much more to my political taste. That would be the case in a multi-Member constituency.
The noble Lord, Lord Kagan, and the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, have dealt admirably with the effect of the present system on industry and the economy. I thought the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was panglossian. I do not think I am going too far in saying that. He talked about everything being for the best and the best of all possible worlds. There are many of us who would dissent from that view.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt him just for a moment. I did not say that everything was for the best in the best of all possible worlds. I said this was a system which had considerable practical merits. However, that is quite a different thing and the noble Lord has no right to misrepresent me.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am sorry if I misrepresented the noble Lord but that is what it
922
sounded like to me and from the look on the faces of other noble Lords in this House I believe some of them would agree with me.
The present system has not produced the best possible government over the past 40 or 50 years. I am reminded of a remark by Hans-Dietrich Genscher who said to my right honourable friend Sir David Steel that after the war the British were generous to Germany as they gave Germany three things: industrial trade unions, a federal system of government and a proportional electoral system. He said those were the three things on which Germany had built its strength since the war. He went on to say that the British had been so generous they kept none of those things for themselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, in a customary knockabout performance this afternoon, has dealt with Italy and Israel. However, I believe the noble Lord, Lord Blake, has already explained the problem in those countries is the fact that there is either a low threshold or no threshold at all and therefore the splinter parties which can be at the extreme ends of the political spectrum get a much bigger say than they would do under AMS or STV.
There seems to be a general agreement that the elections to the European Parliament should be at the top of the agenda. I am glad to hear that said on all sides of the House. It is quite clear that there is a democratic deficit in Europe. That can only be put right by strengthening the power of the European Parliament. The European Parliament can only be strengthened if it is seen as being truly democratic and representing the whole of Europe. The distortions to which my noble friend referred in the electoral system in this country are distorting the balance of the European Parliament to a serious extent. I do not believe that Europe will allow us to continue to do that for very much longer.
On that subject, an opportunity presents itself immediately for the Government to make at least a modest experiment. We know that as a result of the Edinburgh Summit there will now be an extra six seats for Great Britain in the European Parliament. I am depressed and upset by the reply that was given on 14th January in another place by Mr. Peter Lloyd, the Minister of State at the Home Office, who said:
"We are urgently considering how to take forward the question of adding six additional seats for the next European elections in 1994. We intend to keep the existing voting system but to have the existing Euro-constituency boundaries independently re-drawn".—[Official Report, Commons, 14/1/93; col. 1046.]
There is very little time to do that. Are we to suppose that all the European constituencies will be redrawn? In that case, when will we know the results? People will want to know what their constituency boundaries are in good time to fight those elections and will certainly want that information before the back end of next year. If the Government suppose that they can put that measure through in that kind of timescale, they are sadly mistaken. Here is an opportunity to inject a system of additional member seats into the existing system as an experiment. I commend that proposal to the Government.

923
I have just come back from Kenya where I was a member of the team of Commonwealth observers who tried to define whether the elections in that country were free and fair. I hope that our report will be published within a few days and I hope to have the opportunity to bring it before your Lordships for discussion at a later date. I find it somewhat ironic to have to go to a country such as Kenya to pronounce on whether its elections are free and fair when it is quite clear that the elections in this country while they may be free are certainly not fair.
I also believe that in Kenya proportional representation might have helped. It might well have overcome the tribal problems which were reflected in the way in which the results emerged at the end of the day. We introduced PR for the European elections in Northern Ireland to overcome tribal problems, and that is a suggestion which we might hand on to the rest of the Commonwealth.
At the end of the day there would be many changes as a result of introducing PR, but there have to be changes. We have to move away from the adversarial, confrontational politics that we have had in this country if we are to have a democratic process which is at all creative. The way to do that is to introduce a proportional system of representation. That will not lead to soggy compromise. As my noble friend Lady Seear said, compromise is what one's opponents call it; common sense is what one calls it when one is in favour of it.
I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said. We look forward very much to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Plant. I do not suppose that he will unveil his magnum opus, but I hope that he will give some hint of the direction in which his working party is moving.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for facilitating the debate today. There can be nothing more important in a democracy than the way in which representatives are elected, and it is right that we keep our electoral system under review.
As the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said, I am the author of something that has come to be called the Plant Report. I am sorry that he thought that it might be a botanical catalogue. I have realised since I entered politics that I have a rather unfortunate name. Noble Lords will appreciate that I am rather pleased that my university's botany department has just closed down its plant improvement unit!
Speaking as chair of the Labour Party's working party on electoral systems, I wish that the debate was to take place in a few week's time. My working party is due to report to the National Executive of the party in April and, while I suspect that most members of the working party have made up their minds, as I certainly have, we do not formally finalise our recommendations until March. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for me to give a collective view on behalf of the working party or my own personal point of view, or indeed that of the Labour Party which will
924
have to respond to the working party's recommendations when they are made to the National Executive in April. What I shall try to do in the very short time allotted to me is to say something about the framework within which the decisions of the working party have been developed and its recommendations will be made.
It is important for all sides in the electoral reform debate to recognise, as has been said by noble Lords, that there is no ideal system of election. That can be shown mathematically, if that is to your taste, via Kenneth Arrow's impossibility theorem. More importantly, it can be shown in practical ways by suggesting that when we come to judge the electoral systems we usually have in mind quite a wide range of criteria which we use in arriving at a judgment about the merits or demerits of a particular system. The criteria we use in that judgment cannot be developed in a uniquely satisfying way and the criteria themselves are subject to dispute and interpretation.
In our first interim report we argued that the criteria of assessment in terms of which electoral systems are judged could broadly be divided into procedural criteria and those concerned with outcomes. For example, procedural criteria will be concerned with issues such as fairness, wasted votes —a concept which I do not believe can be given any clear meaning—the channels of accountability between representative and electorate, the degree of political participation which an electoral system encourages, and the degree of proportionality—because no one argues that proportionality has no role to play at all—together with a view about the extent to which the election of a government should be in the hands of the electorate and the extent to which it should emerge out of political negotiation within a proportionally elected parliament.
Those are the procedural criteria. Outcome criteria will concern such matters as the stability and effectiveness of government and the impact of electoral systems and the governments they produce on such matters as economic management and the degree of continuity of policy. Those are points which have already been made by noble Lords.
It is clear that there is no unique way of ranking those criteria in order of priority and thus no settled way in which electoral systems can be judged, and thus no ideal system. They all vary according to the view one takes about the importance and ranking of those criteria. Furthermore, as I have said, the criteria can be variously interpreted. Take for example, the notion of fairness. An electoral system cannot just be fair; it has to be fair to something or to someone—for example, to the voters, to parties, to regions or to under-represented groups. Different choices about what one is to be fair to will lead one to evaluate electoral systems in different ways. Therefore, for example, it might be argued that STV is fairer to voters than list systems whereas under-represented groups such as women and ethnic groups might do better under list systems. Similarly, list systems might be fairer to parties while a mixed member or additional member system might be fairer to regions as well as to women and ethnic minorities.

925
Therefore, in judging electoral systems one has to cope with that type of complexity and make judgments about it. In our working party we are not dealing merely with proposals for the House of Commons: at the NEC's request we are dealing with an electoral system for an elected second chamber, the European Parliament, regional assemblies in England and Wales, a Scottish Parliament and local government, as well as bringing forward proposals for changes in electoral law and electoral practices. So we have a complex task. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, will accept that that complexity has accounted for the length of time we have taken over it.
In addition, the electoral systems—both majoritarian and proportional—imply different things for the role of parties and constituencies and for the nature of representation. Proportional systems tend to favour a microcosmic view of representation in which a parliament should be seen as a microcosm of the political forces at work in society as a whole. Majoritarian systems tend to adopt what is sometimes called the principal/agent view of representation in which a representative is elected to speak on behalf of a whole constituency once he or she—and of course it is generally he—is elected.
Therefore a change of electoral system is not just a technical change, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, rightly said, but involves assessing some of the deepest components of what constitutes a democratic society. I wish that that factor were more appreciated by those keen on proportional representation. Many supporters who have written to me treat the issue of elections as though it were a purely mathematical exercise. Indeed, returning to the exact wording of the Motion before us today, which by convention calls for papers, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that if he wants papers, I have filing cabinets full of them. They have been sent to me over the past 18 months mainly by mathematicians who treat the issue of elections as a neat way of providing a mathematical solution. It is rather like fretwork in the late 1930s: it keeps people busy on dark winter evenings.
The electoral system should depend on function to some extent. Political bodies such as the House of Commons, an elected second Chamber, the European Parliament, or devolved assemblies, have different functions. There is no reason why they should be elected by the same method. Obviously there is a limit; but several countries have two electoral systems: one primarily for legislative bodies and another for deliberative and revising bodies.
It is also true to say that to put the choice as between first-past-the-post and proportional representation misdescribes the nature of the choice. There are other majoritarian systems besides first-past-the-post, such as the alternative vote or a second ballot. That needs to be taken into account.
In the working party we have come to the view that clear constituency accountability should be ensured. We are still committed to the idea of retaining some notion of community in the electoral system. We do not want an electoral system that undermines the already rather tenuous links that bind people together
926
in modern society. We also believe that every person elected to a legislative body should have stood before the electorate. In so far as we have developed an idea in relation to the additional member system as one of the alternatives that we wish to consider and make recommendations on in April, it is quite close to the Hansard Society proposal where every member would in fact have stood for election and would not be determined by party lists.
We are not too keen on STV. That is not one of the systems for the House of Commons that we now have under consideration. We believe that it dilutes constituency accountability and the idea of community too much, and replaces it by group accountability which can lead to clientism. We also believe that in a democracy people should not only know how to vote, as they undoubtedly do under STV, but that the citizen should also understand the relationship between the casting of the vote and how that affects the result. We believe that that is too complex within STV. We accept the view of Professor Michael Dummet in his review of the working party's interim report in the New Left Review of midsummer 1992 that the accounting system and the apportionment system under STV is chaotic.
We have rejected pure list systems because they diminish constituency accountability sometimes to vanishing point. Therefore our choices will be made between first-past-the-post, the alternative vote and a mixed member system under which all members stand for election. That system was chosen recently in the referendum in New Zealand as the preferred alternative to the first-past-the-post system. Those proposals will be made in a report to the Labour Party in April. I hope that noble Lords will be interested in the proposals that will be made in that report.
5.14 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, it is always an alarming prospect to follow one so knowledgeable on these matters as the noble Lord, Lord Plant, who, as well as being a professor, is engaged in deep study of electoral reforms for the party opposite. He stated that he has an unfortunate name in the political world. That may be so. I can only say that he is a much coveted intellectual.
Debates in your Lordships' House on proportional representation are always interesting. They are full of knowledge, depth and great sincerity. It is not surprising that there is not necessarily unanimity of view but the debates are always of great interest, as has been the discussion today. Such debates are also complicated. They take one down such routes as the likelihood and effect of hung parliaments, coalitions and mathematical formulae, transfer votes and so on. I have listened with interest and the Government will take note of what your Lordships said. I do not propose to answer each noble Lord's points, because that would be too complicated, might be somewhat adversarial and might take too long. However, I propose to give the Government's views on what is a complex and sensitive issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said that he had not been able to make up his mind when he spoke. I

