Lords Chamber

                    The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.
                

House Of Lords

Friday, 20th October 2000.

The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.

Countryside And Rights Of Way Bill

11.5 a.m.

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Whitty I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the amendments for the Report Stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clause 1,
Schedule 1,
Clause 2,
Schedule 2,
Clauses 3 to 8,
Schedule 3,
Clauses 9 to 43,
Schedule 4,
Clauses 44 to 48,
Schedule 5,
Clauses 49 to 54,
Schedule 6,
Clauses 55 to 64,
Schedule 7,
Clauses 65 to 68,
Schedule 8,
Clause 69,
Schedule 9,
Clause 70,
Schedules 10 and 11,
Clauses 71 to 75,
Schedule 12,
Clauses 76 to 79,
Schedule 13,
Clause 80,
Schedule 14,
Clauses 81 to 86,
Schedule 15,
Clauses 87 to 91,
Schedule 16,
Clauses 92 and 93.—(Lord Carter.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Protection Of Animals (Amendment) Bill

11.6 a.m.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to introduce a Bill which will increase the protection afforded to animals as this has been a lifelong interest of mine. Indeed, at this point I should perhaps declare an interest, although not a financial interest, as I am a vice-president of the RSPCA. Although I am told that it had no hand in drafting the Bill, clearly it has an interest in its safe passage through this House.

However, it is not the only body which welcomes the Bill. I am delighted to say that the National Farmers Union, the Farm Animal Welfare Council, the British Veterinary Association and, indeed, MAFF welcome the provisions in the Bill. It is modest in scope, as befits a Private Member's Bill, but it is useful in plugging a gap in the current welfare provisions. I shall explain the background before I turn to the provisions of the Bill.

The main Act dealing with animals is the Protection of Animals Act 1911. Under Section 1 of that Act it is possible to bring a prosecution for cruelty or neglect of any animal. A prosecution can be brought by the various public bodies that engage in prosecutions or, indeed, by any private individual. However, one of the snags is that court proceedings can take a long time, usually longer than weeks. They may last for months and may even extend beyond a year. What happens to the animals which are the subject of a case in the meantime?

It is possible under the 1911 Act for the police to take away the animals for safekeeping. However, I am sure noble Lords will appreciate that with all the pressures upon the police at the present time, and, indeed, for many years past, this is in many cases not a practical proposition for the police to undertake. Sometimes organisations such as the RSPCA and other welfare bodies will step in at their own expense to look after the animals, perhaps for a considerable period. Occasionally the owner may give up ownership of the animals, in which case action can be taken. However, I am sure noble Lords will appreciate that this is a highly unsatisfactory position.

Perhaps I can illustrate the position more clearly by mentioning one or two cases. One elderly Welsh farmer in his seventies suffering from arthritis had no fewer than 1,400 sheep on nine different sites. He was looking after them on his own and travelling around by bicycle. He covered about 100 miles of road to tend to the sheep. It will not surprise noble Lords to hear that he did not do the job well. Sheep scab was a serious problem. The farmer had difficulties in providing the sheep with water. Sometimes sheep which were dying were given no care. It was difficult to persuade him—although he was finally persuadeel—to hand over part of the responsibility for the animals to a younger relative. But how much better it would have been had the sheep been removed from his care at a much earlier stage before the matter was finally concluded—in this case out of court.

An even worse case—in that it is persistent— occurred in the West Country. I am ashamed to say that as I have close connections with the West Country. The case concerned Roger Baker of Truro. I name him because of his persistent offences. It is a most shocking series of cases. It appears that between 1994 and 1999 MAFF made no fewer than 70 visits. I understand that other welfare organisations such as the RSPCA were also involved. Despite several bans on keeping animals and several prison sentences having been imposed, the man continued to buy or obtain more animals and ill-treat them. It would have been much better if the local authority had been able to remove the animals, sell them and thus not incur astronomical costs.

Even when such animals are cared for by a third party, because of the length of time that it takes for courts to decide cases there must be a disincentive for animal welfare organisations, or even kindly neighbours, to pick up the bill. I refer to one case where 14 horses were boarded for 10 months until a case was concluded. In that time costs of no less than £87,000 were incurred. That was in part on boarding the animals and in part on veterinary fees. If the animals could have been sold at an early stage, many of those difficulties would have been resolved.

I turn to the provisions of the Bill which seek to address these problems. The core feature of the Bill is the introduction of what one might describe as care orders whereby authorised bodies or individuals can apply to a magistrates' court for an order to deal with the animals. This, however, is subject to two conditions. First, there must be a current prosecution for cruelty under Section 1 of the 1911 Act and the animals must be kept for commercial purposes. For example, a pet animal, a companion animal, kept in someone's home would not be covered by the provisions of the Bill.

"Commercial purposes" is a wide-ranging phrase. It has not been defined in the Bill for what I believe are good reasons. It is extraordinarily difficult either for a private Member or even, I suspect, government departments to provide definitions which are all-embracing and stand the test of time. It therefore seems to me better that the term "for commercial purposes" should be left without further definition in the Bill. I am not a lawyer but I believe that the term is well understood in legal circles and that it would be for a court to decide whether an animal was kept for commercial purposes under the Bill. That would not simply include farm animals but might embrace circus animals, guard dogs, sniffer dogs and animals kept in pet shops for sale. However, the Bill does not deal with experimental animals which are dealt with under the Animals (Scientific Prodecures) Act.

First, when applying for one of these orders from a magistrates' court it would be a prerequisite before an order could be given that evidence should be received from a veterinary surgeon. This would preclude, therefore, people making malicious, vexatious or frivolous claims which waste a court's time. Secondly, the courts would need to take account of all the circumstances, including the interest of the owner, before coming to a decision. Under the Bill, they would have various options open to them which I hope would deal with those cases I have drawn to your Lordships' attention. For example, if suitable, it would be possible to care for the animals on the premises where they are found. They could be removed to a place of safety to be looked after. They could be sold at a fair price with the proceeds going to the owner; or they could be disposed of in another way—for example, by gift—if that proved more appropriate.

Finally, arrangements could be made for the slaughter of animals if that were the right thing to do—and it might well be in the case of farm animals where there is an optimum moment at which they might be marketed and sold.

Puppies, too, have an optimum moment for sale. After that such value as they have declines sharply. Therefore it is appropriate that sale should be one of the options open to the courts. But they have to take account of all the circumstances and the evidence of a veterinary surgeon in deciding whether to grant the order to the prosecutor.

I turn now to who may seek such orders. Under the Bill there are what I call the usual categories from the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Crown prosecutors, local authorities, MAFF or any other suitable government organisation. But there is an additional feature. It is not unique but interesting in the context of the Bill. I refer to persons—that can legally include organisations—who at the request of MAFF or (in Wales) the Assembly may be authorised to prosecute. They would do so under a written agreement with MAFF which would set out the criteria on which such a body or person might be chosen. I am not a member of the Government but I understand that, in the event of the Bill becoming law, MAFF would seek to consult widely in order to ensure that there was widespread agreement on the criteria giving that power to another body or person. The RSPCA might be considered a suitable body but I would not rule out any other organisation which wished to do that. I have not consulted with them, but I have in mind that a body such as the National Canine Defence League might be willing to deal with dogs, or the Cats Protection League, which has a special interest in cats. There may be other organisations which deal with exotic species. The Bill would make it possible for them to do so. Any individual or person can bring a prosecution under Section 1 of the 1911 Act. However, in the Bill the care order would be restricted to the bodies I have outlined.

I turn to the remainder of the Bill. There are powers of entry. Those are obvious since if there is no power of entry one cannot get to the animals concerned. But that will not extend to a person's home. I think that the technical term is dwelling place. That will be excluded. But once an order has been obtained, in other homes entry can be carried out by the prosecutor using the terms of the order. They may remove the animals; they may wish to use equipment at the place where the animals exist. For example, the milking parlour might need to be used to milk cows.

There is an additional power in the Bill which might cause some concern. Where there is an intention to seek an order of the court, but before it is made—the court having been notified—entry can be gained for marking animals. That may be important in practical terms for deciding which animals are the subject of a prosecution or it may be important for various regulations, particularly farming regulations, when great clarity is needed about which animals are meant.

There is also the normal proviso that any prosecutor seeking to enter must have documents that identify him as that person and a written document explaining why the entry has been sought. That guards against malicious or fraudulent attempts at entry.

I explained earlier that if animals were sold, any money made would go to the owner, but any costs incurred by the prosecutor could be deducted from the sale proceeds.

The Bill applies to England and Wales only, although I believe that moves are afoot in other parts of the United Kingdom to introduce a similar measure. I hope that I have given a fair summary of the provisions. I shall happily deal with any questions or requests for clarification during the debate.

I mentioned earlier that various reputable bodies had given their support to the Bill. I shall quote an unsolicited letter of support from the British Veterinary Association. It said:

"We therefore fully support the amendment bill and the additional powers it contains not only because it meets a real need but also because it strikes just the right balance. Our members, not least those in the State Veterinary Service, are confident that this legislation will provide a significant improvement in their ongoing endeavours to improve the welfare of animals kept for commercial purposes".

