HL Deb 07 July 2004 vol 663 cc886-909

8.10 p.m.

Viscount Astor

rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 20 May, be annulled (S.I. 2004/1397) [10th and 13th Reports from the Merits Committee].

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name. It is rare in this House to pray against regulations, and even rarer to pray with a fatal Motion, but I believe that the regulations should be annulled for four important reasons. First, they are unnecessary. Secondly, they are not supported by the industry. Thirdly, they are defective. Fourthly, they will lead to an increase in live exports of horses.

The regulations are unnecessary for the simple reason that there is an alternative. It is not my alternative, but one put forward by the Government in their original consultation paper. When we debated horse passports last year on 2 June, I pointed out that the Government's proposal to make every horse and donkey have a passport—nearly 800,000 of them— would cost, by Defra's own admission, £ 17.5 million.

European decision 2000/68/EC— it is a decision rather than a directive—requires passports only for horses or donkeys that will go into the food chain. It is based on the reasonable assumption that we do not want people eating horse meat if the animal has previously been treated with possible harmful drugs. It does not require passports for all equines. Interestingly, no passports are required for pigs, sheep, ducks or chickens. Cattle have passports, but only for traceability and subsidy reasons. The passport has no record of what drugs may have been administered to that animal. According to the Public Accounts Committee, however, one in five—1.2 million cattle—is officially missing. "Chaos" is the word that it uses to describe the current system.

What was Defra's own alternative with regard to horse passports? It was a simple solution, requiring passports for only those horses to be slaughtered for human consumption. The Government's regulatory impact assessment published on 27 March last year stated that such a scheme would cost only about £300,000 a year. We do not eat many, if any, horses in this country. Under the proposal, horse, pony and donkey owners will have to state in the passport whether their animal can enter the food chain when they come to dispose of it. About 179,000 horse passports have already been issued by 73 different organisations. For those horse passports already issued, 95 per cent of owners have already stated that their animals are not destined for human consumption.

In our debate last year, the Minister failed to explain adequately why his own alternative second proposal should not be implemented. Its first offence was that it was not favoured by the industry, but that claim does not stand up to scrutiny. Defra received 47 responses to its consultation, and only four respondents agreed on "passports for all".

The British Horse Society agreed to that because it thought that it would be the only organisation handing out passports—it had a financial incentive—and that the Government would contribute to the cost of the scheme. The British Horse Society was misled. Although it feels that some of its concerns have been met, that organisation is entitled to its views. However, most other representative bodies do not agree.

Under the scheme, 73 organisations will be able to hand out horse passports, so there will be 73 separate registers. That is a recipe for total chaos. It will not improve breeding, as those who need stud books already have them. Racehorses already have passports because their owners can afford them. Thousands of people who can only just afford a horse or a pony will be hit by unnecessary cost—the riding schools, the horse charities and such people. Nor will passports discourage theft, as the Minister for Rural Affairs, Alun Michael, has claimed. All that will happen is that more horses will be found abandoned. Micro-chipping every horse might make a difference to the Government's scheme.

Theoretically, vets will be able to treat horses without passports if it is lost, mislaid or left at home. But the vet will have to give to the keeper of the horse a note to put in the passport at a later date. Will the Minister confirm how that will operate? Is this not certain to lead to abuse? Will the Minister confirm that there will be no restrictions on the medicines that are currently used for horses which are not to be slaughtered for human consumption?

8.15 p.m.

The report on the regulations by the House of Lords Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee concluded: The Regulations are drawn to the special attention of the House on the grounds that they give rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House; and that they may inappropriately implement European legislation". I have never read a steer which was clearer than that.

The Minister's second line of defence was that he did not agree with the report. Indeed, he wrote to me and the committee on 29 June, quoting directive after directive which his officials had, seemingly, just discovered. I have to say that his letter contradicted his department's earlier advice.

If the regulations are passed many more horses, ponies and donkeys will be transported over long distances, often in unacceptable conditions for many hours, with little food, no water or rest, finally to be slaughtered on the Continent for their meat. The British minimum values legislation has protected thousands of horses and ponies from leaving our shores for slaughter abroad. That protection is now under threat from the European Commission by the proposed animal transport regulations.

Since the Minister first introduced the concept of passports, the change he made to allow owners to decide at a later date whether or not the animal should enter the food chain does not make any difference to the problem of the live export slaughter trade. The Minister, Alun Michael, claimed that there was no connection between horse exports and horse passports. For many horses that will mean, "Have passport, will travel".

So what have our European neighbours done so far? Only France and Germany have implemented national passport schemes, but France has already had problems with unregistered horses and the Germans have experienced a new phenomenon—the forged horse passport. In Greece, passports are compulsory only for horses that compete in show jumping. There are no plans to extend the scheme to the thousands of donkeys spread across the country and the many islands. Could anyone imagine the Greeks putting their citizens in jail for up to two years for not having a donkey passport?

When the Minister introduced the original regulations last autumn, they had to be withdrawn because they were defective. These are a little better, but not much. They still not only gold plate EU rules, but gold plate them with diamond studs attached. The regulations are unnecessary, wrong and expensive. There is an alternative. It is not my alternative, but the Minister's own alternative—only horses with passports should be presented at slaughterhouses for consumption. I urge the Government to think again.

Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 20 May, be annulled. (S.I. 2004/1397 [10th and 13th Reports from the Merits Committee]—(Viscount Astor.)

Viscount Falkland:

My Lords, these Benches have a difficulty with the Motion proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. Although the matter has been put fully by the noble Viscount, a passport is simply a document that states whether a horse may be eaten—whether it will enter into the human food chain. That seems a reasonable requirement on the face of it.

I have to say that I do not know why I am a spokesman on matters regarding horses. It must be because my party knows that I have had a bet or two on horses a few years ago and I have been put up to bat. I am interested in horses and I am interested in this debate. But the presentation on this matter seemed rather strange when it first emerged in Parliament.

My first point is that calling the document a "passport" raised some questions in people's minds. There is always an emotional response in this country to the eating of horses. We do not really like it. We recognise that others do it but we rather despise them for it. However, as a part of Europe, it is something that we shall have to get over. Many different views and cultural attitudes are to be found in Europe towards food, among other things. Personally, I do not eat horses—at least, not knowingly. It is possible that my cat eats horses but I certainly do not.