927
hope that I shall be able to encourage him to make up his mind. I was encouraged that one of such political experience found it difficult. That gives me great comfort because I find it difficult every single day to make up my mind on any subject. To find that the noble Lord has had such a difficulty even once gives me great encouragement.
The House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for introducing the debate today. I have no doubt that those noble Lords who sit on the Liberal Benches were particularly glad when they read the Motion. The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, did not miss the opportunity to try to woo the Labour Party about proportional representation. As the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said, "He would, wouldn't he?" because it would benefit the Liberal Party to have proportional representation. All I say to the Labour Party—it is not a political point—is, "Watch out for Little Red Riding Hood, in particular when she says that she has come down from a rundown Ruritania".
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that we have to start from the basic fact that no system is perfect. Were there a perfect system, there would be no cause for a debate like this, nor indeed for any other system. Democracy means the rule of the people. It is a fine theory, but it is very difficult to find a system which puts it irrevocably into practice. Every system has its advantage and every system has its disadvantage.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that the unique advantage of the first past the post system which we use in the United Kingdom is that it is simple. It is familiar. Everyone understands it. The person who gains more votes wins, and that is that. There is a great deal to be said for that. The member represents directly the interests of his electorate—both those who have voted for him and those who have not.
One other great advantage of the system is that it is much more likely to produce an overall majority for one party and thereby to provide stronger and more stable government, whether that is at local or national level. The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, did not find that factor particularly attractive. He said that he wanted good government and implied that he had not had it. That is a personal opinion. We all want good government. One does not achieve that by choosing weak or unstable government. The question that is asked of the voter under the first past the post system is simple. It is, "Who do you want to represent you on the council or parliament?" The candidate who gains more votes—even one more—wins. The question and answer are simple. They are both clear.
There have been many speeches in favour of proportional representation. My noble friend Lord Caldecote said that the case is unassailable. I question that. Proportional representation is not a system of election. It is a type of election. There are many different varieties of it. People sometimes talk of proportional representation as though it were an alternative to the first past the post system. However, it is not, because it is not a single system. There are many different varieties. There is the single
928
transferable vote system; the party list system; the additional member system and the alternative vote system. Within those systems there are many different methods of application. All are different. All produce different results. There is no uniformity either in practice or in result in proportional representation. People often think that proportional representation is fairer. I venture to suggest that it is not. As each system of proportional representation will produce a different result, each system will differ in its degree of fairness or unfairness as against the first past the post system or any other type of proportional representation.
I did not go along with my noble friends Lord Caldecote and Lord Blake, but I agreed with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter when he said that many of the systems were completely incomprehensible to the ordinary person. I am bound to say that in that happy bracket I include myself.
Of course people know how to cast a vote. What they do not necessarily appreciate is how the machine will throw out the results. Many of the systems result not just in the counting of votes but in the subsequent re-allocation of the votes cast according to some complicated formula.
Because systems of proportional representation rarely give a single party an overall majority, they often result in some form of coalition government, as has been said. Coalitions, by their nature, have to compromise. As a result, governments can be formed on the basis of a programme of which the electorate has not even had the opportunity to approve or disapprove. The programme emerges as a result of horse-trading behind closed doors between the different parties.
In an election, therefore, voters can only guess what kind of coalition their party might have to enter into after the election and what new policies it might have to adopt and what compromises it might have to make in order to keep the coalition in existence.
We need look no further than the Republic of Ireland, which has been mentioned today, where it has taken seven weeks to put together a coalition government, to see the difficulties which can be caused. Or consider Italy, which has had 50 governments in 45 years since the Italian republic was established in 1948. I can only say: heaven keep us from such a fate. Oddly enough, that is exactly what the Italians are now saying. They realise that they must change their system to something better.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, will the noble Earl take an interruption?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have already done so.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps he will take another. Is he aware that proportional representation has been a great success in Ireland and that no one there would dream of changing it?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, Ireland is a special case for special reasons. I could deal with it, but I do not think I shall do so. There are various reasons why that has applied there, not least because of the religious divisions which prevail in Ireland. I should prefer not

929
to take any more interruptions. I took one but, in order to keep within the timescale, I should prefer not to pursue them.
Very often—as has happened in Italy and, indeed, in Germany—parties which poll few votes can exercise on government an influence which is quite out of proportion to the number of people who voted for them. They can keep on exercising this influence despite the fact that they regularly come low in the polls.
These, as I see it, are pretty fundamental objections to proportional representation. There is also the practical difficulty, were we seriously to consider such a change, of finding a system which would suit the United Kingdom. Proportional representation comes, as I have suggested, in many guises, none of which the Government regard as a satisfactory replacement for our present system.
That is why the Government's position on proportional representation has always been, I think, well known. We have always made it clear that we have no plans to introduce any form of proportional representation for local government elections in Great Britain, nor for elections in the United Kingdom to another place. That remains the case today. I hope that at least I have been able to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Kagan, by giving him more than a monosyllabic answer to a similar question which I was asked at Question Time, even if the result is the same. We are always happy to listen, I have listened, and the Government will take heed of what your Lordships have said.
Your Lordships have sometimes said that we are the only country in the European Community which does not have proportional representation—and I remember the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, saying that to me at Question Time—as if we were the odd man out. But there is no conformity or uniformity among our European partners. There is a whole host of different systems. Spain and Portugal use a list system which does not allow the voter to express a preference between candidates, but only between parties. The list system does away with constituency representation, which is one of the main strengths of our arrangements.
Belgium also uses a list system, but a different variety. The elector either votes for a party's list or for one candidate from a list, so that he can show that he supports that party but that he prefers his chosen candidate to others on the list. In Italy, the vote can indicate a preference for three or four candidates. In France, one of the systems used—and they keep changing them—provides that, if there is no outright winner, the election is re-run a week later with the candidates with the fewest votes eliminated.
Then there is that curious hybrid system, the additional member system. Germany uses it, as my noble friends Lord Beloff and Lord Blake reminded us. The effect of that system is to create two classes of member of parliament. Some members are elected by constituencies, as we do now, but others are drawn from among the defeated candidates—the ones who have not won—in order to bring the total into line with national voting patterns. As a result, some
930
candidates who had actually been rejected by the electorate would be returned as members. That seems a funny system.
The alternative vote system is another version, but it is not used in Europe or, so far as I know, anywhere else in the world. It does not achieve the aims of proportional representation because there is little relationship between the votes which have been cast and the number of seats which are obtained. The system is much more complicated than ours and it offers no advantages.
Then there is the single transferable vote system, which is used in the Republic of Ireland and in Northern Ireland for elections other than for Westminster. This requires the formation of large multi-member constituencies, but it distances the member markedly from his or her constituents. It relies upon quotas and the redistribution of votes which are surplus to the required quota, together with the redistribution of votes for the eliminated candidates. The General Synod of the Church of England uses that system too, I believe.
There are many other variations upon those systems, but they all have the same serious drawback. It is that too much control is vested in the hands of the central party organisation which draws up the list. I always think that the best example of the disadvantages of proportional representation, or at least one version of it, is the experience in Sweden. There was an election in 1973 and a system of proportional representation was used. The result was that 175 members were returned from the right of the political spectrum. These were what I would call Conservatives and others. The same number of members were returned from the left of the political spectrum, from among the Social Democrats and the Communists. If anyone were absent for a vote in Parliament he could be replaced by an alternative. There was no provision for by-elections. The parliament ran for three years and the result was that, whenever there was a vote, there was always a tie. The speaker had to give the casting vote on each occasion and he had a black velvet bag by his side in which were two balls. One was black and one was white. He used to put his hand in the bag and pick out the appropriate ball. Accordingly, that was how the country was governed for three years.
Oddly enough, it is interesting that in the United Kingdom the system which we have allows a recently-formed political party to disintegrate because it achieves insufficient support from the electorate. Yet all its leaders end up in Parliament, in your Lordships' House. I am sure that the party, Parliament and your Lordships' House are all the richer for that.
Some of your Lordships may say that these arguments against proportional representation apply with less force or do not apply at all in the context of elections to the European Parliament. That was my noble friend Lord Beloff's view, not because proportional representation was better but for the rather extraordinary reason, it seemed to me, that the European Parliament was, as he described it, a "boondoggle"—whatever that is—and that PR would