I very much agree with those sentiments and I hope that your Lordships will also agree.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Fookes.)

11.22 a.m.

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, has introduced the Bill so admirably and thoroughly that, although I am only the second speaker in the debate, I shall repeat some of her comments. I make no apology for that; they are points that need to be emphasised.

I support the principles behind the Bill, but the House should reflect with care on some elements. It is perhaps of concern that a Bill which, among other things, gives powers of entry to private, albeit commercial, premises should be presented as a Private Member's Bill in the other place, with the lack of scrutiny that sometimes results from that. The Pet Care Trust, which is closely involved with the measures relating t o puppy farming that we passed last year, has kindly briefed me and expresses some concerns.

I hope that it goes without saying that I welcome any measures that will alleviate the suffering of animals, particularly when they are held in inhumane conditions. I believe that my concerns deserve close consideration and I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for raising some negative aspects of the Bill.

The Bill provides that its main provisions apply only in relation to an animal that the owner keeps or has kept for commercial purposes. Unfortunately, "commercial purposes" are not defined in the Bill. Despite what the noble Baroness said, I am concerned that that will lead to a grey area and an unintentionally wide application of the provisions to animals. I understand that the expression is intended to encompass, for example, circus animals, animals kept for commercial breeding, animals kept for sale in pet shops, guard and sniffer dogs and others. However, uncertainty and confusion may arise in some circumstances. Does an animal bred at home and subsequently given to a pet shop for commercial sale count as an animal kept for commercial purposes? The Bill gives prosecutors wide powers of access to premises where animals have been bred with no intention of their being used for commercial purposes. When such powers are granted to individuals, albeit through an order of the court, it should he clear what premises they apply to.

The Bill would allow the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the National Assembly for Wales to enter into contractual arrangements with corporate bodies to act as prosecutors under the Bill. It is envisaged that the RSPCA, for example, will be appointed to that role. I am concerned that not enough control will be exercised on the appointment of the individual officers by such bodies. Would it not be more sensible for the appointments to be made directly by the Ministry from a panel of appropriately qualified and vetted individuals? Given the nature of the important powers conferred on these people by the Bill, it is important that their objectivity is guaranteed and that their performance is carefully monitored and reported on to the Ministry.

There is also cause for concern about the powers of entry conferred by Clause 3. While the Bill provides that an order to confiscate animals can be granted only when proceedings are already under way for an offence under the Protection of Animals Act 1911, it will allow individuals who have simply notified the court that they intend to apply for an order under the Bill—irrespective of the fact that it might not be granted—to enter premises for the purpose of identifying and marking animals about which they are concerned.

It is also worrying that a person entering the premises under those powers is required only to produce a document showing that he is an authorised person and to state in writing his reasons for entering. There is no requirement for him to produce a copy of the order or a notice that he has applied for such an order, which would seem to be a minimum requirement. There is some doubt about the legality of those provisions, which appear to convey wide powers of entry to private property, under the Human Rights Act 1998. I feel sure that my noble friend the Minister will give us some reassurance on that.

A further point of concern is that the owners of animals subject to a care and disposal order should have the opportunity to make a full case in response to an application for such an order. Once again, in view of the nature of the powers sought, it is surely of fundamental importance that those who are subject to such interference with their property should have the right to reply at the time that the order is applied for and to produce evidence, if necessary from a vet, in order to resist such an order being made against them.

My final point, which was also raised in another place, is whether the Bill can provide adequate compensation for owners who have had their livestock removed and possibly sold or destroyed but who are subsequently acquitted in proceedings under the 1911 Act. That is unclear. Although the court has to have regard to the owner's interest in the value of the animals and in avoiding increasing the costs when making an order, what happens if it transpires that an entirely innocent party has suffered what could be a serious financial loss as a direct result of the exercise of those powers?

The Bill requires closer scrutiny in a number of respects, but I hope that my noble friend will be able to give assurances that these matters will be addressed, because the Bill cannot be delayed. Amendments would only wreck it.

11.29 a.m.

My Lords, the Green Party is in favour of legislation that reduces the amount of cruelty imposed on animals by men. I imagine that it is therefore in line with all the other parties represented in your Lordships' House.

I am not an animal rights man. That is a phrase without much philosophical or legal justification. I am a human duties man. I have a scale of priorities for how we should address our human duties. The control of animals in the wild is a complex issue that we shall doubtless deal with in extreme form in the next year or two.

Much higher on my list than, for example, fox hunting is the welfare of animals which are already under human control. As your Lordships know, issues such as battery hens, the welfare of pigs and broiler fowl have been a constant concern of mine during my entire time in this House. For that reason, I give the Bill my hearty support and give great thanks to those in another place and in this House—particularly, of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes—who have supported the Bill thus far.

On the whole, the Bill seems to me to be in an admirable state. I listened with care to what the noble Viscount said. No doubt, the matters which he raised will be addressed by the noble Baroness when she replies. However, there did not appear to be anything in what he said that would deny our duty to give the Bill a speedy passage. I hope that the Government—I look forward to hearing the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who knows a great deal about these matters—will not be slow to activate it once it has passed into law.

The country as a whole owes great gratitude to those who bring forward this type of legislation. It reduces the immense amount of cruelty towards animals which has been carried out in the past, sometimes wittingly and sometimes unwittingly. Such cruelty is seen to a lesser extent now, and we hope that it will be inflicted to an even lesser extent in the future. I wish the Bill well.

11.31 a.m.

My Lords, I am pleased to support the Bill and my noble friend Lady Fookes, who has introduced it this morning.

Over the years, the Protection of Animals Act 1911 has been the cornerstone of legislation dealing with cruelty to animals. The original Act is, to my mind, remarkably comprehensive. It has been amended in various areas in order to deal with issues as they have arisen; for example, performing animals, the need for anaesthetics during animal operations, the use of cruel poisons, and others. However, overall it has served this country well over almost 100 years since it was put on the statute book.

The concern of the United Kingdom for animal welfare is well known and well accepted in this country and elsewhere. Indeed, animal welfare concerns predate those of the welfare of children. The RSPCA was established in 1824, some 60 years ahead of what was then the National Society for the Protection of Children. The Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, which my noble friend Lady Fookes mentioned, similarly was a forward-looking piece of legislation to regulate the use of animals in scientific experiments. Of course, as has been mentioned, this amendment of the 1911 Act does not apply to such animals.

Therefore, it is curious that, while the original Act dealt with the disposal of animals by depriving the convicted person of ownership of the animal or by ordering its destruction, there is nothing in the Act to protect the welfare of animals during the course of the proceedings for cruelty or neglect between the time of indictment and the time of trial. As has been stated, that period can be lengthy, passing into weeks or months. In one or two cases, the process has lasted for more than a year.

This amending Bill reduces the lacuna in the original Act. It extends those who may conduct prosecutions from the police constable in the original Act to a list of individuals or bodies. They are the approved prosecutors. The Bill gives the prosecutor the authority—having been granted permission by a magistrates' court, thus providing a great safeguard—to enter premises other than a private dwelling for the purposes of identifying and marking animals subject to prosecution. I hope that advice may be given that microchipping is probably the preferred and more effective method of identification and that which is least subject to falsification.

As my noble friend said, the Bill has the support of the National Farmers Union, the RSPCA, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association. I believe that we have probably all received the documentation from the Pet Care Trust, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, referred.

My Lords, everyone except me—the sponsor of the Bill.

My Lords, that was most remiss of the Pet Care Trust. However, having read the documentation and having listened to the noble Viscount make the case for the concerns of the Pet Care Trust, I do not believe that they override the importance of this amending Bill. I believe that adequate safeguards are built into the Bill to answer the concerns of the Pet Care Trust.

As part of that concern, Clause 2 places on veterinary surgeons the onus of making decisions about the welfare of animals whose owners are under consideration for malfeasance. Of course I must declare that, as Members of the House will be aware, I am myself a veterinary surgeon. However, I believe that that part of the clause is most helpful and useful.

This is a Private Member's Bill which emanates from another place. Nevertheless, from the point of view of the welfare of commercial animals, it is an important Bill. I sincerely hope that it is not subject to amendment which may lead to its demise. Indeed, I believe that it would be most unfortunate were it to fail as a result of the vagaries of the Private Member's Bill procedures in another place. To my mind, it is too important to fail in that way.

11.38 a.m.

My Lords, the whole House owes a debt of gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, for bringing forward this Bill. I believe that it is almost the perfect type of Private Member's Bill because it takes on a modest objective and deals with it in bite-size portions. We shall not choke in our attempt to get the Bill through.

In addition, if something is universally praised, one knows that something must be wrong with it. I believe that the doubts that have been raised are technical in nature. Because they are technical, I believe that good practice, with a little sensitivity, will solve most of them. Unfortunately, there may be an occasion where case law comes in, but we must expect that in virtually all legislation. No matter how well we do, if we do not implement the Bill properly, we shall not get the best from it.