I do not carry my Benches with me on this, but I believe that a certain scepticism of draft legislation that comes from Europe is rather healthy, even if, like me, one is a strong European. Nevertheless, so far as we can see, Defra has done a great deal of work in tidying up these regulations. It has worked with many bodies and associations, some of whom still do not agree with the legislation, as the noble Viscount told us.

We do not believe that requiring documentary proof of the existence, or indeed of the breeding and other necessary details, of horses is unreasonable. That is quite apart from the major question of the danger of drugs given to horses entering the food chain. I should be very interested to hear the Minister's response to the noble Viscount's denial of the effectiveness of passports in combating, for example, theft. Proper documentary proof of other animate or inanimate objects which can be stolen is a useful weapon against theft. That is the case whether we are talking about bicycles, cars, cats or dogs, which nowadays are registered voluntarily through micro-chipping. I believe that it is also a useful weapon against maltreatment and abandonment, particularly where animals are concerned.

As I understand it, the guarantee of vital medicines is threatened by the absence of certainty in relation to whether horses are destined to enter the human food chain. Therefore, it appears to us that there is a real need for documentation in this area, and there does not seem to be any real alternative to what has now been put forward, and tidied up, by Defra and argued with the various bodies.

I turn to the subject of the Pony Club and individual owners, who are worried about the cost and bureaucracy involved in complying with this legislation. I understand that the Pony Club has now been reassured that the expense need not be as great as was first envisaged. Perhaps the Minister can reassure us on that point. I do not know what the noble Viscount intends to do with his Motion, but at present it is not our intention to follow him into the Lobby unless, in the mean time, the Minister is not able to satisfy any important concerns that the noble Viscount raised.

Perhaps the Minister can tell us why electronic tags or inserts have not been considered at this stage. I am very familiar with the kind of protection given to motorcycles. They carry a tag, which is put on to a computer database. The database is very easy to add to or subtract from and it gives a full and variable record.

A further matter that puzzles me is why, when a passport is issued, the declaration of whether the horse is destined for the human food chain is delayed. I do not understand that and I do not believe that the noble Viscount mentioned that. Perhaps we, on these Benches, can be assured that this is not to be a complicated, bureaucratic and expensive process. We want to be assured that, by and large, there is consensus within the horse world that the fundamentals are sound and that the benefits will be, as I have indicated in the area of medicines, available without problems. I think they are described in many documents nowadays as equidae in Latin, which presumably includes donkeys. I have not heard of people eating donkeys, but there may be countries in Europe where people eat them. I see the noble Earl nodding.

The Earl of Onslow:

My Lords, Italian donkey salami is rather a popular dish.

Viscount Falkland:

My Lords, that is not a delicacy that I have had the pleasure of eating and I do not intend to seek it out. Perhaps I may leave the matter there. Generally, we are disposed to support the drift of these regulations. If the Minister can satisfy us on some of the points that I have raised and those raised by the noble Viscount, we would not be moved to join the noble Viscount in the Lobby, should he choose to divide the House.

Baroness Mallalieu:

My Lords, I declare a personal and keenly felt interest in that I have 14 horses, eight of whom have passports and the remaining six have had forms of application submitted by the due date—last week—but only just.

First, I ask the Minister how many horses, ponies and donkeys do the Government estimate are at present in this country. Secondly, how many have either had applications for passports submitted or hold passports? I suspect that there will be an enormous discrepancy. My impression, talking to fellow horse owners, is that this measure is widely regarded, on the ground—I leave aside the high flown bodies who represent horses in various areas—as an expensive and an unnecessary exercise and one with which a considerable number of otherwise law-abiding people are at present saying that they have absolutely no intention of complying.

The explanatory notes from Defra—I totally accept them as being entirely accurate—say: This measure is not expected to have any significant resource implications for Defra". They have had very considerable resource implications for me and for others like me.

If one wants to apply for a passport, one can apply for a blue-chip, Weatherbys type passport, which racing thoroughbreds must have. For the youngest foal it will cost a minimum of £75 plus the cost of a vet's visit, plus the cost of blood-typing and micro-chipping. If one later wants to add a name to a passport, that will cost even more, taking the price to well over £100.

Alternatively, one can go for one of the breed societies such as the Coloured Horse and Pony Society, where the passport is likely to cost about £20 or £40, but one will still have to pay for the vet's visit. I do not know how other Members of the House find their vets' charges, but mine are rather high; £50 a visit is fairly standard. That visit will be necessary to draw the profile needed for the passport.

Alternatively, one can try, as I did with my last four horses—including Jubilee, aged 26, who I very much doubt will see out the rest of the summer, but for whom I have to send in a form—one of the cheaper horse passport agencies that say that they will provide one for £14. However, the vet still has to be paid £40 or £50 for the visit and the drawing of the profile. The poor girl who came to us the other day took an hour and a half and I have not yet had the bill, which I expect will be very substantial.

The requirements have changed as the saga has progressed. It has not been well handled. At one stage, we were told that we could do our own profiles; we were told to get a clipboard, to mark—not on a windy day—all the whorls and rosettes on the horse, and that that would be acceptable.

Then that changed, and the requirement became that we had to have a vet performing the profile and certification. The dates and deadlines have changed; the requirements have changed. Perhaps I may just tell your Lordships about the difficulty of getting hold of the relevant forms. I received some forms from my local tack shop and I rang Defra to ask if they were acceptable. I was told, "No, those forms have now been superseded. You need some new ones. We will send them to you". That was nearly two months ago, and I am still waiting.

8.30 p.m.

I then went to my vet, whose receptionist told me, "Well, I think that we have some forms; we will send the vet out to do the job". The vet arrived, saying, "Where are the forms? We do not carry them. You must get them yourself". That was a wasted visit, for which I shall be billed on my large veterinary bill. I managed to get some new forms, this time from a pet shop. The vet eventually managed to complete them and I sent them off, complete with the now substantial cheque. I do not know where are the reassured members of the pony club to whom the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, referred, but if they can find a way of doing that any more cheaply than I have, I should very much like to meet them. I can quite see that there is a benefit to the horse population of having a national horse database. It should have every horse in the country on it, and then it would of course be enormously beneficial in a number of different ways—not least for horses that are lost, stolen or strayed. But I would like to know from the Minister whether it is intended that the national horse database should carry each of those profiles that people up and down the country have been doing either themselves or, more recently, with their vets, and whether it would therefore be possible to check out a horse on the profile database. I suspect not. I suspect that the profiles will be held by each of the 75 different organisations and that the chances of the lost horse being returned to its owner through the use of any national database is slender indeed. Indeed, such a database could really work only if each horse was obliged to be either microchipped or freeze-branded, but that is not proposed—it may not be proposed for reasons of expense. I must say that the figures in the Explanatory Memorandum, which I collected from the Printed Paper Office today, for the cost of microchipping horses, must have been created in fairyland. They bear no resemblance to my knowledge of the procedure. Nor, I must say, is the procedure as easy as the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, suggested. As he has had to wrestle with even quite a young foal to carry out that operation, and, sometimes, has been unable to lay a hand on it afterwards for a considerable time, he will appreciate that microchipping a horse is far more difficult than carrying out such a procedure on a small dog.