931
not make any difference. That was certainly one form of logic—though not the usual kind—from my noble friend.
The European Parliament, of course, does not support a government in power and its functions and powers are different from those of a national parliament. The role of its members is also different. A member of the European Parliament, therefore, does not and cannot represent his or her constituents in quite the same way as his or her counterpart does at Westminster. The link is inevitably more tenuous.
Any system of proportional representation which might be adopted for the United Kingdom for election to the European Parliament would involve substantially larger constituencies and I think this would destroy any notion of local representation.
It would also make it much more difficult for a member of the European Parliament to identify himself or herself with his or her constituency—of which he or she would be but one representative—or to retain links with his or her constituents. Of course, that would apply vice versa. A change in the electoral arrangements for the European Parliament would tend to make the member of the European Parliament an even more remote and faceless individual by destroying the direct one-to-one relationship between a member of the European Parliament and the recognisable geographical area which he or she represents.
The European Parliament has, for some time, been pressing for the introduction of a uniform electoral procedure throughout the Community. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, reminded us of that today. He told us that the Treaty of Rome requires the European Parliament to draw up proposals for such a procedure. That is perfectly true. It also requires the Council of Ministers, acting unanimously, to recommend to the member states an appropriate procedure for adoption. He said that the United Kingdom had blocked that process. I do not think that is quite so. No agreement has yet been reached on a proposal to be put to the Council of Ministers. Only at that stage would any blocking mechanism come into play.
So far, the proposals have been for a list system of proportional representation with multi-member constituencies. Those would require changes to the procedures of all the member states and they raise substantial difficulties for several of them.
The fact is that, in a simple but quite understandable way, each member of the Community agrees that there should be a common system. They are all agreed on that. But curiously enough each country considers that the system should be the one which that particular country uses. So, there is a not inconsiderable impasse here. The difficulties could not be overcome in time for the 1984 elections, and since then there has been no real progress towards the introduction of a uniform electoral procedure. The procedures for elections to the European Parliament vary widely between the member states. All, except the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, use list systems of proportional representation.
932
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is concerned about how the European parliamentary constituency boundaries will be drawn to accommodate the extra six seats. Consideration is being given at present to how to accommodate these additional seats in good time for the 1994 European parliamentary elections. We are not proposing a different system for the six extra seats.
The systems used in Europe are of many different kinds. No two are identical. Some involve regional multi-member constituencies; others use national lists. Some allocate seats proportionately within regions; others do so at national level. Some allow the voter to choose between different candidates of the same party; others only allow the voter to choose the party. And so it goes on. There is no uniformity, nor even a vestige of conformity, within the European Community at present. And we do not yet know what fresh proposals will ultimately emerge from the European Parliament. The Government will, however, consider on their merits any recommendations from the Council of Ministers for a uniform procedure. Until then, we have a system which is familiar to us and one which we believe suits us best.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, in the short time remaining, I should like to thank all the speakers who have taken part. They are distinguished speakers who from their past experience or interest have been able to contribute to the debate, which, as I indicated at the beginning, was a Motion attempting to go into the subject rather than one to take sides upon.
I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, who, having been ambassador in Rome, pointed out that what was happening there was done very much in order to keep a communist government out. I have followed events since 1947, and 1948 was a very near thing; and the Communists nearly got in. I am grateful to him for pointing that out.
I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Caldecote with his background of knowledge about industry and business in this country; to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who expanded with clarity on the points in favour of the present system which I had been able only briefly to outline in my opening speech; and to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, who drew attention to the point that the European Parliament—because it does not have to form a government or an executive—does not present the problems for change which the Westminster Parliament would have to face.
I am especially grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Plant, who is chairman of the Plant Committee and in a very significant and important position. He was able to give us a peep into the results of his work so far. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrers, who clearly gave us the Government's present views on these matters.
A very simplified summary of my views is that the introduction of PR will be difficult until adversarial politics are modified. The question is put, usually by the Liberal Democrats: which comes first? Some will say and will argue that the introduction of PR should

933
be first, and that that would assist changes in adversarial attitudes. I do not go along with that view. I believe it would be taking a great risk, for the reasons which I and other people have indicated. There is a great deal of preparation to be done and information to be given to the public about the changes before one can implement PR. It cannot be done at very short notice or overnight.
I foresee, however, that PR will eventually come. I hope that the two developments (changes in adversarial attitudes and an advance towards some form of proportional representation) will proceed together, albeit gradually. With those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
5.35 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby rose to call attention to the working of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am deeply conscious of the fact that at this moment my noble friend and colleague of us all, the late Lord Willis, would have been rising to move his Motion regarding the life, work and influence of Keir Hardie. Lord Willis died with tragic suddenness and we deeply grieve his death. It was a pleasure and a comfort to read what my noble friend Lord Graham wrote in the recent issue of The House Magazine.
I was intrigued with my late friend's Motion. I wondered what he was going to say about Keir Hardie; what Minister on the Benches opposite he would expect to take ministerial responsibility for the life and work of Keir Hardie; and which of my noble friends would have risen on this side of the House to deplore the rise and fall of socialism and declaim that they were still of the faith. Noble Lords are aware that it is the centenary of the foundation of the Independent Labour Party. That was no doubt the basis upon which my noble friend intended to raise the matter. It was a more pleasant subject than the one I must now discuss.
The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is in my experience the most outrageous law ever passed in Parliament. It is probably worse in some respects even than the suppressive tendencies of war-time legislation and the defence of the realm Act (regardless of national security).
It has now been in operation for about a year. I have to raise a question regarding the working of the Act so far. My conclusion on the working of the Act is that it is working within the structure of law and an ethos of administration which has all the characteristics of a police state. Indeed, we have planted inside our tolerant and democratic community an isolation of neo-fascist conditions which would have fitted comfortably in the works of any authoritarian state but which is alien to our own traditions and thoughts regarding the way to run a country.
There is growing anxiety about the Act. Many people, quite apart from those grievously affected by
934
it, are beginning to complain. I suppose the difficulty is that the British people, by culture and experience, tend to look to the law for justice. But there is no justice in the Dangerous Dogs Act. It was not introduced to provide justice. It was introduced to suppress. It was the next best thing to the wholesale execution of dogs known as pit bull terriers. That was the sequel to the brainstorm which the then Home Secretary went through when he proclaimed that mass slaughter was a remedy for the danger of pit bull terriers to public well-being. It took a few sober-minded bodies to tell him that it was not on. The Act was what followed the reversal of his outlook.
The Act came as near as possible to being a programme of extinction of a whole breed or identification in the canine world known as the pit bull terrier. Everything in the Act is designed to make it difficult for those dogs to survive or to make their care tolerable to those who desire to keep them under the Act's harsh conditions.
I am not being extreme in my language when I say that those are the conditions of a police state. We have them all. We have the informer. Plenty of information has been given. Some officials of estimable societies have given information away. Police raids take place and the police turn up in riot gear with all the equipment to subjugate a lion, and possessing warrants to enter and forcibly remove dogs. The dog is taken away and one is told that one will hear from the police or the court later. One can wait 14 months and still not hear a word. During all that time one is denied access to one's dog; one is not even told where it is. The anxiety of waiting day by day, week by week for a summons from the court to enable one to appear to defend the life of the dog is a misery beyond belief.
I cannot contain my emotions when I read the innumerable letters that I receive from all over the country every day. Some were handed in only this afternoon. All that is not because of what the dogs have done, but because of what they are. It is a form of ethnic cleansing. It is the breed that is important. What matters is what they are or what we think they may do; it is not what they do.
I want to sweep away the Act and start on something more sensible. A year ago we were told that there was an emergency. Will the emergency last indefinitely? When the matter was raised in the House of Commons on 4th November by Mr. Andrew Bowden, a Member in another place, the Government said that they were not proposing to do anything. I do not know what the Government will say this afternoon. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, knows what he is going to say before he has listened to a word of what I say. That is how business is done here. It does not matter what one says; it is all written down on a sheet of paper. One is told, "That is it; not a word more or less". That is how one is treated. That is Whitehall taking care of Ministers and keeping them straight.
I shall not try and argue for the abolition of the Act of Parliament. Indeed, in present circumstances it would not be politic to urge that legislation should be introduced to amend it. It would raise too many problems. But I shall try and help the House and the