The basic premise behind the Bill is that, if cruelty to animals is identified which the law already states should not happen and should be dealt with, then delay in dealing with the problem should not occur. That is surely a premise which we all embrace. If there are technical problems with the Bill but they not of a fundamental nature and cannot be addressed directly by legislation, effectively we should press forward and deal with them as they occur.

A series of platitudes springs to mind about excellence being the enemy of the good and so on. I probably have that wrong and I am absolutely sure that every noble Lord who speaks after me will correct me in relation to that.

We must deal with this problem now. Animals are suffering because the legal system has become clogged up. If this Bill will reduce that suffering, it must be welcomed. I give my support and that of my noble friends on these Benches to the Bill. I hope that it will pass through all its stages as quickly as possible.

11.40 a.m.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, shot from his seat like a bullet from a gun. He moved so quickly that the gap hardly existed. I hope that the House will allow me to say a few words.

I congratulate my noble friend Lady Fookes on picking up this Bill from another place and explaining it to us so clearly. I have absolutely no doubt from the speeches we have heard that it fills a major gap in animal protection legislation.

However, my noble friend invited questions and I am afraid that I have one for her. I welcome the Explanatory Notes to the Bill. They are a rare piece of parliamentary explanation and I hope that we see many similar examples accompanying Private Member's Bills in the future.

Both my noble friend and the exemplary Explanatory Notes make a point of saying that although Clause 3 allows very necessary powers of entry, those powers do not extend to private dwelling houses. Why not?

As your Lordships well know, I run a small family business. What your Lordships, however, may not know is that my office is in my house. That business is not, but might well be, a breeding kennel or a breeding cattery. In that case, it would be more than possible that an animal to which this Bill applies might be found in the office. If the Bill prevents responsible people entering that office, that is obviously a new gap to be found in this extremely important addition to animal protection legislation.

11.42 a.m.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Fookes for sponsoring this Bill and bringing it before the House. We welcome the purpose of the Bill, which will remove the current loophole in the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and help to improve animal welfare in the United Kingdom.

My noble friend introduced the Bill in her usual robust and succinct manner and I agree with virtually everything that she said. Among other things, she read out a list of the august bodies which support the Bill. Of course, my noble friend Lord Soulsby emphasised the strong support of the British Veterinary Association and others. So the Bill comes before us in an extremely strong position.

However, for all the Bill's good intentions, I am concerned that some of its provisions might be vulnerable to adverse interpretations. It is on those provisions that we seek some reassurance.

There is a need for further clarification of some of the wording of the Bill, without which its intended coverage may be radically altered. For example, the issue of the exact definition of what is a commercial animal has been raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. That matter was raised too in the other place. But I am still slightly puzzled by that because I believe that we should be quite sure where the boundaries are when passing legislation of this kind which impinges on what might be described as human rights.

In that regard, I diverge from the views of my noble friend. She said that a loose definition subject to decision by the court concerned is preferred. I am rather worried about that as it may lead to disputes and doubts which will not help the effectiveness of the Bill to fulfil its purposes. I wait to hear with interest what the Minister has to say about that.

For example, sometimes animals other than farm animals which are involved in commercial activity appear to be covered by the Bill; at others, it seems that the same species of animals are exempt from the provisions of the Bill, such as those in catteries or kennels, circuses or zoos. What about puppy farms? I dislike puppy farms very much indeed and I hope that one day they will be abolished.

I have no objection to the provision of appropriate powers for reputable and responsible organisations, other than the statutory bodies, to be involved in prosecutions. However, it is extremely important that the use of such powers by all such bodies must always be subject to the closest scrutiny.

It appears that the filters provided by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which will prevent vexatious prosecutions by those with direct authorisations to proceed are probably effective. But how does the Minister propose to deal with possible abuses of the powers of entry by those with delegated authority?

In that context, I am extremely glad to hear that MAFF will consult widely before delegating authority to prosecute to other bodies.

I ask the Minister to consider also those owners who are prosecuted and then subsequently acquitted of the charges made against them. Under Clause 4, the prosecutor is entitled to be reimbursed for any reasonable expenses incurred by him in the care or removal by him of the animals in question. That is a correct and necessary provision. However, there do not seem to be corresponding provisions for the owner who has been acquitted and has sustained real financial damage to his business which cannot be redressed under the Bill as it stands. I do not believe that that can be right. I refer in particular to transport costs which would not have been incurred without the prosecution taking place. Again, I hope the Minister will tell us how he proposes to deal with that.

We are well aware that to be made law in this Session this Bill must not be delayed nor, indeed, amended; and, of course, I agree with that. We shall not delay the Bill. We welcome it and wish it a fair wind and a speedy passage.

11.47 a.m.

My Lords, I am delighted to be able to respond for the Government to this very important Bill, introduced so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes. At the outset, I should declare at least a former interest as a director of a farming company.

This is an important measure. It has been examined thoroughly in another place and comes from there unamended. As the noble Baroness made clear in her excellent speech, the Bill is a simple one, of the type ideally suited to the Private Member's procedure. I congratulate her, and the sponsor of the Bill in another place, on their efforts.

The Government are pleased to lend their support to the Bill. We are acutely aware of the plight in which animals can find themselves—not always through wilful cruelty, but perhaps through simple neglect where owners are just unable to cope.

We all agree that it cannot be right in this day and age that animals are left to suffer while the law runs its course. We acknowledge that Section 12 of the 1911 Act provides the opportunity for a police constable to ensure animals at risk are removed to a place of safety. But this was a provision conceived at a time when the responsibilities of the police were very different from those they face today. Moreover, the 1911 Act contains no provision for animals at risk to be cared for by others in situ. Very often, this is the ideal solution. Nor can it be right that those organisations or individuals that intervene to ensure welfare is not compromised do so at potentially enormous costs to themselves. We had an example of that from the noble Baroness.

As regards the welfare of animals, we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, some appalling practical examples and her explanation of how this Bill would have helped had its measures been available. I do not want to add to those examples but I can say that members of the State Veterinary Service are regularly encountering similar instances on farms, although I emphasise that that relates only to a very small number of livestock farms.

But this is not a measure aimed specifically at the farming community, the vast majority of whom have the welfare of their stock as a top priority. It is also sadly the case—and, again, we have heard practical examples—that non-farm species are currently exposed to exactly the same risks. We must act to address that and, again, I congratulate the noble Baroness on her efforts to do so.

Although this is a Private Member's measure, I have made it clear that it is one that the Government will administer should it become law. In particular, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and colleagues in the National Assembly for Wales agriculture department will assume administrative responsibility.

I shall attempt to address the points that have been raised in the debate and deal with any concerns of noble Lords. I hope I can offer some reassurances. As always, if time does not allow me to deal with all the issues, I shall ensure that every noble Lord receives a letter from me.

We have heard that the Bill would plug an important gap in the 1911 Protection of Animals Act by allowing a court to make an order relating to the care, disposal or slaughter of animals kept for commercial purposes which are the subject of a prosecution brought by an "approved prosecutor" under the 1911 Act. However, the Bill would not provide carte blanche for prosecutors—far from it. Let me make clear that the Bill will not make it any easier than it is now for anyone to bring prosecutions under the Protection of Animals Act.

There has been legitimate concern about whether the rights of entry for which the Bill provides are appropriate. In fact, there would be no new powers of entry except to discharge the terms of a court order, or in the limited, but essential, context of enabling an "approved" prosecutor who has indicated to the court his intention of applying for a court order and is therefore bringing a prosecution under the existing provisions of the 1911 Act to identify the animals which are the subject of the prosecution.

The Bill defines those who may have recourse to its provisions as the Crown Prosecution Service, government departments and local authorities, but it also extends to any persons or bodies concluding written agreements with MAFF or the National Assembly for Wales agriculture department. I refuse to use the acronym NAWAD.

The Government are well aware of the need to ensure that any organisation operating under the provisions of one of those written agreements is properly equipped in terms of its expertise, financial standing and track record on animal welfare law. So we shall devise written agreements that are transparent and rigorous, and we shall seek views from stakeholders on the terms of a model agreement. There will also be full consultation on such agreements before they come into force.

The criteria that we plan to employ to decide whether to enter into written agreements with prosecutors will reflect several factors. First, we need to cover whether the person or body will have adequate resources to provide care for the animals concerned. That would include the facilities available for care; the ability to provide adequate food, water and veterinary treatment. Secondly, it will reflect the financial resources available to the applicant and, thirdly, where appropriate, whether or not the person or body has a proven track record in securing convictions under the 1911 Act. If a person or body has a poor "strike rate" of convictions—for example, they have taken a string of unsuccessful prosecutions—we would be unlikely to request that they enter into a written agreement.

We shall also monitor the way in which those operating under written agreements use then powers. Any that give cause for concern face losing their authority. We shall ensure that the model written agreement features a clause allowing revocation.