It could have been valuable if each horse were on that database and had some means of being traced. We are told that the passport system is necessary for breeding. Of course, it is now compulsory for thoroughbred horses. It is increasingly used by breed societies and for competitive horses. In those cases, people voluntarily get their passport because there is a financial benefit to them if they come to breed horses and sell them later. But what is the benefit, in terms of breeding, to six of my 14 horses, which are geldings? Their capacity to play any part in the national horse breeding programme has been severely compromised in a way that no passport can make good.

I readily accept that human consumption requires that there be some means of confirming whether animals have been treated with drugs and, if so, whether the withdrawal period for animals is either not established, or that it has been established but there is uncertainty about whether they were administered in the set time. In the absence of doing a proper job, which would have required the microchipping of everything and a comprehensive database, I can see a real argument for having passports for animals that are sent for slaughter for human consumption—the scheme that the Government considered but rejected. That is not the route that we have chosen to go down. Not by any means all people, but many people have already expended a great time of time and money in trying to comply with what the Government are now bent on.

If the matter is pressed to a vote, I shall not vote against the regulations, but it is a great pity that what could have been an opportunity for the horse world to see the introduction of this as something that would be of advantage to them, and also a means of advancing horse welfare, has been lost.

I raised this matter before when we dealt with horse passports. One of my greatest worries is what happens to old and unwanted horses after 28 February next year. From that date, no horse may be submitted for human consumption without a horse passport. If you have an old and unwanted horse and only limited funds, you have no other means of disposing of that horse if you cannot sell it for human consumption. You can pay a knacker, who will charge you, in my experience, something in the order of £150; or, if you are fortunate, hunt kennels will charge something in the order of £50. I know of no other way in which such horses can be disposed of, and no way in which they could be disposed of without cost to the owner.

Like the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, I fear that a large number of unwanted horses will be abandoned. What contingency plan are the Government putting in place to deal with the consequences of this legislation? Will it simply be left to the equine charities? Are the Government making provision to deal with the consequences of the steps that they are taking?

The Earl of Onslow:

My Lords, I declare an interest in horses. I have certainly bought more Mercedes for veterinary surgeons than practically anyone else on this Earth. I drive ponies, of which I am inordinately fond, because it allows me to show off in a completely harmless way, albeit sometimes making quite an idiot of myself.

We must have passports for our ponies, because that is the rule of the society in which I play. That is perfectly fair. There is a British Horse Driving Trials Association passport, and there is also a Fé dé ration Equestre Internationale passport, if one wishes to participate in any form of international event. No one objects to that— because I volunteer to do it, I know what is happening when I do it, and I know that that is one of the consequences of it.

The last time that this subject came up, I surmised that the whole of this performance was the fault of Napoleon's Army eating their horses during the retreat from Moscow. I have since read Adam Zamoyski's excellent book, which shows the incompetence of both the Russians and the French. It underlines exactly my theory that this whole business started in the retreat from Moscow in 1812.

I was slightly shocked last night when, having dinner at my club, a distinguished retired servant of the club asked whether, for a special dinner, he could have horse tartare in the Garrick club. The chef replied, "It is illegal to eat horses in England". The chef's knowledge of EC regulations is not exactly thorough, but I will gloss over that. We have arrived at the position where there is horse-eating about.

Is it not odd that we do not have to keep a record of drugs in cows, pigs, or sheep before they go to slaughter, but for some reason we do have to for horses? Does anyone imagine that every single Gypsy horse at the Appleby horse fair will have a passport? Does anyone think that the horses running around in some of the grottier parts of Dublin will all have passports if the Irish Government introduce them? I concede, of course, that the Act of Union has been repealed.

The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, also asked very valid questions. How many horses are there? How many passports have been issued? I was informed that the Swedes have produced a survey on the number of horses and they say that there are 700,000. I believe that we say that there are 400,000 horses. So who is right? Why the Swedes should want to do a survey on English horse numbers, I do not know. But it appears that they have, and they are a thorough people. This is all bureaucracy, regulation and red tape. Surely, we must start saying "No" to these measures. They are unnecessary. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, perfectly reasonably and accurately produced the costings. The idea that it will cost just £17 or whatever is ridiculous. As she said, vets have to come out and it will cost a great deal more than that.

My noble friend Lord Astor mentioned the idea that all the Greek donkeys will get passports. That is ridiculous. Why do we have to do this? Why do we have to go on imposing regulatory burden after regulatory burden when others do not?

It also strikes me that it is nothing to do with the Government whether the breed societies get their acts together. That is up to the breed societies. It is nothing to do with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, whether my driving ponies are inoculated. That is to do with the society. It is nothing to do with government. It is to do with us who want to play with our toys without interference from government. This Government have got an itch to do things. Mark you, I accept that their predecessor had mild dermatological problems too. But this Government are far worse. Regulatory passion ought to be resisted. I hope that we can throw this out. It is time that we called a halt to this regulatory passion for no possible or conceivable reason.

Lord Jopling:

My Lords, I very much endorse the final words of my noble friend Lord Onslow, to which I shall turn later. I declare an interest of never having owned a horse in my life and—dare I say?—never having particularly wanted to because they bite at one end and kick at the other, which does not seem a good idea.

We have heard remarkable speeches from my noble friend Lord Astor and the noble Baroness opposite who put the case against all of this bureaucracy in the clearest possible way. But it is not from that position that I want to express my extreme depression at the Government's actions. I am depressed for different reasons.

Of course, the thought of donkey licences is a joke. There is an old story from the north country that says there are two things in life one never sees and one is a dead donkey. I do not know how many of my colleagues in your Lordships' House have ever seen a dead donkey. I certainly have not. The other thing that one never sees is, of course, a satisfied farmer, which I remember, to my cost, was very much the truth when I was Minister of Agriculture many years ago.