935
Minister to think of something that can humanise this inhuman regime and make the Act more tolerable and less of an outrage without seriously impairing its purpose.
What are the evils of the Act? First, as I have already indicated, there is the length of time between one's dog being seized and proceedings being taken. The British Veterinary Association tabled an admirable paper of proposals for changing the regime of the Dangerous Dogs Act. It suggests that a system of allowing a dog to be released on bail should be introduced. We know that it would need to be applied under strict conditions of security. But we let murderers out on bail. Many rogues and vagabonds are allowed out on bail, and there are presumably conditions under which dogs that have shown no disposition towards violence or crime could be kept waiting for their fate.
That is one course. Certainly there should be access to the dogs for their owners; they should be told where they are. What is the point of secrecy? When I ask the Minister, he replies that it is a matter for the courts. Therefore the courts should be aware of what we think of the matter. Some people have had to go to court recently and they have never been in a magistrates' court before.
The next point that arises concerns the mandatory sentence. As your Lordships are aware, under Section 1 of the Act, when an owner is convicted of keeping an unregistered dog, apart from the monetary fines which can be imposed at the discretion of the magistrate, an order for destruction must be imposed. It is referred to as a mandatory sentence. The only other such sentence that will occur to the House is the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for murder. One can therefore equate dangerous dogs with those who are accused of murder. They are both subject to mandatory sentences.
When the order for destruction is issued it may be executed immediately. However, there is sometimes a deferment to give the owner an opportunity of considering whether to appeal. Under the purposes of the Act at the present time I do not believe that there is any need to keep the mandatory sentence. I understand that it is difficult to vary that section in the Act without changing the law. I suggest that magistrates' courts which feel that a mandatory sentence of death would be unjust, and that something less severe should be imposed, should be given the power to suspend their judgments or to adjourn the hearing to give the owner the option of a late registration. Late registration is now refused and is part of the punishment. If you have not already registered you must bear the consequences.
Surely the regulations for the making of exemptions, which the Minister can vary by way of a negative procedure statutory instrument, mean that he can provide the option for registration at the present time or at a future date to be at the discretion of the court. If the owner is willing to accept registration to keep his dog, he should be allowed to do so even though the monetary fine might in consequence be increased. Better to take it out of the owner's pocket
936
than take it out of the dog's life. The suggestion is that there should be either a suspended sentence or an adjournment. I believe that a magistrates' court can do that already. I wonder that magistrates have put up with it until now. I know of no case where the discretionary power to sentence an offender has been removed from a court that has jurisdiction. To deprive a court of discretion in sentencing when it has the right and duty to reach a verdict is a serious matter. That was what we did under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
I do not believe that at the moment we can do anything about the onus of proof that rests upon the offender; it will require a change in the Act. However, to humanise the mandatory sentence will be an enormous boon to a lot of people.
There is the troublesome question of identification. Various suggestions have been made. The BVA has a whole document about it which is of interest. The RSPCA has also made an effort. At present a great deal of advice is forthcoming. In terms of the scope of humanising the regime, short of fresh legislation there is room for consideration of this matter by the Government. If they decline to consider it, alternative steps will have to be taken. I sincerely hope that we shall get a response on this occasion and that the Government are prepared to consider this matter a year after the main purpose of the Act has been fulfilled, and that we are now on the downward slope. If we do not do something the emergency Act of 1991 could continue for another decade. There will still be registered dogs around 10 years from now; they could be in breach of the law 10 years hence. The Government do not think 10 years ahead; they do not think that anything a week after next is worth consideration. I think it is about time that they got the message.
The message to me is that I should resume my seat, although happily time is a little more flexible than usual in this debate. I am glad of the opportunity of a little extension.
This is a serious matter and in some respects a constitutional one. I do not understand why the lawyers did not burst into froth and protest at the time that the Dangerous Dogs Bill was going through Parliament—they could not have done it in the Commons but could have done it here—at the deprivation of the discretionary rights of a court in the treatment of an offender within its jurisdiction. I believe it was a great shame that that right was taken away. Magistrates whine and complain that they have no option; they feel ashamed at what they have to do. The police do not enjoy what they have to do. Everybody is unhappy. This is the unhappiest Act of Parliament that we have had for very many years. The Government should have the courage to realise that the Bill passed through all its stages in the House of Commons in four hours flat. This was not a considered Act of Parliament; it was an emergency measure created by the situations I have described. All emergency legislation is likely to be flawed. Nearly all legislation overkills the problem it has to deal with, and the time for reflection and flexibility has surely come. My Lords, beg to move for Papers.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffliam Prior: My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for the opportunity to debate the functioning of the recently-passed Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. That Act followed and was stimulated by a number of horrendous attacks on members of the public, particularly children, by American pit bull terriers and other dogs. We are periodically reminded of this situation by the press. Even today there is a newspaper report about a pit bull terrier viciously attacking another dog. The intent of the legislation was obviously to protect the public from such attacks. A welcome corollary to that was that it might assist in the prevention of the awful sport of dog fighting or dog baiting. In the long run, it was a humane path to eliminate from Britain dogs of the pit bull terrier type by requiring that such dogs be registered, neutered, permanently identified, muzzled and kept on a leash in public. If any of those conditions was contravened the dog would be seized and destroyed and the owner prosecuted. Several months ago an example of that could be found in the newspapers. A dog had its muzzle removed for a minute or so, in order to quench its thirst and was immediately seized. That dog is now under threat of destruction for that misdemeanour.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has addressed in particular the question of what one may call the civil liberties aspect of the legislation. I cannot and do not even attempt to muster the adjectives and phrases that he has used to describe the legislation. I wish to address how it impinges on dogs in this country. At present the law allows little or no discretion, as to the fate of a dog that is accused of being "of a type known as a pit bull terrier". A major problem is the confusion as to what is a pit bull terrier type. There is no such recognised breed in Britain.
This difficulty was adumbrated at the Third Reading of the Dog Control and Welfare Bill several months ago. There is no clear breed standard for such dogs. As a result, dogs bearing a resemblance to the pit bull terrier, regardless of their ancestry, are at risk of being seized if they put a bark out of place, so to speak. There have been some quite horrendous and remarkable errors of judgment in the identification of dog types, where their pedigree has been beyond question and yet they have been regarded as a pit bull terrier type. As a result, some 250 or more cases of dogs under appeal on this basis are in kennels in the metropolitan area awaiting a decision.
The British Veterinary Association, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and in which I declare an interest as a member, has been much concerned about the functioning of the Act. It has produced several suggestions which I believe, along with the noble Lord, would greatly improve the functioning and avoid the hardship on the part of dogs and indeed their owners where there is doubt about the identity of the dog while maintaining the intent and thrust of the legislation. I am grateful to the British Veterinary Association for giving me sight of its recommendations which I understand are to be brought to the attention of the Home Secretary.
One aspect which the association emphasises is that
938
there must be a much clearer definition of the import of the word "type". Indeed it should mean dogs which can be clearly and indisputably identified as pit bull terriers or which are known to have a parent that is a pit bull terrier. Behavioural characteristics must also be taken into consideration. If there is any doubt, the dogs should not be found guilty merely on the appearance alone that they resemble a pit bull terrier, as indeed is now happening. It has been reported that one puppy of a litter was identified as a pit bull terrier type while the other six litter mates were not. Surely that kind of instance is quite unacceptable.
If this broad interpretation of the law is to continue, resulting in a variety of dogs being categorised as pit bull terrier types, then the BVA suggests—I agree with it and with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton—that the index of exempt dogs which has now closed should be reopened to allow owners to comply with the requirements of the Act.
However, perhaps one of the more distressing aspects of the functioning of the Act is its impact on the welfare of individual dogs accused of being of the type known as pit bull terriers but which have not behaved dangerously and may have been seized by the police and been kept in kennels in isolation distinct from their owners for many months before being brought to trial. There are reports of this period extending from nine months even to beyond a year. This may cause serious temperamental changes in the dog. It is certainly inimical to the welfare of the animal and is particularly distressing and costly to the owner.
The following proposals have been made by the British Veterinary Association. Dogs seized by the police should be immediately identified by a microchip; they should then have a health inspection by a veterinary surgeon; and, as the noble Lord has indicated, the owners should be advised that they can apply for bail for their dog except in the cases of aggravated assault. This bail would operate in the same way as bail operates for humans. Failure to present the dog for trial would result in forfeiture of the bail and of course prosecution of the owner who was in charge of the animal.
Once bail had been granted the dog could be returned to its owner pending trial. It would thereby reduce distress for the dog and any change in character and performance since it would be in its home. It would obviate a number of welfare problems that occur with animals that are put in kennels on a long-term basis without access to their owners. The dog could be examined by a panel of experts to determine its provenance so to speak. This would greatly reduce the expense to the public purse, since the fees for accommodation in kennels are paid out of the public purse where legal aid occurs. It would also reduce the expense to the private citizen. Animals denied bail would be kept in kennels conforming to the Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963, but would be allowed periodic supervised visits by their owners. Finally, and as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has suggested, there should be a removal of the mandatory destruction section of the Dangerous Dogs Act. The BVA emphasises the need to give courts trying these cases discretion to decide