I have noted the concern about the type of animals to which the Bill would apply, as expressed by my noble friend Lord Simon and the noble Lord, Lord Luke. Here, too, I hope 1 can provide clarification. The Bill applies only to animals kept for a commercial purpose. It would cover, for example, farm animals, animals kept for sale in pet shops, and guard and sniffer dogs, but it would not apply to pets.

I know that there is some concern that the term "commercial" in the Bill should be more precisely defined. However, I recognise the difficulties that the noble Baroness and the sponsor in another place have no doubt encountered in attempting to produce a definition. The fact is that to do so would risk going considerably beyond the scope of a Private Member's Bill. Any attempts to produce a tighter definition may lead to loopholes and/or omissions. While other legislation attempts to create a strict and comprehensive definition of the term, those definitions apply only in specific and limited situations.

I suggest that the term "commercial" is well understood. The Explanatory Notes, which the courts can use as an aid to interpretation where there is genuine doubt as to the meaning of the provision, expand on the point. They cite, at paragraph 8, examples—although the list is not exhaustive —of the type of animals that would be covered.

The Government plan further guidance—again we shall consult on its content—in which we can, if appropriate, add a further gloss to the types of circumstance in which we see the Bill applying. Ultimately it is for the courts, and for the prosecution in particular, to prove that the animal in question is or was kept for a commercial purpose.

Noble Lords have asked why there is no appeals procedure for the owner. That is not quite the case. The Bill does not seek to duplicate the existing legislative framework. There are already provisions in Section 111 of the Magistrates' Court Act allowing owners to "appeal" to the Divisional Court on a point of law or jurisdiction. But, to protect the welfare of the animals, an order made would normally remain in force pending the conclusion of the Divisional Court.

In any event, the rights of individuals are fully covered by requiring the court to take into account the interests of the owner, including his financial interests, when deciding whether to award a care order and owners would have the opportunity to present their case to the court.

Noble Lords were also concerned that an application to the court for a care order might prejudice the owner's position in any subsequent trial. However, I believe that Clause 1(2) of the Bill is drafted carefully to ensure that that is not the case. First, a court will apply a different level of test in deciding whether to grant an application for care to that applied in a subsequent trial. It need only appear to the court from evidence given by a veterinary surgeon that a care order is in the interest of the animals. That test is deliberately less demanding that that of being "satisfied beyond reasonable doubt", which would apply in a prosecution.

Secondly, a care order must be,

"in the interest of the animals".

That concept is deliberately wider than the specific charges someone may face under the 1911 Act where cruelty or unnecessary suffering would have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

That allows us to be sure—as we must be—that the human rights of owners are adequately protected. Indeed, there are a number of provisions in the Bill to ensure that that is the case. I am advised that the Bill is indeed compliant with the Human Rights Act. First, an application for a care order is possible only where a prosecution has been brought under the 1911 Act. Secondly, MAFF or the National Assembly for Wales agriculture department will have to enter a written agreement with any private body or organisation wishing to make applications for care orders. The terms of such an agreement will be subject to wide consultation. Finally, the decision on whether to grant an application for care is one for the court, to whom the owner would, of course, have the right to put his case. The court is required to take into account the desirability of protecting the owner's interest in the value of the animals and avoiding increasing his costs and can grant an order only when it appears necessary in the interests of the welfare of the animals.

It is difficult to be precise on the likely level of usage of the new procedure. We accept that the RSPCA is likely to want to enter into the appropriate written agreements and to seek care orders where appropriate. The extent to which public sector prosecutors will wish to seek care orders is difficult to judge. It is likely that that will be determined in the context of individual cases.

It may interest noble Lords to know that the current level of prosecutions under the Act, according to the criminal statistics, was some 1,100 in 1997 (the last available year). RSPCA figures show that in the same year the society secured around 870 convictions. That is a figure inside the 1,100. An important point is that most of those related to non-commercial animals, and would therefore not be subject to this Bill.

The remaining 200-odd cases will have been taken by other private bodies and by central or local government. Only a small minority of those could possibly be cases in which the prosecutor would want to use the proposed new procedure, the majority being non-commercial operations, or cases where intervention to protect the animals' welfare, an action that is justifiable only in cases of extreme cruelty or neglect, would not be contemplated.

As we have heard, the Bill would apply in England and Wales. The position in Scotland and Northern Ireland is different. The 1911 Protection of Animals Act does not apply in those areas. However, we understand that both Scotland and Northern Ireland plan to introduce parallel legislation.

I was asked about the costs of acquittal. The powers in the Bill do not become available until the prosecution is in train. Then and only then may the magistrates grant an order in the interests of the welfare of the animals. In doing so they must take account of the veterinary evidence. In determining what to authorise, they must have regard to all the circumstances,

"including the desirability of protecting the owner's interest in the value of the animals and avoiding increasing his costs".

The subsequent acquittal of a defendant at trial is a point entirely separate from the welfare of the animals at the outset. In any event, the Bill protects the financial position of owners by requiring magistrates to take it into account when deciding upon the type of order to grant.

The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asked about rights of entry. I understand that the exclusion of a dwellinghouse reflects Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which relates to the right to respect the home and private life.

My Lords, perhaps I can intervene to follow up on that point. I well understand the dangers and opportunities which have been given to us from the patriation of the human rights legislation. But surely it would be possible to frame some sort of legal clause to encompass the case I illustrated whereby the office is in a private dwellinghouse. After all, the office may not contain the animals in question but may well contain comprehensive records which would be useful to the court in the exercise of this particular duty.

My Lords, that is a point that goes wider than this Bill. Indeed, if we attempted to amend this Bill, as we know it would not become law. The easiest way to deal with this—I accept it is a complex point—is for me to write to the noble Lord with a fuller explanation.

This is not a complicated measure. It is a modest but long overdue change to the 1911 Act. For the most part the Act has stood the test of time, though the history we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, was fascinating. I believe he said that there was protection of animals in law before there was protection of children. However, the Act remains a cornerstone of the legislative protection we provide to animals though there is within it an increasingly obvious gap.

We have heard how the measure is supported by all the key players. The veterinary service, both within and outside government, industry and the NFU recognise the need for the measure. We have heard how the Bill has long been sought by welfare organisations engaged in the day-to-day job of protecting animals and, as I made clear, the Government are pleased to pledge their support.

This House has a long history of recognising the need to protect in law the welfare of animals. This is a sorely needed addition to the framework of law we have in place and I commend the Bill to the House.

12.3 p.m.

My Lords, I am delighted with the warm reception for the Bill. I thank particularly the noble Lords, Lord Beaumont and Lord Addington, my noble friend Lord Soulsby, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for their support. I had the support, with reservations, of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and my noble friend Lord Luke.

In welcoming that support perhaps I can add a personal note. Lady Wharton—Ziki as we all knew her—is, sadly, no longer in the House but she would have been here today to support the Bill. She was a splendid friend of the animals and worked extraordinarily hard for them. I know she would have been one of the warmest supporters of the Bill and I pay my own tribute to a lady who had become a very good friend and whom I sorely miss, as I am sure do many other noble Lords.

Hear, hear!

My Lords, certain reservations were expressed about terms in the Bill, mostly dealt with admirably by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. Perhaps I can add one or two brief comments. We shall have to agree to differ on the words, "for commercial purposes". I believe that it is a strength of the Bill that that phrase is not defined; other noble Lords disagree. I should like to point out to my noble friend Lord Luke that the key issue in that regard is not the species of the animal, it is the use to which the animal is put.

The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, was anxious that individuals rather than bodies should be named as prosecutors under the special terms of this Bill. However, that would probably be impractical and it is better that it remains with an organisation. However, one can make certain that the written agreement is tightly drawn. If it was proved under the terms of the agreement that any individual was unsatisfactory, they could certainly be written out of any further agreements. It was said that it could put at risk the organisation itself. I feel that that is not likely and I hope that that explanation satisfies the noble Viscount's concern.

The noble Viscount also raised the question of the need for a copy of the order to accompany the power of entry. My guess is that, in practice, any prosecutor would carry such a copy with him. However, it is a matter which can be considered when MAFF draws up the agreement and consults on whether or not it should be written in. Again, I hope that satisfies the anxiety of the noble Viscount.

The point raised by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale in relation to human rights procedure was dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I operate on a much lower level. I know that if that provision had been included in the Bill, it would have been very controversial. As a Private Member's Bill, without the might of the government machine behind it, it would probably have faltered before even reaching this House. That was my practical reason for not wishing for it to be included, although I agree that in an ideal world it would be better to have it in.

I am not sure that I need to deal with any further points raised; most were dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in his winding-up speech. It remains for me to ask your Lordships to give this Bill a fair wind, bearing in mind that the time-scale is extremely tight. If this Bill, as everyone hopes, is to become law, it will need a speedy passage through this House. On that note, I commend the Bill to the House.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty

12.8 p.m.

rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what they see as the future of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in the light of American and other proposals for the national missile defence system.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, first, I express my gratitude to those Members of your Lordships' House who decided to stay on for this debate on a Friday afternoon, which is always premium time for leaving the House for other purposes. Secondly, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, for coming in when I know that she is extremely busy. I apologise for bringing her into the House but this is a matter of such grave importance, not least given the debate that has broken out in the United States in the course of the American presidential election, that it is a useful moment for this House to express its views and opinions.