What depresses me so much about this measure relates to part of the 10th report of the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, of which my noble friend Lord Ullswater and I are members. Paragraph 2 explains that an Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the regulations states that there are two policy objectives. The second policy objective upsets me. It is, to protect and enhance the trade in pedigree horses: the identification of pedigree is one of a series of measures aimed at harmonising the registration of such horses in equine studbooks". Here I come to the final words of my noble friend Lord Onslow. I agree strongly with him that the Government should not become involved in the business of pedigree.

Of course the principal area of pedigree in the horse world is the closed shop which operates in the breeding of thoroughbreds. It is a totally restrictive practice. The breeders of thoroughbreds are not allowed to use modern breeding measures such as artificial insemination or embryo implants. Their restrictive practices forbid such measures. I do not know whether it is organised by the Jockey Club, Weatherby's or other bodies. While I draw attention to it, if that is the way people want to conduct the breeding of thoroughbreds, it is all very well.

What really depresses me is the continuing practice—something I thought we had got rid of—of government involving themselves in the cult of pedigree. In this noble company, surrounded as I am by a Duke, two Earls, a Viscount and two hereditary Barons, who I am to criticise the cult of pedigree? However, I say immediately that I am talking about horses rather than two-legged creatures. I hope that I shall not cause offence.

When I was a student, the great Professor Boutflower of the Royal Agricultural College was asked by one of his students about pedigree. He responded by saying contemptuously, "Pedigree, my boy, goes in at the mouth", meaning that it is how animals are managed and bred, rather than pedigree itself which is important.

When I was first elected in 1964 to work in this building, in another place, one of first things I recall doing with agricultural legislation then going through Parliament was to move amendments to a Bill in around 1967 to abolish bull and boar licensing. I remember the fury aimed at my head when I attempted to say that it was genetic nonsense to tell farmers that they could use only a bull or boar which some government inspector had come out and examined and said whether it was suitable for breeding. As I have said, that was genetic idiocy.

Much fury was aimed at me by a constituent of mine in the Lake District. He rang and threatened me with all sorts of savagery if I continued to threaten the then Hereford Herd Book Society by saying that bull licensing ought to be abolished, even though bull and boar licensing were restrictive practices. Despite that, I am glad to say that when my noble friend Lord Prior became Minister of Agriculture in 1970—I had the honour of being his Parliamentary Private Secretary—he took the first steps to abolish such licensing. I think I am right in saying that I finally completed that abolition when I was Minister of Agriculture between 1983 and 1987.

I do not object if pedigree societies want to continue to do their thing, but the enhancement of pedigrees and the cult of herd books and stud books is not a matter for government. They should have nothing to do with it at all. If people want to keep up their pedigree societies, then that is fine—let them do so. But, please, do not let the Government get themselves involved in something that is none of their business.

8.50 p.m.

Viscount Ullswater:

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Astor for allowing us to debate these regulations today. I declare an interest in that I am a member of the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee. However, I want to make it clear that I do not speak on behalf of the committee but entirely as a mere Member of your Lordships' House.

The committee's 10th report draws the special attention of the House to these regulations on the grounds that they give rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House, and that they may inappropriately implement European legislation. The fact that these regulations have been prayed against by my noble friend is a clear indication of the first ground, but I should like to concentrate my remarks on the second ground.

In the 13th report of the Merits Committee, a letter from the right honourable Alun Michael MP, the Minister of State at Defra, has been published refuting that the regulations may inappropriately implement European legislation—my noble friend Lord Astor has mentioned that he received a copy of that letter—quoting particularly directive 90/426/EEC of 26 June 1990 and the Commission decision 2000/68/EC.

Article 1 of the directive states that, this directive lays down animal health conditions for the movement between Member States and import from third countries of live equidae". The letter from the Minister quotes Article 2 extensively and draws from it the conclusion that, effectively, all "equidae for breeding and production" are covered by the directive.

That may be so but, in my opinion, it does not cover horses that are not used for "breeding and production" and those that are not travelling between member states. The directive and the decision both qualify horses in some way—one for movement and the other for breeding and production.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, indicated, it is the huge number of horses, possibly some 800,000—the mean point taken from the Explanatory Memorandum of between 600,000 and 1 million—which are not used in competitions, shows, breeding or for production and will require passports at a cost of about £20 each that these regulations cover. I submit that this is not required by European legislation.

Is the elderly gelding living in his field in Yorkshire or Wiltshire, for example, used as an occasional hack, to be classed as an "equidae for breeding or production"? He is certainly no use for breeding, as the noble Baroness has indicated, and as he will not be travelling abroad or competing, he cannot be classed as "for production". The industry therefore is being forced to spend £16 million on this regulation, as my noble friend Lord Astor said, when it is not necessary. That is why I believe that these regulations may inappropriately implement European legislation.

I have examined the transposition notes for the decision 2000/68/EC, and they refer only to animals for "breeding and production". The regulatory impact assessment attached to these regulations canvasses two options, which, in my mind, indicates that the Government recognise that there could be a less expensive way forward but have not chosen to go down that route. They have decided that, because there could be a legal challenge from the European Commission for not implementing the measures fully, they must opt for blanket coverage.

As noble Lords have said, the 200,000 horses that are used for breeding or in competitions will need passports. The 2004 regulations, which are a great improvement on the current 2003 regulations, cover those requirements. There is ample evidence to show that many horse organisations have expressed their support for them, so I am not prepared to vote against them tonight.

This is a food safety measure, in essence. I agree that medicines given to horses should be entered into a passport, and that only horses with passports should be able to enter the human food chain. Nothing I have said this evening contradicts that in any way.

One final point—it is useful to know that the Government are to set up a central disease surveillance register for equines. But are they prepared to put any money forward to construct a national equine database, with information supplied by all the passport-issuing organisations? The information gathered by these organisations can be of great use to the breeding of competition horses, as the racing industry has already proved.

If we are to have all 1 million horses in this country issued with their unique lifetime number and a passport, let us at least put all that data to good effect.

The Earl of Onslow:

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, can he help me? If, as he says, half of the horses are outside the regulations, does it follow that the regulations are illegally made? Presumably, the European Communities Act 1972 says that Ministers shall, by order, implement directives. If they produce a regulation which is outside the directive, as my noble friend implied that part of this was, the directive must be illegal. Will he comment on that?