939
the appropriate punishment for an owner in non-aggravated cases. It would seem unrealistic that there is only one condition that can be applied in all cases.
I believe that these modifications to the 1991 Act would retain and achieve the objectives of protecting the public from dangerous dogs while allowing responsible dog owners to enjoy the company and the benefits of their animals.
6.7 p.m.
Lord Hayter: My Lords, I would have been more fulsome in my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for raising this subject if he had suggested any other way of ensuring that children and adults should not continue to be attacked by dangerous dogs.
How do I come to be mixed up with dangerous dogs? It is in a somewhat unusual way. In my own locality I was asked by the police to help them to ensure that police dog handlers, who in many cases are mixed up with these trials, could become expert witnesses. We took over the Croydon court, which is a magnificent place. We had 12 of these dog handlers in succession before us. In each case they had been given a dog to handle in one of these kennels and they were asked to provide for us, as magistrates, coloured photographs of the dogs. Two of the dogs in particular were vicious looking animals. They could not even get them out of the kennels. In the court there were two barristers, one to prosecute and one to defend. We also had expert witnesses to assess these dog handlers. I was impressed by this exercise and I am sure that it made sense.
I am the first to agree, as I believe everyone in the debate will, that the Act could be improved. I would disagree if anyone were to suggest that the police are responsible for any problem in this aspect. It is a difficult job. These dog handlers are almost by definition dog lovers. When the dogs are seized and taken to the kennels for contravening the Act they are seen by experts. They are examined by a vet, they are vaccinated, and if there is any doubt, outside experts are brought in to be consulted.
It will be remembered of course that when this Act was passed official guidance was given. That was issued by the Home Office, the Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment. We shall return in a moment to the additional guidance which has been suggested. When this Bill was debated in another place the Secretary of State countered the argument about the dogs being family pets and perfectly safe. He quoted Dr. Roger Mugford, the respected animal psychologist, who said,
"all pit bulls go bad. It is just a countdown from when they are 12 months old".
He is also quoted as saying,
"there is very little we can do to stop that disastrous Mr. Hyde unfolding from this apparently Dr. Jekyll dog".
Recently in a summing-up His Honour Judge Zucker went on to make a valuable point. He said:
"We reject Dr. Mugford's approach which relies principally on the behaviour or characteristics of the dog. We regard his approach as an attempt to subvert the provisions
940
of Section 1(1a) of the Act which requires the court to have regard to the type, and by necessary implication, not to have regard to the behaviour of an individual dog".
That is the kind of point made when we are trying to instruct the dog handlers when they appear in court.
There are one or two points that have arisen in recent trials. I have already mentioned one. The other concerns His Honour Judge Zucker, when he said in summing up:
"In view of the concern felt about this case we can say that we also found that the dog fell within the very broad specification of the Staffordshire bull terrier type. But we found that the dog had sufficient characteristics to be of the type known as the pit bull terrier".
That was why the appeal was dismissed.
In order to bring us right up to date—and it has already been mentioned—there are the suggestions of the British Veterinary Association. It is interesting to note that the BVA starts off by speaking about reducing the unnecessary suffering of pet dogs and their owners. I like the word "pet". It also clarifies the situation for the police and the courts. There is not a word about attacks on human beings and their sufferings. It concentrates on the question of type, which is a very difficult argument and which I shall not go into. I respect the views of the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, in that connection.
It has been suggested that regional panels comprising three or five experts could be set up to help the police to identify dogs before deciding whether or not to charge the owners. Who are to be those experts? That is the question which the police are wondering about.
Then the British Veterinary Association comes to the additional Home Office guidance. It says that it is concerned for the welfare of dogs suspected of being of this type. They are kept in kennels for many months. That is very true. But I point out that that is often the case because the defence has asked for an adjournment, as a result of which the trial cannot begin. When the trial has been concluded and the dog found guilty, so to speak, together with the human being in charge of it, the parties then go to appeal and after that decisions are often come to in this House.
I have with me details of a case which backs up something that the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, mentioned. On 30th November 1991 a dog owner was found guilty. The appeal was heard on 5th June 1992. The judicial review is still taking place at this moment, so we do not know the result. I believe that most people know that this is at tremendous expense. I understand that the cost of kennelling is between £7.50 and £9 a day, so that comes out at roughly £1,500 a year. Therefore, in this case the sum will be very substantial.
Choosing my words carefully, I add that it is not always the owner of the dog who wishes to prolong the proceedings. He is backed by professional people whose interests are quite naturally not averse to having another trial or an appeal so they can get the requisite fees. The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, brought up again the point that owners should apply for bail. I am a cynic and so are my police friends. They say that any suggestion of failing to present the dog for trial means that the money would be forfeited and the owners charged. They would know almost certainly

941
that that dog would never be seen again. While it was out on bail it would be said that it had been run over, seized or lost. So that idea was dismissed altogether.
There is then the question of visiting the dog in the kennels. The whole point of the kennels being at a secret location is to prevent pet enthusiasts from raiding these places and releasing the dogs to the detriment of the country as a whole. That is nonsensical. However, perhaps I may now turn from that to the brief from the RSPCA which has been presented this week. I am much more happy about that. It says:
"Whilst the Act has clear weaknesses, the RSPCA supports the stated intention in the Act itself, 'to prohibit … possession or custody of dogs belonging to types bred for fighting'".
I remind those who have perhaps not been so mixed up in this subject as others that it is the actual name of pit hull terrier that shows the origin of the dog. It was in the pit bull rings of ancient days when they were first bred in this country. They were sent to America. Incidentally, a bitch and a dog were brought over here in about 1970 and the dog was given the rather suggestive name of "Capone". Noble Lords will remember the man of that name who lived in the United States.
The RSPCA supports the principle that it is the owner rather than the dog who should bear the full weight of the law. I agree with that. As regards the compulsory destruction order, I believe that we probably have agreement among most noble Lords speaking in this debate. There is an inherent difficulty with this breed which has been mentioned before. Some owners who did not believe that they were pit bull owners did not consider registration. Therefore, from that time forth they have been keeping the dog at home. They dare not even take it to the vet in case a certain situation should arise. The fear of compulsory destruction has a detrimental effect on all these dogs.
I wondered how that problem was to be got round. I entirely endorse the suggestion and commend to the Government the idea that the problem can be overcome if the courts have discretion as to whether or not to destroy a dog. A guilty plea could, at the discretion of the court, be met with a fine and—this is the important point—the return of the dog to the owner only after tattooing, registering, neutering and insuring the dog at the owner's expense. To my mind that is very sensible and would obviate a great number of the problems which have been raised by people who have become mixed up in this very difficult Act.
In defence of the present situation, I say this: my police friends tell me that in the 15 months before this Act was passed there were 903 incidents with dangerous dogs in London. Fifteen months after the Act only 143 dogs had been seized in London, so there has been a very considerable improvement. When dealing with this Act we have to consider the question of priorities. Are we thinking of humans or dogs or are we trying to find a solution which caters for both aspects? I know where my sympathy lies, but there is something for the other side. Therefore, I commend to the Government the suggestion that compulsory sentencing should be abolished.
6.20 p.m.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, I too join noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for drawing attention to the pitfalls of the Dangerous Dogs Act. I certainly share the noble Lord's concern.
Before I express my own reservations as to how this Act has been interpreted, I must stress that I am totally in favour of eliminating fighting dogs from this country. Of course we the public should be protected from potentially dangerous dogs on the loose, and I suppose the Act does attempt to deal with this. However, having said that, I do not agree with wholesale destruction. The Act was rushed through Parliament in the summer of 1991 as an understandable—I repeat "understandable"—response to growing public demand following the horrific injuries to young Ruskhsana Khan and Mr. Tempest.
Registration of these pit bull terriers has created a number of problems. The application form had to be accompanied by proof of neutering, microchipping, tattooing and third party insurance; and in addition there was the expense. Then, finally, an exemption certificate was issued. I do, however, understand that the 30th November deadline was extended to 25th February 1992, for tattooing only. Nevertheless, quite a few procedures had to be followed.
In the early days of this Act a number of mistakes were made over identification by members of the general public. We all read about the sad tale of the Staffordshire bull terrier bitch who was clubbed to death by men who unlawfully entered the flat where she lived with her owners. Also we have read stories of terrified owners whose dogs were attacked by strangers who could not properly identify them. Then of course there was the Dempsey case. That concerned a young man who was walking his aunt's dog, Dempsey, and who removed its muzzle to allow it to be sick after coughing. A court appearance followed and, with it, a conditional discharge. However, the end result was a destruction order. Fortunately, to date the order has not been carried through, but that unfortunate dog has been in custody for eight months without seeing its owner.
It is worth mentioning that when cases do come to court and the plea is "not guilty", the result is often that much time is spent at huge cost to the taxpayer and the inevitable destruction order for the dog is made at the end. It seems that the only punishment the magistrates have available to them is destruction. When it is an innocent dog which is in question this punishment seems rather draconian, to say the least.
A modest amendment to the Act to allow courts to have discretion over sentencing rather than compelling them to issue destruction orders would go a long way towards improving the operation of the Act. Responsible owners who are guilty of error or omission should have a chance to be treated with sympathy. For example, in one case a dog whose owner had completed all other stages required for registration but who temporarily could not afford the £25 for insurance was faced with a destruction order. The owner then offered to pay but was refused.
In another case, a young nanny was given a puppy for Christmas without knowing its breed. When she