Also, I am sure I speak on behalf of all Members of the House when I say how deeply we regret that illness made it impossible for the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, to attend this debate. We all wish her a rapid recovery. We recognise her great contribution to this House, as we do that of her colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons.

Let me start by saying that one of the problems about this whole extremely difficult issue is that the Government have so far resolutely responded to parliamentary Questions with what appears to be a logical response until one looks at it more closely. The Government's position expressed in answer to a number of parliamentary Questions posed by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, myself and others, has consistently been, "We have not been formally approached by the United States with regard to this matter. We do not expect to be formally approached until a decision has been taken and at that point we will say where we stand".

This is crucial because, as many Members of your Lordships' House will understand, the early warning system at Fylingdales and the associated system of infra-red sensors at Menwith Hill are a crucial part of the present configuration of the proposed national missile defence of the United States. Without the facilities in the United Kingdom, and possibly also those in Greenland, the present configuration of the national missile defence would be unable to continue. In other words, in much of the technical argument there has been an assumption that the UK will cooperate. Our position, therefore, is not only that of an ally but also that of an essential and crucial ally in this matter. And no one doubts that we want to be good allies. The record of this country in the Gulf War, in Yugoslavia and elsewhere indicates that we are extremely loyal and supportive allies of the United States.

However, I am troubled by the fact that we in this country are not having the kind of debate which the United States is having; a debate which our own views might substantially influence. Perhaps I may give the House an example. The United States is locked into a technical and highly informed discussion of what kind of NMD there should be, if there is to be one at all. Many bodies have already contributed to that discussion; for example, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Belfer Centre of Strategic and International Affairs at Harvard, the University of Maryland's public affairs department and the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) professors concerned with issues of national security. Fortunately, there is now a lively intellectual debate in the United States.

From the United Kingdom, there has been virtual silence. There was, however, an encouraging Answer from the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, to a Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, that:

"Her Majesty's Government have conveyed their views on the possible deployment of a National Missile Defence system to the US Administration in numerous recent bilateral and multilateral discussions, as have other NATO allies".—[Official Report, 10/10/00: col. WA29.]

I believe that the time has come when Parliament might be given at least a glimpse of those numerous bilateral messages to the United States and multilateral messages to other allies.

Perhaps I may begin by looking briefly at the difference of opinion between the two presidential candidates. They are of great importance to this country. Vice-President Gore has indicated that he would continue the line taken by President Clinton, which originally was one of trying to limit national missile defence to the first stage; in other words, the placing of interceptor missiles in Alaska. The original proposal was for 20 interceptor missiles but that was increased to 100.

It is possible that the first stage could be comprised by an amendment to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, although that is not altogether clear and would of course require the agreement of Russia, which is the only other signatory to that treaty. Many experts agree that that treaty has been a fundamental foundation stone to the limitation of the arms race during the past 30 years.

There is no commitment for Vice President Gore to go beyond that stage and he has made it plain that he would try to persuade Congress to ratify the CTBT treaty, which your Lordships will know it rejected a few months ago. That would give great reassurance to countries such as Russia, China and the NATO allies.

Governor Bush began by going much further and talking about a highly sophisticated system of sea-based, but possibly even space-based, missiles—inevitably, that would completely destroy the ABM treaty, which forbids it—and that would constitute the leaping to a new technology of defence for the United States. I am pleased to say that in the past few weeks somewhat wiser counsels have prevailed—no one doubts the quality of many of Governor Bush's advisers. He has announced that there would be a complete review of the missile issue before he decided to raise funds from Congress in order to finance it. He suggested that that decision might be put off until the beginning of 2002. That is a crucial reason why the United Kingdom should contribute to a debate taking place in the circles which surround a man who may soon become President of the United States.

However, the debate goes further than that. Perhaps I may give a brief outline of it and then turn to the issues which we in the United Kingdom might want to raise. President Clinton made it clear that there were four criteria on which he would base a final judgment about the NMD system. In the event, he decided to defer the decision to his successor, whoever that might be.

The first criterion was the feasibility of the system. Great doubt has been thrown on that feasibility, not just by the failure to date of the tests but, more crucially, by the fact that there has been very little discussion or technical analysis of the issue of the countermeasures which might be advanced by the states against which the NMD system would be directed—rogue states, terrorist groups and others.

The Union of Concerned Scientists points out that countermeasures would be available to states which were regarded as a threat and that those countermeasures which would require sophisticated technology would not require more sophisticated technology than building missiles themselves. As regards countermeasures, little consideration has been given.

More importantly—and I believe it is so crucial that I shall say it slowly—all existing tests have been based on the assumption of 100 per cent knowledge of countermeasures by the other side. That is inconceivable. There is no way that a rogue state would allow other countries to learn all about its countermeasures in advance.

The other aspect of feasibility which is troubling is that there have been no planned tests— apart from two that have taken place in the past two weeks—with regard to how far national missile interceptors could distinguish between decoys and the target weapon. The existing tests have been done with only a limited number of decoys and the Union of Concerned Scientists in the United States points out that those decoys are not the ones most difficult to distinguish from the target missile. They are relatively easy to distinguish.

The second of President Clinton's criteria was that of threat. That is something about which the UK knows quite a lot. It is difficult to see why a terrorist group or rogue state—I do not like the term but use it only because it has been used in the American debate—if it were determined to cause great damage to another country would turn to building sophisticated and expensive missiles as its first line of attack, as distinct from biological weapons which are cheap and utterly devastating.

The Union of Concerned Scientists/Massachusetts Institute of Technology report has pointed out that a single container of anthrax could destroy more human lives than the nuclear bomb at Hiroshima and would cost infinitely less. If a country or terrorist group is determined to cause destruction or great damage to another country, building missiles is not the most obvious solution which comes to mind. In case noble Lords think I may be talking in a virtual way, I might point out the devastating consequences of the sarin attack on the Tokyo underground system a couple of years ago. We know a lot about the methods which terrorists use, in this country, and I suggest that the United States would be well advised to look at the wide range of weapons of mass destruction which can be used and to question whether missiles are the only or even the most serious threat.

Thirdly, there is the cost. The present estimate is 60 billion dollars for the first stage and 140 billion dollars for a second or third stage. I repeat that the second and third stages would certainly be in breach of the ABM treaty. These are huge sums which, frankly, could not be matched by other countries.

That brings me to my final and, I believe, most serious point. The effect on external countries of NMD is central to the debate. I look at three. The first country so concerned is Russia. That country has reacted in an extraordinarily constructive way. President Putin went immediately to the Duma and persuaded it to ratify the Start II treaty, which had been held up by the unwillingness of Members of Russia's Parliament to support it. Not only did he secure agreement to Start II in the spring of this year; he gained agreement to commence negotiations on Start III. Start II would reduce the number of strategic missiles from the present 7,000-plus in both Russia and the United States to slightly over half that figure, and Start III would reduce it again by half to about 1,500 warheads on each side.

Like other Members of this House, I spend a good deal of time in Russia. The state of maintenance and care of its nuclear arsenal is terrifying. The "Kursk" is only the most recent example of the failure properly to maintain dangerous and potentially very long-lasting nuclear materials. The Kola peninsula and Sevastopol, which I have seen, are full of sunken submarines and ships. Nobody attempts to deal with them; they are simply left to corrode within the Black Sea, White Sea and elsewhere. To deny a real opportunity to try to reduce that arsenal in a massive way, and do something which will probably lead to its increase, is highly irresponsible.

Currently, China has 20 nuclear warheads in the tense Taiwan Gulf, most of them in Guangdong. China has already said in terms that if NMD went ahead it would feel obliged greatly to increase the number of its warheads and might regard space as militarised; in other words, it would feel free to shoot down communication and other satellites. Finally, NATO allies themselves, in particular Germany and France, have expressed grave doubts about NMD.

I do not ask the Minister to tell us now the position of the Government: I fully accept that she cannot do so. But I hope that the noble Baroness will explore with us some of the issues on both sides which arise as a result of this debate so that we can at least be heard within the great discussion which is taking place in the United States so that our questions, doubts, confidence and trust can all be conveyed to our great ally before a decision is made and not reserved until it is made, in which case, frankly, the loyalty of the UK as an ally would be on the line in an utterly unnecessary way.

12.23 p.m.

My Lords, on behalf of the whole House I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, for initiating this important debate which, as she said, bears on our national security and, in the long run, perhaps our very survival. However, the noble Baroness will not be surprised to hear that I shall take a position very different from hers on the whole question of the ABM treaty and ballistic missile defence.

The noble Baroness made much of the possibility that ballistic missile defence, in particular NMD in the United States, might constitute a breach of the ABM treaty. In that, and a good deal of what she said with great force and sincerity, the noble Baroness has given an example of the false attraction of arms control as a substitute for, rather than an adjunct to, defence. Arms control treaties should be an integral element of a wider defence and security strategy, and not something dealt with on their own.