Viscount Ullswater:

My Lords, I would very much like to hear what the Minister has to say about my assertion that the directive and the decision talk about only part of the horse population—those that are due for movement and those that are due for breeding and production. My noble friend Lord Astor said that he believed that the regulations were gold-plating European legislation. I believe they are too.

Lord Selsdon:

My Lords, if I may, I shall approach this in a slightly different way. We are concerned about proof of identity and proof of good health. While I am a biped, and there are quadrupeds and others, I refer to what happened yesterday, when I went to see if I could prove who I was. I had an iris scan and a fingerprint test, and I got a new card. For some reason, the photograph did not recognise me and the iris scan would not work. It took 20 minutes, because I was fairly tired and I think I had hooded eyes. Two of my fingerprints did not work because I had been working in the vineyard and they were rather worn.

I wondered whether this Bill was a question of proof of identity or of conforming to other people's wishes and demands. I have spoken on this subject before. When I returned from the United States at the end of the war, I was put in charge of transport by my grandfather. Transport was a Welsh pony called Misty and a carthorse called Rose. We did not have any petrol, we had an elderly tractor, but I worked out fairly quickly that if we swapped eggs with American forces, we could get petrol for the tractor and I would not have to stand behind Rose all the time.

Years later—and I have declared this interest before—with some surprise and reluctance, I became a peasant farmer in France, with a small vineyard, where we have the same problems. Proof of identity becomes particularly important because often, in order to prove one's identity these days, one's passport, as a human being, is inadequate. One has to produce a bill, maybe a utility bill. One also has to produce a birth certificate. For those of us who suffer from an accident of birth and began our life with a different name—one's father was not, at that time, called a Lord—there is considerable difficulty.

If we are looking at proof of identity, we have to say why. In general, as your Lordships will know well, we do not eat horsemeat in this country, although we may eat bushmeat. Those on the continent of Europe, particularly in countries around the Mediterranean and the ancient world of Provincia, are very concerned about being able to eat horsemeat. I have to admit that, by mistake, over a long period of time, in a rather smart restaurant, I would like hamburger à cheval. I had no idea that it was horsemeat. I thought that it was a particular type of hamburger, designed by the French, which went with a particular type of sauce that gave it a slightly sweetened flavour.

9 p.m.

During that period, I learned other things. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will remember that I have asked about the number of horses in Britain before. My noble friend Lord Onslow got it slightly wrong. The original estimate was that we had had maybe 420,000 horses in the United Kingdom—exactly the same as Australia. I learnt that when I was chair of the Greater London and South East Council for Sport and Recreation and received a letter regarding 1,000 horses in Harrow.

Later studies, particularly Swedish studies, showed that we perhaps had as many as 900,000 horses, not 1 million as has been quoted this evening. Could the Minister determine exactly how many horses we believe we have in comparison with the population of the United Kingdom?

If it is the case that we have 900,000 horses, the reason for introducing a horse passport is to stop unacceptable edible food entering someone else's food chain. I digress briefly to point out that foot and mouth disease has been perhaps more rife on the continent of Europe than many of us had believed in the past.

I return briefly to one of my favourite subjects and one of the Government's successes—Passports for Pets. That has been extremely well received. Your Lordships will know that one may move dogs without let, hindrance or encumbrance across the Channel. Eurotunnel has a wonderful set-up, with a nice piece of grass where one's dog may go and lift its leg before it comes into the United Kingdom. However, when one's dog or dogs arrive in the United Kingdom, there is not a single place that is willing to receive it—hardly a hotel in London, hardly a restaurant; indeed, hardly a place.

Within the regulations that were devised to inoculate against rabies, little inconsistencies occurred. If one's dog is a continental dog, under continental law, it has to have a rabies injection every year. If it is a British dog, it has to have a rabies injection every two years. Therefore, one finds that the legislation that applies on the Continent to rabies can prevent one's dog coming into the United Kingdom because it conflicts with United Kingdom legislation.

Before discussing horses or any animal, I shall take a moment to explain what happens to donkeys. Those of us who produce vines and grapes will remind your Lordships that one of the greatest benefits to cultivation is a dead donkey. If one is producing table grapes, the best thing one can do is to bury a dead donkey around the root stock. The dry blood within it will produce excellent table grapes, preferably black rather than white. That is what is done throughout most of Spain.

However, we have not spoken about that other animal which I used to think meant slippers; namely, the mule. Is the mule covered by this legislation in any way? It is neither a gelding nor even neuter. It is a particular type of animal which is still in use in many parts of the world.

We should not support the concept of British horses being exported to be eaten by other people. That is an emotional issue that many of us would find hard to accept. I say that with a certain personal passion because one of my family names is McEacharn, which means "Lord of the horse"—the horse which came before the ships. I have always found that, although I have sea horses on part of my coat of arms, I have a great affection for the horse as a noble animal.

When, in preparation for earlier debates, I wanted to know why the continent of Europe was so keen on eating horses—my noble friend Lord Onslow referred to it briefly—I found that it is all to do with war. Troops who were underfed, not least those under Napoleon, would find that when their horses were shot from under them, although they may have been their noble steeds, they were often all that they had to eat. That happened during campaigns towards Russia and everywhere else. The original design was not to eat a noble animal, but to meet the necessity of food. I do not oppose the concept of identifying horses, but, in my capacity as Joint Secretary of the Parliamentary Space Committee, I have another method to suggest.

Within a relatively short space of time, when Galileo gets off the ground, it will be possible despite what the noble Baroness opposite has said, to microchip a horse or any animal, whose movements can then be identified from space. All that information can be retained on a small microchip. One of my Italian friends in Eutelsat was explaining that that situation was not so far away, and that one would know that wherever one had put a chip that person was. He did actually make a comment: he said that if your Lordships still had mistresses, it would be possible to know where they were because the chip would be in the diamond earrings. I asked him how we would know where the diamond earrings were, because they would normally be pawned. But my friend's point was that it was not very long, in relation to biometrics and other items of technology, before we would be able to identify on the face of this earth any creature, or any thing, without the necessity of having to have pieces of paper that could be forged, duplicated or copied in numerous ways.

Anything that encourages the export of live horses from this country to the continent for eating purposes should be opposed.