943
discovered that the dog resembled a pit bull terrier she took the dog to the police, to the Wood Green Animal Refuge and to a vet (who incidentally diagnosed the dog as a mongrel). She had the dog microchipped, tattooed and spayed but, unfortunately for her, she was too late to register it under the terms of the Act. Then the dog escaped and was taken to a police station. She, the owner, was prosecuted and a destruction order followed. That is now under appeal but it means that yet another dog is in custody.
These two illustrations show that responsible owners can get caught out by the Act, with no opportunity to bring themselves within the law. Surely there must be some discretion for those people who, through ignorance, fear or sheer inability to understand the procedure in order to obtain an exemption certificate, find themselves in a Catch-22 situation. Fearing the consequences, some owners hide their dogs, which of course means that the dogs do not get the necessary attention, not to mention exercise. The fear of prosecution is great, as it is a criminal offence, and if they are discovered the inevitable result again is a destruction order, rather than a fine and a chance to register, albeit late.
I am not referring to the rotten owners at the other end of the scale who breed dogs solely to fight and kill. I suspect they are known to the police and to the RSPCA, and dealt with accordingly. I think it is the grey area in the middle that has to be addressed. What is needed is the possibility of a compassionate reprieve to flush out these people and help them to register and play their part so that they can be assisted to keep within the letter of the law.
Another point I should like to make concerns Section 3(3) (b) of the Dangerous Dogs Act. This concerns the ability of an individual to complain that a dog has given him or her grounds for reasonable apprehension, and not that he or she has actually been attacked. Now, if I were a dog-hater, how tempting it would be to embellish the truth, because after all it would be my word against the owner. Truly I do not believe that it is the intention of this Act to give an opportunity to an intolerant person to use the law to his or her own advantage.
Finally, as I said before, I do support the primary intention of this Act, though not its interpretation. I hope that the Government will modify it, humanise it, and recognise that in its wake it has created unnecessary suffering to owners and pets alike. It has cast a stigma on certain owners, made criminals of others and made some feel like social outcasts. In the light of experience, some flexibility incorporated into this Act would strengthen it, would improve its operation in the courts and would encourage responsible dog ownership. In conclusion, I hope that Ministers in another place will give a sympathetic hearing to my noble friend's Bill to establish a proper dog control and welfare council.
6.26 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for giving us yet another opportunity to discuss the
944
problem of dangerous dogs. Of course we discussed it before the legislation came onto the statute book, and I think that he and I now share views on the way in which the legislation has worked. I would not put it quite as strongly as the noble Lord, but then I do not have as much experience of legislation as the noble Lord has acquired over his long and distinguished career.
In the relatively short time that I have been in your Lordships' House, this is one of the most ludicrous pieces of legislation. Of course it was a missed opportunity, because in an island such as ours, with so little space and with a population which generally has a great affection for pets of all kinds, it is certain that trouble will develop sooner or later and the dogs have to be kept under control. Also, the owners of pets have to be kept under control.
This legislation was rushed through, probably in reaction to a good deal of newspaper comment, particularly in the tabloid press, about some very distressing events which took place, resulting in serious injuries to people, including children. The Government took those unhappy events, together with the problem of fighting pit bull terriers, and tried to deal with the whole problem at the same time. That was probably a mistake. The noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, mentioned the evils of fighting dogs. I agree absolutely with her and I think that the Government was right to seek to legislate for that. However, the problems of protecting the public against dangerous dogs which are out of the control of their owners go much wider than the incidents involving pit bull terriers, whatever a pit bull terrier may be.
Of course, the problem with this legislation, as we foresaw—and the results have been even more drastic than we expected—is that it has been virtually impossible for anybody, even an expert, with any certainty to identify a pit bull terrier. An enormous amount of money and time has been spent on deciding what these dogs look like.
There are general guidelines to police officers, who are already under a good deal of stress, because their time is taken up with many duties. Police officers who are not adequately trained for the job have to decide whether a dog is of the kind specified in the Act. They have very little to go on. They know that, by and large, pit bull terriers have wedged shaped heads, bristly coats and a certain conformation, which can be recognised, but which they share with Staffordshire bull terriers. Originally, some 12 or 13 years ago, three American pit bull terriers were introduced into this country and inevitably bred with other dogs. Pit bull terriers are, in any case, cross-breeds, so the problem of identification is compounded. Therefore, any certainty in identification is now impossible.
Under the Act, a responsibility is placed upon an owner whose dog has got itself into trouble through not conforming with the very strict requirements of the Act to prove that his dog is not a pit bull terrier. In one local authority, five dogs have been taken by the police and are awaiting appeal procedures. The kennelling costs have now risen to about £10,000. Quite apart from the cost, it surely cannot be right to keep dogs in kennels awaiting such results. It is hardly

945
right to keep human beings for the length of time that they are often kept when awaiting trial. Apart from the welfare of the dogs (which was mentioned in the extremely authoritative speech that one would expect from the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby) the effect that the Act has had on the reputation of the Staffordshire bull terrier has been quite frightening. There is enormous alarm among respectable breeders of Staffordshire bull terriers about their dogs and possible mistakes with identification.
Apart from the difficulties encountered by the police, local authorities have no statutory obligation to ensure that the Act is enforced within their areas. Some enforce it and some do not. Part of the problem is that some areas have good dog warden schemes, whereas others do not. Some local authorities make this a priority and have funds at their disposal for this purpose; but some do not. I have received a good deal of information from West Yorkshire where an extremely effective scheme is in progress.
I know that I shall get the same answer from the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, as I get from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, because, if I may say so, both have an urbane and extremely agreeable way of dealing with such questions. Although I know what answer I shall get, I should still like to ask the noble Viscount whether it is not now clear that the very adamant and intransigent attitude of the Government to suggestions that we should have a registration scheme needs to be looked at again. It is essential that owners and dogs are related one to the other. One can do that only with a registration scheme. I know what the noble Viscount will say because it is always said. Indeed, it is probably written on his briefing papers. He will say that the problem is that the people whom one is interested in do not register. I have it on very good authority from Bradford in West Yorkshire that some 10,000 people have subscribed to the voluntary registration scheme there, and that quite a number of those dogs have been involved in one problem or another. Therefore, although I do not accept the Government's view that only respectable people will register their dogs and that the others will go underground, I should like to know whether the Minister can give me any encouragement on that subject.
As it stands, the Act is unfair. As was said or at least implied by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, it condemns a dog for being what it is and for being in the hands of an irresponsible owner. That is not the way to go on. I suppose that the noble Viscount will say that the Act has been successful because there has been a great reduction in the number of cases involving pit bull terriers. However, the draconian nature of the legislation means that many of these dogs are kept out of sight. If they come out, it is at night and people are terrified. But attacks on people still continue—but by other breeds of dog. It is not just the pit bull terrier. Failing to recognise that fact is one of the great flaws of the Act.
I try these days to be practical and constructive, so if the noble Viscount cannot give me any comfort on the question of registration, does he agree with me on this point: that we should at least go part way towards
946
registration, and that if an owner has been convicted of an offence (in other words, if he has been convicted of having a dog that is out of control), he must have that dog registered and identified? That dog and that owner can then be kept under observation. It is important to note that if a dog is either electronically tagged or is tattooed, everybody will know about its history even if it is passed to another owner. That part-registration would satisfy me although I hope that it would lead to a full registration scheme in due course. That is what I am offering as a constructive suggestion this evening.
It is not the dogs which are at fault; it is the people who are involved with them. That is always the case. I am afraid that this legislation is almost as laughable as the football legislation which did not reach the statute book because a terrible disaster occurred and created a situation which led to recommendations that it should not reach the statute book. If there had been a terrible tragedy, such as a child being eaten in Richmond Park by two rottweilers, one wonders whether this legislation might not have gone through in its present form; but it has done so. I hope that the Government will react to the universal criticism of it, and that they will get down to modifying it and making it more sensible.
6.37 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby has an unrivalled record of crusading for libertarian causes and it has been my privilege on occasion to be associated with him in those crusades, and particularly in relation to animal welfare. Those who have followed his career and his crusades will not have been disappointed by the speech with which he introduced this debate.
If we are to debate these matters rationally, we must remember the origins of the Bill and the almost universal revulsion that was felt in the Summer of 1991 at particular cases, especially that of young Rukhsana Khan, who was savagely mutilated by a fighting dog. One must remember the almost irresistible wave of revulsion which led the Government to introduce this undoubtedly hasty and undoubtedly inadequately considered legislation. However, one must also remember that the revulsion was very precise. People felt, and the Government were persuaded (and most Members of both your Lordships' House and of another place were persuaded that they were right) that something had to be done before a dog bit or mutilated a child instead of waiting for that to happen and hoping that it could be put right afterwards, because it cannot be put right.
The inevitable conclusion was that an attempt had to be made to identify types of dog. It is not enough to identify an individual dog which is known to be aggressive or dangerous; there has to be an attempt to identify a type of dog which is liable to be aggressive or dangerous. That gets us into very difficult waters. In its considered views on the operation of the Act, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has made it very clear that there are no simple solutions to legislation which attempts to be specific about breeds. They are not discrete and finite; there