A typical example of an arms control treaty conceived, drafted and signed without much regard to the overall defence and strategic strategy either of the West (as it was called in those days) or anyone else in the world is the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. I do not regard that treaty as a cornerstone of international security as the noble Baroness suggested. I believe that it was quite useless from the moment it was signed. The treaty was largely symbolic anyway, and even as a symbol it failed for one reason which goes to the heart of the whole strategy of arms control as a substitute for defence: the Soviet Union consistently cheated from the moment the treaty was signed. It pursued from day one policies which were forbidden by the treaty that it had signed. It cheated before, during and after negotiation, and continued to do so until the collapse of the soviet empire.

Russia, as the successor to the Soviet Union, continues to cheat now in the context of the SA10 missile which, as the noble Baroness and other noble Lords will know, is a dual-purpose missile designed to circumvent the whole thrust of the ABM Treaty. The most vivid and outstanding example of that was the Kasnoyarsk phased array radar which was built by the Soviet Union specifically against the provisions of the ABM Treaty. It was a flagrant breach of that treaty. No one who knows anything about defence technology can be in any doubt as to what the Kasnoyarsk phased radar array is about; it avoids the consequences of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. If anyone has such doubt, he need only read the speech of Mr Shevardnaze in 1989 in which he admitted in terms that the Soviet Union had, for reasons of its own national interest, cheated on the treaty.

We now know that that radar system was initiated by the Soviet Union in 1972 which was the year in which the ABM Treaty was signed. Let us not place too much reliance upon, or be too affectionate about, the ABM Treaty. It was a useless treaty from the moment it was signed, and it continues to be so. But even if it had been effective at the time of the Cold War, at the time of the bi-polar confrontation, as it was then called, it is now, even if it was not before, archaic and totally irrelevant to modern strategic analysis. It was an element of what was called mutual assured destruction (MAD)—a concept between the two great superpowers which meant that they would not do things which would destroy the capacity of the other side to inflict appalling damage in either a first strike or a retaliatory strike.

I do not need to dwell long on the fact that the changes in the international order since those days have been such that whatever relevance the ABM Treaty ever had, it has now lost. In a world of many countries, not just three, four or five, with nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles capable of delivering them, a treaty between two nuclear powers designed simply to ensure that the attack capability of the other is not damaged is not relevant and does not make sense. Mutual assured destruction is no use against the kind of threat which we now face in this multi-polar world. It is no defence against religious fanatics, for example.

Let us not forget that the two signatories to the treaty—only two, as the noble Baroness said—the United States and what was the Soviet Union, both have the right to abrogate that treaty under its terms. Russia wants to keep the treaty for perfectly understandable Russian security reasons. The United States wants it to be amended to allow it to deploy a national missile defence system. If it is not amended—let us be in no doubt—the United States will walk away from it. Anyone who believes that the United States will be prevented deploying one of these systems sooner or later is not living in the real world.

The United States will deploy its missiles. No amount of high-sounding talk from its allies or from anyone else will prevent the US so doing. I believe that to be the case, whether it is President Gore or President Bush. If it is President Bush, I think we need have no doubt that a very full and comprehensive national missile system will be put into effect almost immediately. Governor Gore has openly undertaken to follow the policies of his predecessor. But if it is President Gore, it may take a little longer.

I said that people who do not believe that this will happen are not living in the real world. The question is: what is the real world now? We have heard a lot of rhetoric about rogue states as though they were the only threat we and the United States face in the modern world. The noble Baroness said, with some element of satire in her voice, that these rogue states could not possibly have the knowledge of countermeasures which are implicit in the assumptions of the United States defence establishment.

My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord understood the point I was trying to make. It was that if the rogue states had the sophistication to build missiles capable of reaching the United States, they would also have the sophistication to produce the kind of countermeasures that would be very difficult to deal with.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. That leads me on to my point about rogue states and the rhetoric about them. Let us not be infants about this. The United States national missile defence system does not concern itself solely with rogue states or with the possibility of attack from religious fanatics. Let us not lose sight of the fact that by the year 2002 the People's Republic of China will have its new missile system, called the DF41, in full deployment.

The noble Baroness said that if the United States went ahead with its national missile defence system, the People's Republic of China would feel constrained to increase its number of warheads. It is already so doing. It has nothing to do with what the United States is doing; at this moment, China is developing its ballistic missile system with nuclear warheads and will continue so to do. Noble Lords will note that the new DF41 missile system is a very sophisticated system. It can carry either a very large yield single nuclear warhead or it can carry three smaller warheads, independently targeted. It is also mobile, which is an extremely significant element in considering the efficacy of a nuclear striking force.

The Chinese are not developing a weapons system of this kind to point vaguely into space. Its computer and guidance systems will be targeted, as nuclear target systems always are. Where do noble Lords think the targets will be? I do not think any great leap of imagination is needed to decide the answer to that.

I conclude by saying that there is one aspect of this issue on which I totally agree with the noble Baroness. I am sorry that I cannot agree with much more of what she said. I agree that there is need now for a serious debate in this country about the whole issue. There has been no debate so far of any great significance. As the noble Baroness said, a few Questions have been asked in this House and in the other place. For perfectly good reasons, the Government have had to give noncommittal answers. But nowhere is there a serious debate going on about an issue which will mean, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, a threat to our national security if it is not handled properly and possibly a threat even to our national survival.

I think—I say this with great respect to the noble Baroness—that we must not be diverted in this debate by out-dated Cold War concepts. I regard the ABM Treaty as an out-dated relic of the Cold War. I make my personal view extremely clear, as I have done in the past. I believe that the arguments for missile defence are overwhelming. Furthermore, I believe that missile defence of one kind or another will be deployed whether we like it or not. So far as concerns the people of this country, of much more importance than national missile defence is theatre missile defence, especially the ability to protect our expeditionary forces against attack, not only from rogue states but from anywhere in the world that they might be deployed.

I know, agree and accept that there are powerful and rational arguments against a national missile defence system and against missile defence altogether. Those are strong arguments. That debate must be engaged. Those arguments must be listened to. But I seriously suggest that one of those arguments is not the ABM Treaty.

12.37 p.m.

My Lords, I must apologise for not having managed to get through the systems of the House and put down my name on the Speakers' List. I was inspired to speak in the debate because this subject reminds me of my late teenage years when the "Star Wars" idea was current. We heard the rhetoric about how we could defend ourselves—we could not—and fear and confusion were engendered among the general public. No one knew what was going on. But it was said that everything would be dealt with at the touch of a button, that a computer would solve all the problems and that we would all be perfectly safe. It never happened. All that happened was that fear and tension were generated in society.

I was one of the only people during my sixth-form and university days who did not wear a CND badge, even if only for fashion purposes. The reason for that was because I assumed that if one had two superstates, displaying what at the time I thought was paranoia, and one started to let them think they could survive a nuclear exchange, that was the best way of ensuring that they would start an exchange. The horribly blunt weapon of mutually assured destruction has guaranteed us a degree of safety.

As my noble friend pointed out, the idea that one is able to stop a terrorist attack with weapons of mass destruction by having a missile, no matter how sophisticated, is one that is hideously out of date, if it was ever relevant. If a suitcase, car or ship contains a bomb and is brought into the right area and detonated, or if there are suicide bombers or people who are regarded as expendable by those who direct them, one will probably be unable to prevent an attack.

Thus we may have a defence system which probably will not work and which will be dependent on America's allies for the siting of the missile bases. That will raise tension with other states. Many of them have, shall we say, fragile new regimes in place. Their extreme nationalists might well be upset. There are other states which are starting to enter into normalised diplomacy with us, diplomacy which is not hacked up by military force. This new deployment may not help in that regard.

We have heard that we might be entering an age when the capacity for overall missile defence becomes the norm. The technical ability to put something in place is rather different from deploying the system. Furthermore, if we cannot be sure that it will be 100 per cent successful, there is no guarantee that it will do any good. All I ask from the Minister when she replies is that she gives us some idea of what is going on. We are in danger of stepping back in time so that fear and uncertainty once again dominate the relationships between certain of the most powerful nations on the planet, as opposed to what happens now, when there is at least a degree of trust, even if it is one where fingers are crossed.

12.41 p.m.

My Lords, I should like briefly to intervene in the gap. I had not expected to speak but I feel that I should remind the House that when we are talking about the possible states that might carry out such attacks we must remember that there are a number of client states, such as Iraq and Libya, which are very happily taking as much advice and help as they can from the Russians on nuclear attack, and that we do not need to think only about China.

Turning to Russia, I want strongly to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said about the Russian capacity for signing treaties and not observing them. In particular, I think of the case of the cryogenic rocket motors which the Russians insisted on selling to the Indians in 1991 despite the very strong pleas of both the British and the Americans. It was known that those motors were the last element the Indians needed to have a capacity for nuclear attack. The Russians agreed not to sell them and were rewarded in various ways, particularly by the Americans, who bought, as far as I remember, a good deal of nuclear material from them in order to compensate them for their loss. But then, mysteriously, in the following year the Ministry for Atomic Energy absent-mindedly sold the Indians the cryogenic rocket motors. From then on we had another nuclear power. We ought not to forget that.