The Earl of Liverpool:

My Lords, it was not my intention to contribute in this debate, but there are certain things that I have heard—not least the interesting and captivating comments of my noble friend Lord Selsdon. It is always a pleasure to follow him. Those remarks have moved me to get on my feet.

My noble friend Lord Astor said that 73 separate registers would be charged with maintaining the control in the regulations. As he said, that is an absolute guaranteed recipe for disaster. It always moves me to get on my feet when someone talks about regulations being gold-plated by this country. As my noble friend Lord Astor said, this is not gold-plating but diamond plating—or I believe that those were his words. That seems to me to be a grave error.

The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, drew attention to the risk that some owners may abandon their horses to avoid the burden. Other noble Lords referred to that, too. I shall repeat one of the committee's concerns. It said: However, the Committee is aware of continuing concern that the Regulations may represent a significant additional cost and compliance burden for many horse-owners, and that there is a risk that some owners may abandon their horses to avoid this burden".

It is for those reasons that I strongly support my noble friend in his prayer.

The Duke of Montrose:

My Lords, I can declare only a very dated interest in that I last had dealings with a horse when I sold the children's pony at an auction sometime back in 1980. My noble friend Lord Ullswater, as a member of the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, drew our attention to its 10th report. Noble Lords will be familiar with some of the words used in that report, which said that the regulations, may inappropriately implement EU legislation".

Since then the Minister, Alun Michael, has replied to the committee, and his letter is included in its 13th report. His letter appears to make it clear that directive 90/426/EEC divides horses into three categories for registration, the first two of which will certainly require to be registered. His letter said that horses for breeding and production are required to be identified during movement. Am I right in assuming that that provision, if strictly adhered to, would mean that they must be identified only during movement—or at least during the first occasion during which they are moved? To my mind, that is similar to the regulations that I am familiar with in respect of sheep movement, by which sheep are required to be identified only when first moved.

As noble Lords have heard tonight, the industry itself is very divided in its view between commercial and purely recreational interests. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, gave us a very good description of the enjoyment to be found in recreational interest. However, the Government appear to favour an approach of total registration of all horses. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, gave us some detail of the cost to individuals of registration—not only the licence costs but the costs of getting a vet. One has heard of vets charging well above —40 a time. One has perhaps heard of some who charge a little less but it is still a very considerable cost for anybody with a handful of horses.

I would like to know whether the Government have figures on the cost of maintaining this information. As far as I understand the layout of the papers attached to the statutory instrument before us, these documents will have to be resubmitted every time there is any change in the details of ownership. I can see one or two difficulties. I may not be as fully up to date technically as my noble friend Lord Selsdon on the matter of microchips. I know that we have been weighing up the question of using them in cattle and I have been told that in order to read those presently used one has to get within six feet of the microchip in order get a reading on a sensor. The reason for that is that if the power of the microchip were any stronger it would tend to interfere with aircraft direction systems and that would create too many problems.

In the notes, and in the Government's animal health and welfare strategy, the creation of a horse database is mentioned. It seems to me that perhaps this statutory instruction is a precursor to any legislation that may be required. Can the Government tell us whether they envisage more regulations before the database is implemented?

It begins to look as though there will eventually be two levels of registration. One will be the level carried out by the breed societies that wish to have their own authority on the certificates that are prepared for pedigree horses and the other will be the Government's database. I wonder at the Government's appetite for registration and databases. My experience is largely based on dealings with the cattle database, which is presently costing £32 million per year, which is very generous of the Government. Noble Lords are probably familiar with some of the data that emerged from the Public Accounts Committee a couple of days ago. It produced a long list of the difficulties presently being experienced by the centre at Workington. Back in January, when I last looked into how it was doing, I was told that the office had to call back 10,000 applications a week that required correction or reregistration. The net effect was that there were 6,500 calves in suspense. That creates a problem when one is trying to follow up a policy of traceability.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and other noble Lords mentioned, as far as the industry is concerned, it is surely only the breeding horses that require registration. By the law of averages, under half of the horses now kept are geldings and unlikely to breed, so the benefit to them is very limited. The question that arises much more is identifying those that can be eaten. It is probably more up to those who own horses to expound on the most satisfactory method of doing that.

I am puzzled about the question of controlling disease through the national database. Using the current data, all one will have is the name and address of the owner and no data on where the horse can be found or where it has been recently. In the first instance, one will have to find the owner, if he is not on holiday or has not put himself out of the way in some way. Are the data that are presently asked for in these passports the only data that will be used for the database? Will a raft of modifications not be brought in once the new scheme is up and running? Can the Minister say whether the Government have considered bringing this legislation in once they have got the answer to their whole animal health and welfare strategy?

9.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty):

My Lords, noble Lords and the Committee on Merits of Statutory Instruments had a lot to say about this lot of regulations, and not a lot of it favourable. 1 am not going to agree in principle with many of those comments. However, I do not think that we are in a particularly satisfactory position here. I certainly accept that we are not starting from where we would like to be.

We are dealing with an EU directive that, as noble Lords said, is driven primarily by food safety. Although consumption of horsemeat in this country is probably close to zero, British horses can be exported for horsemeat. The directive may be desirable from that point of view. Part of the Government's case is that the directive has other desirable features, but it is not driven by those. Therefore, the way in which people regard these regulations is somewhat distorted by the original purpose. We are dealing also with the fact that our first attempt to turn the directive into regulations proved to be flawed. We therefore have to correct that today. That is not particularly satisfactory, and I am not pretending that it or any of the other administrative problems referred to today are satisfactory. In an ideal world, if we were convinced that we needed to go down this road, we would probably look at something closer to microchips. Indeed, there may shortly be an EU proposal in exactly that direction. However, we are where we are. We have a European directive that we have to transpose. We have attempted to do so once and we have to put right what was wrong with the previous regulations. That is all we are doing tonight. I want to emphasise that.

If the prayer of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, were carried, the effect would be that the existing regulations would stand. That would be an unsatisfactory position for many reasons. If you like, the Government stand guilty in relation to that position. Although it was not entirely clear in our previous debate, there was a lack of clarity in definitions for the passport itself and the issuing bodies and in identifying the enforcement authorities. In the light of the special arrangements that have subsequently been made in relation to the New Forest and Dartmoor ponies, the previous regulations would not have been appropriate. There is other defective wording relating to passport issuing organisations, the allocation of life numbers and so forth.