947
are mongrels between breeds. It is not always possible to say with clarity what is not a particular breed. The noble Lord, Lord Hayter, described the valuable work undertaken in helping the police to identify dogs of a particular breed and he outlined some of the difficulties involved. But the public required that the attempt should be made. Nothing that I would wish to say from this Dispatch Box would in any way seek to reopen that issue. No longer can we accept that dogs bred for fighting can be allowed without control onto our streets or anywhere where people are vulnerable to attacks.
The second issue that we should examine is the working of the Act. It is disappointing that there has not been a debate on the subject this afternoon. We have heard a great deal of anecdotal evidence but we have heard no evidence about such simple issues as the number of cases brought, the number of dogs destroyed and the number of exemption orders made, let alone evidence about the number of attacks on people by dogs of fighting breeds. I hope that the Minister will remedy that fault.
The matter was raised by Mr. Andrew Bowden in another place on 4th November last year. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Home Office did not seek to bring evidence of the effectiveness or otherwise of the Act in terms of any decline in the number of attacks or the statistics of the operation of the Act. He pursued the same anecdotal line which Mr. Bowden had pursued in his attack on the workings of the Act. I should like to see many more facts before being persuaded that there are any benefits from the Act. If there are benefits, I should like to see more detailed evidence of its operation before being persuaded that there should be particular changes to it.
There is no doubt that the British Veterinary Association and the RSPCA have studied the issues in detail. I know that a number of lawyers have also paid great attention to them. No doubt due to the haste with which the Act was produced there are a number of aspects which are offensive to those who wish to see a satisfactory criminal law. Mandatory sentences are unsatisfactory unless there is absolutely no alternative. When I hear the RSPCA arguing that there is an effective alternative to the mandatory destruction order, and that there might be advantages because it would avoid pleas of not guilty and it might increase the respect for the law, I believe that the Government should seriously look at that.
I listened to the arguments about the length of time in which dogs are held in detention. I listened to the arguments about dogs being released on bail. I am bound to say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, and suspect that it is too easy for those dogs to disappear, or to be reported as lost or dead, and never turn up again. There is no particular advantage in that kind of remedy. There are delays in the law but that is a general problem. Delays in such cases appear to be caused by continuing appeals lodged by the dog owners.
On practical grounds there may well be a case for reopening the index of exempt dogs and the
948
Government should take that seriously. In 1991 it was right that there should be a time limit because that was the stick which was needed to force registration. It could no doubt have been extended for months and years. It is not unreasonable to expect that there were some errors and that for genuine reasons some people failed to obtain an exemption order. A limited reopening of the index would be perfectly consistent with amnesty principles.
Hasty legislation will always be difficult and there will always be problems with its detailed drafting. If there are to be changes, my sole plea is that the Government should bear in mind the fundamental principle on which the legislation was based; that there should not be dogs bred for fighting in this country. The object of the legislation should be to make dogs bred for fighting extinct. The protection of the people of this country should be the first priority.
6.45 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for raising this important matter in this short debate. It is a subject on which he has always shown a particularly keen and knowledgeable interest. I know from recent discussions with him about his Dog Control and Welfare Bill, which received its Third Reading in your Lordships' House just two months ago, that he has been following closely the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and how it has been operating.
I should like to make it clear at the outset that I fully appreciate the depth of feeling and concern which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has expressed about the Act. However, it is important to remember why the Government decided that such a measure was necessary.
In 1990, as a result of substantial public concern about irresponsible dog ownership and increased numbers of attacks by dogs on the public, the Government issued a consultation paper on the control of dogs. The document proposed a number of measures to bring about better control of dogs and penalties for irresponsible dog owners. The responses showed support for such measures.
The following year a number of serious and horrific attacks by dangerous dogs on both adults and children demonstrated that the Government needed to take action to give the public protection against that danger. There was particular concern about types of dogs specially bred for fighting, such as the pit bull terrier. The attacks carried out by those types of dog demonstrated their ferocious, unpredictable and savage nature and made it clear that special controls had to be introduced on fighting dogs.
The Act places special controls on any dog of the types known as the pit bull terrier, the Japanese tosa, the Dogo Argentino and the fila Braziliero. Under Section 2 of the Act the Home Secretary may introduce restrictions on any other types of dog which are considered to be specially dangerous. Section 3 of the Act deals with any type of dog which is dangerously out of control either in a public place or in any other place where it is not permitted to be. It is

949
not necessary for a dog to injure a person in order for Section 3 to apply. That section applies where there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure someone.
Taken as a whole, the Act deals with the particular problem of fighting dogs and also with dangerous dogs. The aim of the Act is to provide adequate protection to the public from any dog which is a danger and to encourage more responsible dog ownership. I readily acknowledge that many dog owners take their responsibility seriously. But, equally, there are some dog owners who do not show the same degree of responsibility. The Act should encourage all owners of dogs to exercise proper control of their dogs while in public.
The 1991 Act also clarifies the powers of the court to make an order under Section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871 to control dangerous dogs. Where a court receives a complaint that a dog is dangerous and not kept under proper control, it may make an order irrespective of whether the dog has injured anyone. An order under the 1871 Act can specify the measures to he taken for keeping the dog under proper control. This could be by muzzling, keeping it on a lead or excluding it from certain places. A particular advantage of the 1871 Act is that it applies everywhere, even in and around a private house, and it is especially useful for action on behalf of postmen and women who are regularly at risk from attacks by dogs in front gardens.
As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, reminded us, it is important not to forget the anxiety which motivated this legislation. The attacks which had occurred underlined the presence of—and the threat from—fighting dogs in this country. We took the view—and I believe there was resounding support for it—that such animals have no place in our society. Breeding them is cruel to the dogs themselves, as well as to anyone (man or beast) who may have the misfortune to get in their way. Vigorous action was needed.
We could, broadly, have decided to go in one of two directions. One would have been to seek the immediate destruction of all such animals, to end the problem once and for all. But we chose instead the more compassionate approach: existing animals would be allowed to remain alive, provided that they were neutered and kept under strictly prescribed controls. For that policy to be effective, it was necessary to have tough sanctions on those who ignored the specified controls, and a stringent registration and marking system. There had to be no possibility of pit bull types being perpetuated. The noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, agreed that fighting dogs must not be bred.
Under the 1991 Act, it is an offence to possess a specially controlled dog or to breed from, sell, exchange or make a gift of such a dog. However, the law does permit owners of specially controlled dogs to keep them on condition that they comply with the strict requirements contained in the legislation.
The 1991 Act makes it an offence to have a specially controlled dog, such as the pit bull terrier, unless a certificate of exemption has been obtained in respect
950
of it. The exemption scheme provided that owners could keep their dogs on condition that they obtained a certificate of exemption. In order to obtain a certificate of exemption, owners had to have arranged for the dog to be neutered, permanently implanted with a microchip, tattooed and covered by third party insurance, and have paid a fee. The certificate of exemption lasts for the lifetime of the dog provided that the requirements of the certificate are met, including a requirement that the dog must be muzzled and kept on a lead in a public place. If any of the requirements are breached, the certificate lapses and the dog is no longer exempt. Owners of these dogs who did not wish to have their dogs exempted under the law were given the choice of exporting them or having the dogs destroyed. Those people who had their dogs destroyed by a specified date were eligible for compensation.
At the time the legislation was being prepared, it was estimated that there were between 5,000 and 10,000 pit bull terriers in the country. In the event, over 8,000 dogs were notified to the police and the index of exempted dogs. Some 5,300 certificates have been issued of which 5,000 are currently valid.
The Government believe that the provisions of the Act and the exemption scheme are operating well. We remain convinced that we were right to respond to public anxiety in this way. I know of no evidence to suggest that the public believes that children, adults and animals are now any less worthy of protection against dangerous dogs than when Parliament agreed the measure. The public quite rightly continues to look to the Government to provide protection against dangerous dogs.
Obviously familiarisation with the provisions has taken a little time—as with any new piece of legislation —but none of the difficulties calls in question the fundamental need for this law. It would be irresponsible to lessen the level of protection which the Act provides. We therefore have no plans at this stage to amend it.
The question of identifying pit bull terriers has been raised, and I appreciate that this is not as straight forward a process as one might wish. The pit bull terrier is not recognised as a breed in this country and so there is no breed standard for the dog. As a result the expression "type" is used in the Act. This was necessary since it was important for the legislation to cover all the animals with the characteristics of pit bulls, if we were to ensure full protection for the public.
We have always recognised that the identification of pit bull terriers may be complex. That is why we sent a detailed description of the pit bull terrier type to the courts and the police, when the Act came into force, and reinforced this with further advice in August last year.
The identification process may take place at a number of stages. It is initially a matter for the police or local authority dog wardens to take a view on whether a dog is or is not a pit bull terrier. The prosecuting authorities will have to decide whether the public interest is best served by bringing a prosecution. Where a case reaches the courts it is open

951
to either side to bring forward any evidence which they feel is relevant to the matter of identification. This may include calling expert witnesses. It is right, however, that the final decision about whether or not a dog is a pit bull terrier should lie with the courts.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, may be aware of the terms of a press release issued by the RSPCA last week, which called upon the Government to adopt the guidelines for identification of pit bull terriers, as drawn up by the American Dog Breeders Association. I understand that RSPCA inspectors, who are called upon to identify pit bull terriers, use those guidelines already. As the Government have made plain, we are always ready to listen to those who wish to offer constructive comments on the Act, and we shall certainly be giving serious consideration to the help which the guidelines may give. Officials will discuss these guidelines with the RSPCA.
I listened with great interest to what my noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior said about the British Veterinary Association's suggestions on identification. Of course, that is a subject about which he knows a great deal. The advice which the Home Office issued when the Act came into force subsequently guided the courts on the various factors which might be taken into account. They included physical features, pedigree, behaviour and so on. That was fairly comprehensive advice but we should be grateful for any further suggestions. We shall consider whether any further advice might be appropriate in the light of any suggestions which we might receive.
Still on the subject of identification, we are aware of the anxiety which has been expressed by owners of Staffordshire bull terriers that their dogs may be mistakenly identified as a pit bull terrier. The Staffordshire bull terrier breed is not specially controlled for the purposes of Section 1 of the Act. That is why, as part of our recent further advice on the operation of the Act, we have included clarification on how the law affects pit bull crosses. We have also provided a list, provided by the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Breed Council, of clubs which are willing to give advice to police, local authority dog wardens or the courts if there is doubt about whether a dog is a Staffordshire bull terrier.
Another area where anxiety has been expressed is the absence of any discretion for the courts, which are required to order the destruction of a dog where one of the main offences under the Act has been committed. We are well aware of the view, advanced in the debate tonight, that the courts should be given discretion whether or not to order the destruction of a dog.
I do appreciate the arguments in favour of such a change, and why this matter is causing the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, particular anxiety. While the destruction of any dog must be a matter of regret, the Government remain of the opinion that this must be the result for dangerous dogs where the courts find that one of the main offences—an aggravated offence —has been committed under the Act.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will be disappointed by that response. Once
952
again, we have to recall the underlying objective behind the provision—to provide a stiff incentive on owners to comply with the letter of the law, and to ensure that those who have shown themselves irresponsible by not doing so do not remain in charge of these potentially lethal animals. For the latter would be the effect if discretion were allowed. If the court had the discretion not to order destruction the dog would, of course, be returned to its convicted owner, who had shown that he had not been responsible enough to comply with the requirements of the Act.
Let us imagine the scenario for a moment. A dog is returned to an irresponsible owner, who again fails to comply with the strict requirements of the legislation, but perhaps this time the dog actually attacks a person and inflicts serious injury. Unpredictability is a feature of these animals. The public would ask with every justification why Parliament had decided to relax the strict controls. There would be demands for the controls to be re-introduced to avoid the situation arising again.
It has also been suggested that there should be an amnesty in order to allow owners of unregistered specially controlled dogs to register and obtain certificates of exemption for them. The requirements of the exemption scheme were widely publicised when the legislation was before Parliament, and subsequently. No dog owner could have been unaware of the provisions or of the time limits for registration and other action. In excess of 8,000 owners of specially controlled dogs registered their dogs with the police and the index of exempted dogs at the time. Because some owners were experiencing difficulty having their dogs tattooed within the deadline, the Government extended the date for tattooing by three months to enable owners to comply with the requirements. This demonstrates that we have listened and responded to difficulties.
We are being asked to introduce an amnesty to allow owners a further opportunity to obtain an exemption for their dogs. If we had an amnesty for late registration now, why not another one later for those who subsequently claim to have been unaware of the new deadline? And another one after that? The point is that the registration scheme was a concession prior to the coming into force of the full control regime. It would make a mockery of the legislation to allow for late registration. Given the publicity which surrounded the introduction of the Act and its provisions, no owners should have been unaware of their responsibilities towards their dogs.
The Government are very aware of the criticisms which are being made of the Act and of the calls for certain amendments to be made. I understand the anxieties which have been expressed in your Lordships' House during the course of this debate. But I cannot give the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, the undertaking which he would like—that the Government will introduce amendments. I have listened to noble Lords' views with interest. The operation of the Act is kept under review and the