12.42 p.m.

My Lords, I am sad to hear the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for she seems to reflect the normal Liberal argument that if there is a threat put your head in the sand.

Defence against ballistic missiles is one of the most important subjects that the world has to face and it is a grave pity that this debate has not attracted more speakers. However, with respect to the noble Baroness, it is ill-timed. It comes within a fortnight of the American presidential election, at a time when we cannot know what the policy of the United States will be for the next four years and beyond. I cannot see how the noble Baroness can expect a meaningful answer from Her Majesty's Government.

The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, summarised the position of the presidential candidates. She left out Mr Nader, whose views might be very interesting. It is clear that Vice-President Gore will go less hard than Governor Bush. He believes that any missile defence system should be limited in scope and argues that a global Star Wars system would be unworkable. Governor Bush, rightly, I am sure, will favour postponing the decision on NMD until he is well and truly in the chair and will then,

"build effective missile defences at the earliest possible date".

He would be prepared to withdraw from the ABM Treaty unilaterally, having given due notice, if Russia does not agree to changes allowing a defence system that would,

"protect all 50 states—and US friends and allies and deployed forces overseas—from missile attacks by rogue nations, or accidental launches".

The approaches of the two candidates are fundamentally different and it is, I would suggest, impossible for Her Majesty's Government to produce a logical policy for this country until they have a reasonable knowledge of the policy of the United States.

Even for that rich country the cost of a BDM system is staggering. It is estimated to cost 60 billion dollars for 100 anti-ballistic missile launchers in Alaska plus an upgrade of US radar and early warning systems. The thought of that has certainly frightened the Germans whose view, of course, is substantially different from that of the French.

Both American policies centre round the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. I agree with everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, with regard to that treaty. I would further underline that it was signed in 1972 on the principle that the only way to encourage reductions in strategic arms was to restrict ways to counter them. However, 1972 was a very different year from 2000. Twenty-eight years ago, realistically the only possible country against which ballistic missile defence was required was the Soviet Union. Today there are a number of so-called rogue states. Syria has tested a North Korean Scud missile with a range of 600 kilometres; Libya has North Korean ballistic missiles capable of reaching Israel and southern Europe; Iran has the Shahab-3D solid-liquid fuel missile with a range of 800 miles and Pakistan is set to test fire the intermediate range Shaheen II with a range of 2,500 kilometres. Life is very different.

A limited BMD programme can proceed without destroying the ABM treaty. The system deployed would not threaten Russia's deterrent. The ABM treaty allows a limited ballistic missile defence system and Russia has maintained an ABM system round Moscow. Significantly, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, pointed out, Britain is not a signatory to the ABM Treaty. I am sure that that accounts for Her Majesty's Government's answers, to which he referred, which have not been very meaningful.

The real threat to the viability of the treaty comes not from efforts to change it to reflect current reality but from a refusal to modify it to permit countries, including the United States and Russia, to build effective defence systems against those threats. The treaty must reflect contemporary reality. And so it should, for even when modified to permit development of a limited defence system it will remain fully viable and a key element in the US broad strategy to reduce further the nuclear threat.

Today the threat comes not only from nuclear attack but from the threatened use of chemical and biological weapons. An ABM system would add an extra level of deterrence with an aggressor having to consider both the strong probability that his weapon would not get through and the likelihood of retaliation. Had Milosevic possessed ballistic weapons in Kosovo the reaction of the NATO nations would have been very different. Rogue states such as Iraq, which is on the verge of possessing such weapons, see the possession of weapons of mass destruction as an important lever in establishing a new relationship with the West.

So therefore I must ask the Minister whether Her Majesty's Government consider that there is a threat and what is their policy to counter it. The most recent formal statement is that,

"there is no significant ballistic missile threat to the UK at present".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/7/00; col. 543W.]

In answer to a Question in July in another place Mr. Vaz stated that the,

"current assessment is that there is no significant threat".

But what is "current" and what is "significant"? The Foreign Office Minister and CND member, Mr Peter Hain, has said,

"I don't like the idea of a Star Wars programme, limited or unlimited. Unilateral moves by Washington would be very damaging".

Mr Vaz further said that,

"it is not up to us to make assessments".

I will not comment on the sense of that statement by a member of the Government, but it is exactly what we should be doing via NATO. It would be most helpful if the noble Baroness could say what NATO is doing. It is a vital question.

What therefore is the considered policy of Her Majesty's Government? The position of the Foreign Office seems to be that we should take up a pro-Europe, anti-American position. But this would not seem to be the position of the Ministry of Defence. The Secretary of State has pointed out that the ABM treaty is irrelevant and that Britain is not a signatory to it. He further said on Channel 4 News, in reply to a request for the use of RAF Fylingdales as an early warning radar station, that,

"the history of our close friendship with the US is that we are sympathetic to such requests".

Clearly we shall see the CND argument re-ignited.

I should say to the noble Baroness that I fully appreciate that it will be impossible for her to say anything meaningful, but it would be interesting for the House to be given a hint of whether the Foreign Office or the Ministry of Defence is in charge of the defence of this country. Do Her Majesty's Government support NATO or are they following the St. Malo line, which would lead inevitably to a European army? Monsieur Chirac has said,

"how are those who could agree to forgo acquiring new arms to be persuaded when the most powerful deem it necessary to develop technologies which call the hard won strategic balances into question?".

The setting up of the European security and defence policy and the view that Europe needs to counterbalance the USA have placed the issue at the heart of the European debate. Those who wish to see NATO sidelined are using this to drive a wedge between the USA and the nations of Europe.

Given the nature of the strong and growing threats to western security, in particular from so-called "rogue states", it is clear that the best means to confront and defend against them is through NATO. A strong NATO is as vital now as it was during the Cold War.

The Conservative view is that we should take a lead in building support in Europe for co-operating with the United States on the development of ballistic missile defences, to counter rogue states—which might perhaps better and slightly more politely be described as "states of concern"—and terrorists equipped with weapons of mass destruction. Britain should reassert its traditional role and lead the debate in Europe over ballistic missile defence, working to establish a NATO programme which can counter the growing threat from states in possession of missiles capable of mass destruction.

As a part of this, I recommend the consideration of a domestic preparedness programme, based on the American model. Too many people use the terrorist threat as an argument against the threat of ballistic missiles. This argument does not stand up. The extra threat does not disprove the existence of the other threat. All of them need to be contained.

I repeat that I am sorry that this debate should have taken place at this particular moment. I feel, to some extent, that at present we are wasting our time. This is a question for the future. It is an immensely important question and we should be discussing it at a time when we might reasonably expect to get some answers.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he referred to Mr Ralph Nader in what I took to be slightly jocular terms—I hope that I have not misinterpreted that. Is the noble Lord aware that Ralph Nader is the person principally responsible on this planet for safety features in cars, including the wearing of seatbelts? Is he further aware that Ralph Nader may take away from Mr Gore in California sufficient votes to deliver that state to Governor Bush, thereby delivering the presidential election?

My Lords, I am well aware of Mr Nader's connection with road safety. I think that he probably knows more about that than he does about ballistic missile defence. However, thank goodness that it is not likely that he will become President of the United States.

12.55 p.m.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, for giving us the opportunity to address this issue today. Slightly in common with the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, I am not entirely sure how far the noble Baroness really expects me to be able to go in taking the arguments forward. However, I agree with the comment made by the Prime Minister in July; namely, that this is,

"one of the most important issues we shall have to face over the next few years".

I pay tribute to the noble Baroness's longstanding interest in, and detailed knowledge of, the complex issues involved here. I thank, too, the noble Lords, Lord Chalfont, Lord Addington and Lord Burnham, for their contributions and for their fortitude on a Friday afternoon. Like the noble Baroness I, too, hope to see my noble friend and colleague Lady Scotland back with us shortly. However, I should assure the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, that when I speak on this issue, I do so on behalf of both the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence.

My Lords, perhaps I may make it clear that I am well aware—indeed, we have pointed it out on many occasions—that any Minister speaks on behalf of the whole Government and not on behalf of his or her department.

My Lords, that is excellent. There will be no misunderstanding on that point.

The Government have all along recognised that national missile defence raises some difficult and complex issues and is indeed a highly controversial subject. As has been evident from this debate, the issues go far wider than the question of the future of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Perhaps I may focus first on that question, which has been the starting point for today's debate.

I should begin by saying that, in expressing views on the ABM treaty, Her Majesty's Government have been careful always to stress that the interpretation of it, along with questions about its future, are first and foremost matters for the parties to the treaty, not for non-parties such as ourselves. That is an important point and one that was stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and again by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham. There is an important distinction in international law here, which needs to be kept in mind when debating this issue. I hope that it explains, at least to some extent, why we have not been and will not be directly involved in negotiations on the future of the treaty. Furthermore, that should explain why we have not put forward proposals of our own on whether or how it might be amended to accommodate the limited national missile defence system which the present United States Administration have been discussing with Russia.