So there will be problems if we revert to the pre-existing regulations by deleting the ones before your Lordships' House tonight. There is also the problem of the 30 June closing date. Were we to revert to the pre-existing regulations, that would at least theoretically put people beyond the law. That would be the effect if this prayer were carried tonight. I do not believe that that would be in anyone's interest.

As for the other comments made this evening, I think that some of them were misplaced. I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, was probably wrong on all four of his main counts against the regulations. He said that they did not have the support of industry. One of the benefits of the consultation and the two alternatives we put during that consultation was to clarify the industry's position.

The key operators within the industry—the British Equestrian Federation, the British Horse Society, which itself covers several other organisations, especially the British Equine Veterinary Association, the International League for the Protection of Horses, the RSPCA and other bodies and organisations representing the veterinary, sporting, owners' and breed interests—have all supported the principle of how the Government are legislating. Far more supported that principle than objected to it. Far fewer organisations, such as the Riding Schools Association and some charitable organisations, were opposed to the principle, although most of the passport issuing bodies have now made special arrangements for charitable organisations. There is also a question of implementation. There was an alternative that I shall come on to in a moment. However, the interpretation we have taken has been taken also by most of our colleague member states. France, Germany, Ireland, Sweden, Finland and Denmark have already implemented and have done so on the basis of a full passport system. It is true that some other countries have not yet done that or have taken the other alternative, but there are special reasons why—apart from the strong support of industry—we in the UK have taken the overall registration option. One of those is to ensure that there is continued availability of veterinary medicines for horses—something which has not been alluded to during the course of this debate and is perhaps tangential to the original purpose of the regulation.

The terms "gold plating" and, indeed, "diamond plating" have been banded about tonight. Given that the European Union presents us with two alternatives and we are taking one of those alternatives, I do not think that can generally be described as gold plating. Gold plating usually involves an excessive burden on industry. Given that the bulk of the industry is strongly supportive of these proposals, I do not think that they can legitimately be described as gold plating. We have implemented the measure building on the experience of the large number of private bodies that are already operating an identification or passport-type system. That has not involved an increase in state bureaucracy but has built on the experience of private organisations which have voluntarily started down that road.

I should like to say a few words about vital equine medicines.

The Duke of Montrose:

My Lords, the Minister said that the EU had offered two alternatives. According to the letter that Alun Michael sent to the committee it seems to me that the directive offered three categories that require registration. It seems to me that the Government have chosen a blanket registration policy rather than the specific policies that were contained in Directive 90/427/EEC at Articles 2C, 2D and 2E.

Lord Whitty:

My Lords, the directive itself provides for the blanket operation. We have chosen that option for reasons that I shall explain and which have the full support of the vast majority of the representative organisations within the industry. That was also the interpretation of the majority of those countries which I cited earlier. The measure is, therefore, not outwith and on top of the directive, which is the normal use of the term "gold plating".

Returning to the medicines point, the president of the British Equine Veterinary Association said: This legislation is a means to guarantee the continued availability of vital equine medicines in the UK". I refer to another development at the European level; namely, that the Commission wrote to member states asking them to withdraw marketing authorisations of all veterinary medicine products licensed for use with horses containing substances not included in specific annexes to a further Council regulation, the details of which I shall not bore your Lordships with. Some 60 per cent of medicines currently authorised for horses would have fallen within that category. We opposed that measure in the European Council because the system of prescribing within the UK and Ireland is somewhat different from that in the rest of Europe but our views did not prevail. There have been amendments to that measure. One of the amendments would mean that the registration of horses would enable our present system of veterinary medicine prescribing to continue largely in its previous form. Therefore, the provisions that are before your Lordships tonight are directly linked to the veterinary issue. One of the reasons that we and the majority of the industry are in favour of a general registration is to ensure that the system of veterinary medicines continues.

The president of the association considers that, There is no credible alternative solution to the threats to the availability of medicines that were or are currently in sight apart from this registration proposition".

It has been suggested that if we required only horses going to slaughter for the human food chain to have a passport, that would not meet the veterinary point. However, it is also evident from reading Decision 2000/68 and from the way that it defines the terms "registered" and "for breeding and production purposes" that all equines are required to have a passport if they are to benefit from those provisions.

The industry sees other benefits, including opportunities to deter the indiscriminate breeding of horses. That is one long-term benefit, because it will reduce the degree to which there are abandoned horses and the welfare problems with that. I do not deny that there may be a short-term welfare issue, but that exists already. We and the welfare organisations need to monitor the situation to see whether there is any increase in abandonment of horses as a result of the measures.

The regulations will also discourage the trade in stolen horses and, as noble Lords have said, they give us the opportunity to move from the registration system that will arise from them into a national equine database. That would have great benefits for animal disease control, health and welfare, and is another reason why, by and large, the industry supports the proposals.

The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and others referred to the export trade. The claims that the passport system will lead to an export trade in live horses for slaughter is, frankly, completely spurious. As noble Lords have acknowledged in previous debates, there has never been a formal ban on the export of horses. We have rules prohibiting the export of low-value ponies, and those regulations will remain until and unless robust welfare-based rules providing similar or improved protection are in place. That is one canard that ought to be refuted. My noble friend Lady Mallalieu and others made quite a lot of the costs, but only one passport is required for the horse during its lifetime, with perhaps further registration of it on transfer of owner. That cost is pretty low compared with what most horse owners claim is the expense of keeping horses and ponies. I am told that the price of a passport equates to approximately half a set of horseshoes. There are also veterinary expenses, but those can be incurred at any time during the horse's life, whereas replacement of shoes would take place every eight to 10 weeks or so. The prices that the passport-issuing organisations have announced have brought down the originally anticipated cost and made special provision for charitable organisations. The system is therefore being operated with a light touch, relatively low costs, and special provision for special cases.

My noble friend Lady Mallalieu, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and others referred to the total numbers of horses about which we are talking. It is true that we do not know exactly how many horses there are in the country. We can make a stab at it, and so can the Swedes; so, no doubt, can your Lordships. It is certainly more than 600,000. The number of applications as of mid-June was about 179,000, with another 40,000 in the pipeline, so more than 200,000 applications had been made. A further rush in recent weeks will increase that very substantially, but it is true that we are not near the 600,000 figure yet, and it will take time for the system to bed in. There will be special arrangements in some parts of the country, but there is a significant engagement in the process of application for and acquisition of passports already, in which not only many large commercial operations in the horse sector but many individuals have already engaged.

In the circumstances, the regulations are an improvement on those previously on the statute book, and implement fully the EU provisions. They use a provision in the EU directive and are therefore not gold-plating. They address some concerns expressed during the consultation and provide some very definite benefits for the horse sector as a whole, the welfare of animals, and the potential benefit of horse owners themselves.

I do not pretend that the start of the process was particularly welcome to the Government in the form in which it came. However, it is one where we have attempted to make the best of propositions from Europe—both on this directive and those relating to veterinary medicines. The proposals before the House address both of those problems and deliver for horse owners and the horse population a significant basis for improving their welfare and health and one which avoids aspects of the horse trade that are illegal and detrimental.

I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, will not pursue his prayer against the regulations and recognise that whether we wish to be here or not, these regulations represent the best position that we can be in, given all of the circumstances and the position taken by the vast majority of representative organisations within this sector.

The Earl of Onslow:

My Lords, before the Minister sits down can he say why horses need to have a medical record before they go to slaughter. while pigs, cows and sheep do not?

Lord Whitty:

My Lords, I think that the noble Earl is familiar with all of the regulations that apply to the breeding, sale, keeping and disease bio-security checking of all species of livestock that enter the food chain. Most of those regulations apply across Europe. We do not have parallel arrangements regarding horse meat. Some nation states do, but Europe does not. From the safety point of view, that is the origin of the regulations. Whatever the merits of the wider issues, one cannot refute that if one eats horse meat it should be subject to arrangements parallel to those that we have for other species.

The Duke of Montrose:

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he say whether the data that is required for current passports will be the basis for these proposals? Have the Government given any thought to whether that information will be used for the horse database?

Lord Whitty:

My Lords, it will certainly be the core information required for that database and there may be other requirements down the line—technologies such as microchips could be introduced at a later stage—but that core information will certainly go a long way to providing a comprehensive basis for a national equine database.

Viscount Astor:

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, gave me general support. My noble friends Lord Jopling and Lord Onslow talked about pedigree. The passports will not help pedigree in any way. I have here a passport application form which is quite simple: for "name" I would put my horse "Ronald"; "species" would be "horse"; "sex" would be "gelding"; for "year of birth" I would have to put "22 to 24 years ago, I am not sure"; for "colour" I would put "bay"; and for "height", "16 hands"; for "any other noticeable features"—"no". I have to say that the horse might obtain a passport but that description could probably fit many thousands of horses around England. That is the failure of the system and that is why it will not make any difference to breeding—although a gelding would find it more difficult than others to breed.

My noble friend Lord Ullswater gave a considered and carefully crafted speech as a member of the committee that examined the regulations. He was clear that the committee's view was that the regulations implement EU legislation inappropriately. It is not necessary and he gave a detailed explanation of that— which the Minister did not address. My noble friend Lord Selsdon spoke about proof of identity and his unfortunate time eating horse meat in France. I shall make sure that when I go to a French restaurant with my noble friend I, not he, shall choose what we eat. My noble friend the Duke of Montrose spoke about breeding and production which, again, will not be helped by passports.

The Minister said that there were many other desirable features in the scheme, but he was at a loss to explain what they were. One of his main points was that the industry was in favour of the scheme. I questioned Defra and I received a clear reply. Out of the 47 responses only four agreed with the passports rule; 25 were in favour of passports only for horses entering the food chain; six had no views; three asked for clarification; four made other suggestions; and two questioned the efficiency of the scheme. That is not an overwhelming endorsement by the industry; it is something different.

I believe that the noble Lord finally lost his argument by giving us a list of the countries that are to issue passports for all. They are the minority in Europe, not the majority. There are many European countries.

Lord Whitty:

My Lords, I should clarify this point before it goes on the record. The organisations which represent the majority of the industry were in favour of something like a full passport system, although some had some qualifications. Since then, some of the other organisations have become convinced of the need for such a system. I did not want that to go uncorrected.

Viscount Astor:

My Lords, I am only telling the noble Lord what his department said. It is absolutely clear that only 25 respondents were in favour of passports only for horses entering the food chain.

The Minister mentioned a number of countries which are issuing passports for all, but they are in the minority in Europe. He then said—I think that it rather gave the game away—that other EU countries have taken up the other alternative. As the Minister admits, the other alternative is passports only for horses that enter the food chain.

The Minister then produced another argument put forward by vets concerning prescribed medicines. There is a plan that certain medicines should be given only to horses with passports. I accept that that is a valid point but the response to it is that if a horse or pony needed the medicine, the owner could instantly apply for a passport. Indeed, under the Government's current rules if someone does not have a passport for his horse, the vet can treat the horse and give the owner or keeper a certificate which is then put into the passport at a later date. Therefore, horses would not be prevented from being treated with the medicines that they have now.

The Minister also talked about the minimum value legislation. That is under threat from Europe and is likely to be declared illegal by the EU. It is stopping many more horses going abroad. The Minister said that if these regulations fall, we shall come back to the ones that we first introduced, which did not work. They did not work then and they will not work now. This is the opportunity for the Government to come forward with some workable regulations at a minimum cost to the industry.

I am afraid that I remain unconvinced by the Minister's argument. He has not satisfied me and I do not believe that he has satisfied the House. I wish to test the opinion of your Lordships.

9.37 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 13; Not-Contents, 40.

Division No. 4
CONTENTS
Astor, V. [Teller] Jopling, L.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L. Lamont of Lerwick, L.
Colwyn, L. Liverpool, E.
Dixon-Smith, L. Lyell, L.
Monson, L. Selsdon, L. [Teller]
Onslow, E. Skelmersdale, L.
Patten, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Acton, L. Hughes of Woodside, L.
Alderdice, L. Jay of Paddington, B.
Andrews, B. Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L. Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
Bhatia, L. McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
Chandos, V. Mitchell, L.
David, B. Phillips of Sudbury, L.
Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller] Roper, L.
Dixon, L. Rosser, L.
Elder, L. Shutt of Greetland, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L. Simon, V.
Falkland, V. Stone of Blackheath, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B. Thornton, B.
Gale, B. Tope, L.
Giddens, L. Triesman, L.
Gilbert, L. Tunnicliffe, L.
Goldsmith, L. Watson of Invergowrie, L.
Grocott, L. [Teller] Whitty, L.
Hart of Chilton, L. Williams of Crosby, B.
Hollis of Heigham, B. Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

Forward to