953
views expressed by noble Lords today will be borne in mind, as are the views of all those who wish to comment on the Act.
I shall now respond to some of the specific points that have been made. My noble friend asked me whether veterinary surgeons should examine dogs when they have been seized. That is a matter for each chief police officer. I understand that as regards the Metropolitan Police each of the kennels used to house seized dogs has its own veterinary surgeon. All seized dogs are vaccinated on admission to the kennels. The Metropolitan Police employ independent veterinary surgeons to carry out regular checks of the kennels to make sure that each dog is in good health and properly cared for. In addition Metropolitan Police experts visit seized dogs to ensure they are being properly looked after.
The noble Lord, Lord Hayter, asked about the length of time seized dogs are kept in police custody. As I have said, a Home Office circular about the operation of the Act was sent to the police, the courts and the Crown Prosecution Service last August. It draws attention to the undesirability of delays in bringing cases to trial resulting in the need for dogs to he kenneled for long periods. The advice refers to the need for courts to give consideration to the well-being of the dog as well as to the resource implications where prolonged kenneling arises. The circular invites courts to consider how cases might be expedited.
I was also asked about access to seized dogs. We feel this is a matter for the chief officer of the police force concerned. However, allowing owners to visit their dogs could raise serious security and other problems in some circumstances. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, talked about dog registration. The Government's policy on dog registration is clear. We regard it as an expensive, bureaucratic procedure which in practical terms will not assist in the control of dogs. Where instances involving attacks by dangerous dogs have occurred, ownership of a dog has not been at issue. Registration would therefore add nothing to the provisions of the Dangerous Dogs Act. I should tell the noble Viscount that the courts are empowered to disqualify a person from having future custody of a dog for a specified period under the Act.
It is only right that all areas of the law, particularly those which are still new, should be scrutinised. But I must ask noble Lords to remember why the special controls were introduced. The public looks to the Government to provide protection in this as in other areas. That indeed is one of the first tasks of government, and we should be failing in our duty if we did not afford it first priority. The Government remain of the view that the Act was necessary, and that it provided a fair balance between the interests of dog owners and those of society at large. We remain open to constructive criticism and suggestions, but I am afraid I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, we are not yet persuaded of the need for amendments. I always listen closely to what the noble Lord says, and I hope I have responded to his anxieties. He is a lion who will never be subjugated as he suggested.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. Some speakers were able to speak for a little longer than they thought and some interesting light has been thrown on the administration of this Act. My noble friend on the Front Bench asked for facts and figures. There are no facts or figures, or very few. I have been trying to get facts and figures for a long time but the trouble apparently is that many of the statistics are in the hands of individual courts and are not centrally collected. I was hoping that we would obtain some indication from this debate of the factual material which the Home Office is gathering to enable judgment to be made on the working of the Act. When we make a closer examination of these matters—we shall certainly do so in the not too distant future—we shall lack information which is essential to a study of the issue.
We have heard about public concern in relation to dangerous dogs biting children. There is not the slightest doubt that the tabloid press belted and bullied the Home Secretary of the day until he completely lost his head. He blurted out to all concerned that mass execution was the solution. I believe that that disqualifies the Government from posing as a virtuous Government who guard the public against dangerous dogs.
I remind the noble Viscount that between 1971 and 1991 the governments of the day did not introduce a single Act relating to dangerous dogs. They regarded dogs as a matter for Private Bill procedures and they never introduced any measures of their own. I introduced into your Lordships' House the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989. That Bill had been cobbled together in consultation between the department and various dog interests. That Bill was put forward as a Private Member's Bill in the House of Commons. It received a reasonable passage and finally came to this House for approval. That was not the Government's initiative and they allocated no time to that Bill. It had to take its chance under the Private Member's Bill procedure in the House of Commons. We know what a hazardous life Private Member's Bills have in the House of Commons. No virtue whatever attaches to the Government as regards this matter. It was not until public opinion was being galvanised into deep concern by the tabloid press and the media that the Home Office began to wake up.
Therefore, I feel a little cross when the noble Viscount stands there and reads a brief which suggests that he has a gang of virtuous people behind him who have been doing their best to protect the public from dangerous dogs. That is not so. The Government would not move. One has only to remember the antics they went through on the registration scheme and the lengths to which they went to defeat the vote in the House of Lords on the registration scheme, which was tacked on to the Environmental Protection Bill. The Government spent an enormous sum of money bringing back Ministers from all over the world to defeat the intention of the House of Commons to

955
introduce a national registration scheme. Therefore, a little humility would be worth considering in this connection.
My next important point concerns the fact that there is no machinery for dealing with the problem publicly in any representative way. The Home Office is notorious for uncertain stability among its senior civil servants dealing with particular problems. I know for certain that the senior official who was employed mainly on the dangerous dogs legislation had been transferred from his work as secretary to the Procedures Committee set up under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. No one deals with such matters for long enough.
The House has already passed a Dog Control and Welfare Bill, which was modelled on the Farm Animal Welfare Council. That is a representative body and its members are hand-picked by the Minister who appoints it. It reports freely and publicly on its work. However, in the Home Office everything is secret. The Home Office says: "We are keeping the matter under review". That does not mean anything at all except that they keep on thinking about it. There is no review in progress. It is nonsense to say that the matter is constantly under review.
The Home Office says that it is constantly receiving information. If we had a dog control and welfare council, that body could review matters in a way which the public would understand. It would have to consider seriously whether there was adequate statistical material to work on. How many dogs bite how many people? Who bites whom? Which dogs are doing the biting? How many times do they bite? Nobody knows anything about the number of bites which dogs inflict on people.
The only information which I have in that respect comes from a survey undertaken by a veterinary surgeon in the Midlands of all the cases dealt with by a plastic surgery unit in the Wordsley Hospital in Bromsgrove, Birmingham, between 1982 and 1989. It covered the cases of people who had been bitten by dogs and whose injuries were sufficiently serious to require plastic surgery. The survey was representative of a comparatively small number; it revealed only 147 cases in seven or eight years. The figures were published in the Veterinary Record of 12th December 1991. However, the extraordinary fact to emerge from that survey was that most of the cases occurred in the dogs' own homes. That matter requires closer investigation because it may be that families are more at risk than the public generally.
956
The survey showed that more than half the people who had been treated at the hospital in those years for dog bites were children under 15 years of age. Of those children, more than half were bitten at their own home, or at the home of a neighbour or friend. Even a high proportion of the adults sustained the bites in the home. Therefore attention may have to be given to the types of dog which are kept in homes and how they are treated and whether they have any training.
We are ignorant about dogs. We are supposed to be discussing man's best friend and we assume that man knows how to treat his best friend. A good deal more advice and guidance is necessary on the place of dogs in homes and society, especially in relation to children. It seems that one of the main reasons why dogs bite children is that dogs are not taught how to treat children and children are not taught how to treat dogs. There is scope for a good deal of investigation there.
Your Lordships' House passed a measure approving a dog control and welfare council. The Government were not enthusiastic about it and said that they could not spare any more money. Millions of pounds have been spent in connection with this measure. One has only to think of all the expenses being incurred at present.
I have brought the matter before the All Party Group on Animal Welfare, which is representative of Members of Parliament and of both Houses, and we shall have to consider what we do next. It may be that in order to achieve further discussion of the whole subject, some of us should get together and draft a Private Member's Bill, introduce it into your Lordships' House and see what we can achieve in that way. I feel that the Government are not being straight, either with the public or with us, in relation to their ability and their desire to deal with the matter in any more liberal a spirit than they have adopted so far.
In all the circumstances, I shall reluctantly beg leave to withdraw my Motion. I assume that I am moving for Papers. Those Papers are very elusive; we never seem to see them. I thought that I might suggest that we had the Papers for a change, but I do not want to put the House to that trouble. There would probably be nothing on them if we had them or we would merely be handed the speech which the noble Viscount has just delivered.
I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers, and I promise that I shall be back.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past seven o'clock.