That said, the Government's answer to the question posed in today's debate is straightforward. We continue to value the strategic stability provided by the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. We wish to see it preserved. To a certain extent, our views are somewhat at variance with those expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont.

We have always made it clear that, if the United States did decide to proceed with the deployment of a national missile defence system, we strongly hope that it would be in the context of an agreement with Russia. I should like to assure the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that our views are well understood in Washington. The noble Baroness referred to remarks made by my noble friend Lady Scotland, but I remind the noble Baroness that President Clinton announced on 1st September that he would not be making a decision to proceed with NMD. He said:

"Our NATO allies have all made clear that they hope the United States will pursue strategic defence in a way that preserves, not abrogates, the ABM Treaty".

He went on to underline that the present US Administration also strongly favour the preservation of the treaty.

"Clearly … it would be far better to move forward in the context of the ABM Treaty".

The current US Administration recognised some time ago that, if this were to be achieved, changes to the present terms of the treaty would be required. This applies to the proposed system as a whole, not only the siting elements of it in this country or elsewhere outside the United States.

Perhaps I may refer noble Lords to the recent report from the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on weapons of mass destruction, and in particular to the Government's submission to it which set out the position in detail. The Government will respond formally to the report very shortly. I am sure noble Lords will understand that I cannot—indeed, I do not wish to—pre-empt our response to the report.

Since the US recognises that changes to the treaty will be needed to accommodate national missile defence, it has sought to engage Russia in negotiations to that end. A number of rounds of US/Russian discussions on the future of the ABM treaty, and on the equally important issue of further cuts in the US and Russian nuclear arsenals, have taken place over the past few years, as I am sure the noble Baroness and other noble Lords are well aware.

No one pretends that these talks have been easy—far from it. As noble Lords are aware, Russia remains in principle opposed to a national missile defence. None the less, this process of dialogue has yielded some positive results. In June this year, in a joint statement by presidents Putin and Clinton, Russia acknowledged for the first time that there was a new and growing threat from the proliferation of missiles and weapons of mass destruction.

I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Park, that, while she may hold opinions about Russia's past, life moves on and differing views are now coming more together.

Indeed, the two presidents recalled that the ABM treaty made provision for joint consideration of changes in the strategic situation which might have a bearing on the treaty's viability. They also noted the importance of the consultative process and reaffirmed their determination to continue consultations in the future to promote the objectives and implementation of the provisions of the ABM treaty.

Since then, Russia and the United States have agreed a series of modest but positive steps under a joint strategic co-operation initiative. For example, they have agreed to establish a permanent joint centre near Moscow to exchange early warning data to minimise the risks of misinterpretation of missile launches. I am sure we all agree that that is a positive step in the right direction. They have agreed also to explore the possibility of co-operation on theatre missile defence, an important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, to which I shall return in a moment. So there has been some movement forward.

For our part, Her Majesty's Government have welcomed this. We have continued to urge both countries, at the highest level, to keep trying to find a way forward on these difficult areas—namely, the ABM treaty and the START III treaty, to which the noble Baroness referred. From remarks made by my noble friend Lady Scotland and I from this Front Bench, the noble Baroness will be in no doubt about the support that the United Kingdom Government give to that process.

Some commentators have suggested that, despite the United States Administration's wish to proceed with NMD without abandoning the ABM treaty, this outcome is, in practice, unachievable. The noble Baroness did not go quite so far as to say that, but I think I am right in saying that she is clearly uneasy about the future of the treaty, given what the United States Administration have said. Those who veer on that side of the debate have argued that an AMB treaty adapted to accommodate the limited NMD system that the United States has in mind would not be a treaty worth having. That is not the view of Her Majesty's Government.

As noble Lords will recall, the treaty has been amended before. We should not forget that. It is a point which has not been raised today, but the treaty was amended in 1974 and again in 1997 by joint agreement of the parties. We see no reason in principle why it should not be amended again to accommodate the kind of limited NMD system that the current United States Administration have proposed without destroying the essence of the treaty.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. The distinction I was trying to make—I apologise if I was not sufficiently clear in what I said—was between the first stage, where it is recognised that the treaty might be amended to permit it, and the later stages, in particular C3 and beyond, where it is quite difficult to see how the treaty could be made compatible with that kind of development.

My Lords, I do not think there is any difference between the noble Baroness and Her Majesty's Government on the point that this is a very difficult issue. It involves not only complex political questions but very complicated technical questions. But Her Majesty's Government hope and believe that, with goodwill on both sides, this is not an impossible position for the two governments. Let us hope that they are able to take their discussions forward.

What is more, we and many of our friends and allies share US concerns about the growing threat posed by the proliferation of missiles and weapons of mass destruction. We do not believe that any responsible government can afford to ignore the problem. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that we are trying to find a way forward on these closely related issues which preserves the positive momentum of recent years on international arms control.

As the Prime Minister explained:

"We are trying to ensure that the fear that the United States has—perfectly legitimately and justifiably—is taken account of in a way that does not put at risk the substantial progress that has been made on nuclear disarmament over the past few years".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/7/00; col. 767.]

Agreement on a way forward on these closely related issues is, in our view, not only possible but strongly in our interests.

President Clinton's decision not to proceed with NMD deployment at the present time means that any such decision will now be left for his successor to take, as the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, indicated. The Government welcome that decision and the measured terms in which President Clinton set it out. The President made it clear in his announcement that research and testing would continue. We would expect his successor, whoever that might be, to want to visit the question of actual deployment in due course.

But we cannot know at this point whether—or, indeed, when—President Clinton's successor will decide to proceed with the deployment of a national missile defence system. As the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, said, we cannot know precisely what form the system he might choose to deploy would take. Nor can we know what the international political background to such a decision might then be.

These would all be vital considerations for us should the US approach us at that point with a request to make use of any facilities in this country for NMD purposes. That is why, when asked whether the United Kingdom would agree to any such request, the Government have all along said that they would have to consider it carefully in the light of the circumstances in which it was made. We believe this approach has been an eminently sensible one. I make it clear today that we intend to stick to it.

In the meantime, we want to try to take the opportunity afforded by President Clinton's decision to defer deployment to make some progress in international dialogue on this issue. We shall continue to encourage the United States and Russia to discuss the matter bilaterally.

We shall also continue to promote debate in NATO on NMD. A certain amount has been made of the public comments of some NATO allies on NMD. One or two noble Lords referred to the allegedly more robust views expressed by some of our allies. However, I can assure the House that the discussions in NATO so far have been entirely serious and constructive. They have increased the understanding of all the allies of the issues and arguments involved. We want to build on this positive start. We shall continue to work more widely internationally to fight missile proliferation.

There have been some positive developments in this area in the past week. A few days ago we reached agreement with our partners in the missile technology control regime on a new code of conduct for ballistic missiles. This is the first ever draft international agreement covering missile proliferation. It is an important step in the right direction, which we hope will attract widespread support and adherence.

Last week, a senior team of North Korean officials visited Washington, for the first time, to discuss, among other things, the future of their long-range missile programme—again, an important step in the right direction. Not a massive one, but an important one.

A number of points were raised by the noble Baroness in regard to the Russian arsenal, about which I shall write to her. However, I think that she is aware of the steps Her Majesty's Government have taken in regard to that. I should remind her—as did the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont—that we are aware of China's concerns about NMD. But, as the noble Lord said, it is worth noting that China decided in 1998 to invest significant funds in the modernisation of its nuclear arsenal, but not necessarily connected with NMD.

The points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, about theatre missiles are equally important. Indeed, they are the focus of the present research work we are doing nationally. They are also the focus of a feasibility study that we and our allies in NATO commissioned earlier this year. At this stage we still judge that it would be premature to decide on acquiring missile defence either for our deployed forces or to protect UK territory. It is an issue on which further work is being undertaken.

A point was raised about assessing threat. We assess that there is no significant ballistic missile threat to the United Kingdom at present. To answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, we recognise that both the threat and the technology to counter it could change very rapidly. That is why we have ruled nothing out, and why we continue to monitor developments closely. I hope that that gives the noble Lord the assurance that he was seeking.

The Government are convinced that the approach that we have followed hitherto of seeking to promote calm, measured international dialogue on what is an important, complex and sensitive issue, is the right one. That approach has already borne significant fruit and we believe that it is the one that is most likely to secure eventual agreement.

Of course, we are happy to continue to engage in discussion with your Lordships. However, I say particularly to the noble Baroness that some of the issues raised in regard to assessing risk can be discussed in detail only on the basis of highly sensitive information—information that is intelligence-based and security sensitive. There will always be a point, particularly in discussing risk, when Her Majesty's Government must ensure that whatever is said from these Benches puts the security of the United Kingdom before everything else.

House adjourned at twelve minutes past one o'clock.

Volume 617: debated on Friday 20 October 2000

House Of Lords

Countryside And Rights Of Way Bill

Protection Of Animals (Amendment) Bill

Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty